This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I notice there are several articles pending for Star Trek Next Generation episodes. Now I am a fan and perfectly able to spot if they are adding value or simply grabbing chunks from other sources, but my question is this. Considering the number of places I can already find all this information and the potentially huge number of individual articals this could turn into if this guy writes and nominates each episode, what would people feel is the criteria for these to be passed? Or even should this be the place for all these articles? Thoughts please Lemsterboy ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Just making sure that, if I haven't edited an article since 13 December 2010, I'm okay to review it? I did a sizeable amount of editing to Joan Ganz Cooney in 2006 and 2008, but the article is significantly different even between 2010 and now. -- Zanimum ( talk) 23:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am currently reviewing Quenya, and the nominator and I have different ideas about how to judge whether an article is "reasonably well written" - and since this is a subjective matter I think some additional input from seasoned reviewers would be good. Best, ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 19:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you still need someone else to look at this with you? I am a HUGE Tolkien buff so may be able to help (Lemsterboy Talk)
I started as second reviewer of this article in good faith because the article seemed to be waiting a long time for a second opinion and it read reasonably well. I did see some issues which I have noted. However, reviewing has become hard work because the editor seems to disagree strongly with (almost) every issue I have noted—see the walls of text here. At this moment, I don't feel like proceeding. The article is currently on GA hold. My options would appear to be
In deference to the editor(s), who I can see have worked hard on this article, I will continue for now. I have every intention of passing this article if I can. My tolerance, however, is waning. What advice could be offered in this situation?
I'm in the process of having Bradley Wiggins reviewed, but the reviewer GAtechnical has been given an indefinite block. Of course I'm not going to wait until it's lifted, if ever. What's my next move? Does it need to be closed and renominated? Bald Boris 17:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I've done a review of Ernesto Pérez Balladares (see review here) and was wondering if someone could give a second opinion on whether File:Ernesto Perez Balladares on CSPAN.jpg has an adequate fair use rationale; or whether one is even possible. I'm not convinced, but would appreciate a non-involved editor's opinion. - Shudde talk 03:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a breakdown in a review at Talk:Architecture in early modern Scotland/GA1, which I nominated. There has already been a delay of some weeks, caused, as they accept, by the first reviewer. Whatever the merits of the case, I am unsatisfied that the review follows the GA criteria and, as suggested on the WP:GA nominations page, I wish to take the option of relisting for a new review. I have accordingly requested that the reviewer close the process as a fail so that I can do this. However, I have not as yet received a response and wish to avoid further delay. The wording of the instruction is a bit unclear ("If you wish to withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, then the nomination must be closed using the fail process to record the outcome of the review"). Does that mean I can close the review (withdrawing?), or does the reviewer have to do that? I should also ask, can someone else close the review for me?-- SabreBD ( talk) 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Good morning.Can I talk with one admin of Wikipedia? Mariacciolo ( talk) 11:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated an article several hours ago, see Talk:Stop Crying Your Heart Out, but it's not appearing in the nominations. — AARON • TALK 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for guidance as to what to do in case an article is put on hold for more than seven days. Students in a course on Wikipedia have made several changes to the page Driverless tractor for a class assignment and are not sure what more to do after reaching out to the original reviewer. Should they simply delete the review page and renominate? Thanks for your help. -- RM395 ( talk) 15:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The reviewer who initiated the GAR seems to be retired. A request to WP:India lead to a discussion (of taking up review) without any conclusion. Can someone please help reviewing the same. I am ready to address the review comments. Ssriram mt ( talk) 01:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone who gave comments in an article's peer review also serve as the reviewer for the GAN? Additionally, does contributing a copy edit during that PR process constitute a "significant contribution" that would bar the editor from serving as the GAN reviewer? Couldn't find an answer in the archives, and I was just curious (about both situations separately). czar · · 02:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Are bare urls (used consistently) acceptable as references in GANs? The article to which I am referring and am considering reviewing is Excalibur Estate. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm planning Lenny (Buggles song) to be a good article. The article uses the source Rap Genius. I know I've seen that source being used in other articles, but would the source be unreliable or still credible? Thanks! EditorE ( talk) 23:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you able to fix a little mess I've made? I've nominated ...And Justice for All (album) for GA article, but accidentally I've put myself as a reviewer. Thanks.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 21:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The Article History box at Talk:The World Factbook is missing the link for the article's first GAR (dated September 2008), and I'm having trouble finding it. Can someone help?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Planning for Lock and Key (Rush song) to be a good article. Would songfacts be a reliable source for this article? Thanks. EditorE ( talk) 22:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I notice that this edit adds the "good article" tag on Steven Sasson. I suspect, given the history of the user, that this was not legitimately added. But I don't really know how to find out. By any chance, was this article nominated and reviewed for good article status? I figure I should ask, rather than just assume bad faith and remove the tag myself. -- Why Not A Duck 19:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm planning for Lock and Key (Rush song) to be a good article. I was wondering if a background section for a song article is needed for it to be a good article. Thank you. EditorE ( talk) 22:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday I have finished my first GA review ( Apeomyoides). The article has passed, but still does not appear in Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. I fear I may have forgotten something? -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 06:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Everyone I nominated Torchwood for a good article and left a comment on the review page for the reviewer but me not thinking, I posted the message when there was no reviewer and It made me the reviewer is there anyway to revert this as obviously I can't be the nominator and reviewer. Thanks Kelvin 101 ( talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
May I review the Siah Bishe Pumped Storage Power Plant article if I have made three edits to this article at its very early stage; namely: refining category ( [2]), adding maintenance tags ( [3]) and correcting unit ( [4])? Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 18:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I have undertaken a GA review of Ambrose Channel pilot cable. I think it is reasonably close to GA status, but has some problems, which the nominator has agreed to address (and I have offered to assist), so I put it on "hold". However, these improvements are going to take more than seven days. Questions:
Your article on Bradley Manning was obviously written by someone with an agenda. Chelsea Manning? I was surprised and disappointed by the article. When I want to learn about something new Wikipedia is usually my first stop. Now I wonder how much of the stuff I've read and hold as "true" is actually not true. The Bradley Manning article has many inconsistancies and refers to him as a female. Because of this article I will make a conscious decision to no longer visit Wikipedia.
I nominated Talk:Modern Benoni a few hours ago but it hasn't shown up in the queue. Noticed over at User talk:Chris G that the bot might be down. Cobblet ( talk) 13:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I am reviewing International System of Units and am getting bogged down now. There are a handful of sticking points, two of them to do with the ambiguous use of English words. These ambiguous words would benefit from a few extra words of clarification. I have offered suggested improvements that would fix these issues, but the nominator seems reluctant to accept these or any fixes for these problems and the discussion is now going around in circles.
The problem words are:
My opinion is that to be considered well written, these unnecessary ambiguities must be resolved. Can anyone offer any advice to help move this forward please? FishGF ( talk) 22:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I started a review, but due to bad-faith behaviour towards me by the proposer, I would like to drop it, and leave it to someone else. What is the process to do that please? FishGF ( talk) 21:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I like a link(s) to a list of WP Biographies that have Good Article status, or a List of all GA WP Bios that link to the permalink when an article got Good Article status (article do lose GA status). The same for WP Bios with/had Featured Articles status. Lentower ( talk) 15:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
As Khazar2 pointed out above, some of the lists linked to at the end of WP:GA have the bios segregated out. E.g. Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Artists_and_architects.
But this list of lists at the end of WP:GA doesn't include these sub-lists, nor do the lists have Table of Contents, which makes finding the bios a chore.
Discovered that at the end of WP:FA the list of lists has the sub-lists of biographies labeled as '(bios}, which makes finding and linking to them much easier. E.g. WP:Featured_Articles#Art.2C_architecture_and_archaeology_biographies. -- Lentower ( talk) 14:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't help but notice that user "23 editor" has made about a half dozen article nominations for GA review in about a week, most of them with cursory or no attempts to improve them first, and all on Serbian topics. Whilst I applaud their enthusiasm, they are clearly spamming the process and more interested in just getting loads of Serbian articles listed as GA, than actually improving the articles to genuine GA standard. See their latest nomination, Skull Tower. If this is GA standard, we may as well list anything as GA. Is there no rules or guidelines about just spamming dozens of articles for GA review?!?? - PocklingtonDan ( talk) 19:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking of nominating Brislington House at GAC but can't decide whether it should go in the architecture subject area or medicine. Any advice?— Rod talk 16:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
This article does not possess GA status but has a GA-icon on top of the page.. why?
I was just about to start my review for Last Tango in Halifax when the nominator alerted me to the fact that the second series of this show is currently airing. As a result, the content of the article will change within the next month, for better or worse. What would be the best way to approach this article? I can't see a clear guideline for articles that may undergo constructive changes for a short time, and then probably settle down. Moswento talky 14:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Current (Dec. 16) article on child prostitution: Look at Canadian and US numbers in the Extent table. Canadian numbers should be roughly an order of magnitude lower than US numbers, NOT twice as much in absolute terms. Your reporting system is too complicated.
I was surprised that the Majida El Roumi page is marked as a good article. Firstly, it has only bare URLS, secondly many YouTube 'sources', though these may have been largely added after the page was 'marked'. Some recent edits have added some rather POV and peacocky text. I see that URL only refs are, apparently, acceptable according to an earlier section on this page.
I know nothing about good/featured articles etc, but can't find anything on the talk page about it being nominated or assessed, and when the GA mark was added on 22 March 2013 here, no edit summary was given. The editor concerned has only 2,206 edits from this account. 220 of Borg 16:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Katherine Ritvo was passed for GA on December 24, but the bot hasn't added the little green plus to the article namespace. Possibly a reviewer error? Can this be looked into? Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm about to write a review of Fajsz, which was nominated for GA on November 20. The article is very short (only 283 words of "readable prose"), and because short articles usually attract reviewers quickly, I'm not sure why this one has been sitting there for more than two months. Is there a restriction on the length of GA articles that I should be aware of? Madalibi ( talk) 05:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced reviewer be willing to take a look at a somewhat minor content neutrality dispute involving two sentences in the Sydney Leroux article review? This is the only thing holding up the review according to the reviewer. Thank you. Hmlarson ( talk) 22:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It appears that a bot went bonkers with my review count. How do I revert the count to the actual number, which I think is 11? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I nominated Wookey Hole Caves some time ago. Another editor has contributed to the article and highlighted some other areas which needed work. The review at Talk:Wookey Hole Caves/GA1 was started inadvertently. I asked about this at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Review started accidentally ? withdraw nom suggesting the easiest solution would be to withdraw the nom, but I've not had any response about how to do this. Can anyone advise?— Rod talk 12:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, is there a process for Good articles that require a page move? Do the associated assessment pages have to be moved as well? I've recently had to move a GA and wasn't sure what to do with the associated talk pages. Thanks in advance. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 12:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that on occasion editors involved with an article may chime in on the corresponding GA review although they are neither the nominator nor the reviewer. Do we have any good essays or rules about this? I've always assumed that the review was in the hands of the reviewer. Please advise. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm told that this review can't pass until its images clear OTRS. I didn't see this in the criteria, but I'd like clarification for posterity. czar ♔ 19:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
If these two articles are nominated in future, which subtopics should the nominations be placed in? -- Hildanknight ( talk) 15:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
If so, where can I find guidelines about that? walk victor falk talk 07:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
HIV/AIDS in Malawi is listed on my article alerts for a GA, and has a GA page, so I have taken up the review. However, it's not listed here and neither does it have a GA template on the page? Is this article even waiting for a GA review? Seeking some help determining what to do. -- LT910001 ( talk) 01:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I am debating about requesting that something about not giving problems (see link) be added to the criteria for reviewing good article nomination. Its because my main question right now is, What do you do when a review sets a precedence that causes more problems then solutions? This is a question I have repeated asked myself since I got back to editing on wikipedia. The Graphene article was reviewed back in 2011. In the review, the person specifically cites as his/her reason for not good article nomination as: -- Physics16 ( talk) 04:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that statement is that it was vague in what was specifically "too technical" even under the Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable. At least one of "uncited" statements remains. The organization being poor is an intentionally vague statement and we have had to rely on creating a new sub-article, in an attempt to resolve the issue. However, the true problem is and always remains the vagueness of that first drive-by tagging of "too technical". Its vagueness set a precedence for accepting drive-by tagging of the article -- Physics16 ( talk) 04:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Over the next 3 years, at least 30-50 separate incidents of drive-by tagging, which is tagging without talk pages. I discovered this while searching web.archive.org/. Last year alone, there were three instances of still unresolved drive-by tagging, two of which used the "too technical" tag. As I have mentioned on the graphene talk page last month, I am not sure even I don't know where to begin in what people are finding 'too technical'. Because I understand it, I don't feel the article is too technical at all. If I knew even the first sentence people found too technical, then I could try to fix things. I am so immensely frustrated with people tagging without creating talk pages that I am on the borderline of doing 5 things: -- Physics16 ( talk) 04:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Please answer the question to the best of your ability, so I don't have to do something radical like the number points above. Physics16 ( talk) 06:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone help as I'm not sure if the right process has been applied to put an article up for review. Yesterday King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge, which I nominated, was passed for GA after various comments and requests for references etc - see Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA1. Following this another user removed the GA star & started Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2 stating that the page is full of basic grammar errors. (I believe there was one introduced during the review, but am not aware of others). It has since been copyedited by another editor. It does not appear on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and I was wondering whether the appropriate procedures had been followed or what I need to do now?— Rod talk 17:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I took reviewing 2 articles Peter Ostrum and Marie of Romania few days back. Now due to the shortage of time, I am unable to continue the review. Is there any way in which I can surrender? Thanks. RRD13 ( talk) 08:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I did a bunch of digging to figure out the history of Gun violence in the United States good article status - and then I lost it all in a computer crash. Ugh. I found talk-page discussions from 2007 and 2008 in the article's archives that said it had passed GA, but I didn't see the GA tag/template added until 2010. I don't think the article is a GA, and others have made similar remarks on the talk pages. So the questions is: How does one determine an article's good article history? Is one's addition to or removal from the GA list logged somewhere? Lightbreather ( talk) 22:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Dana boomer began a review of Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, she has not responded there since my last post on 6 May 2014, and she has not been on-line since 3 June 2014, do I need to relist the article for review? Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The reviewer has become inactive and has not responded on his talk page. I tried to follow the instructions on nominating the article again, but that does not produce the desired result. Please help: Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Fai zan 06:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I am interested in getting involved in the GA review process. Because I have not been through the process, I would like to find someone willing to hold my hand through the first one o5 two, to make sure I am doing it correctly.
I am interested in doing science articles, and chose Sebaceous gland as a candidate, choosing it because it was one of the oldest in the queue.
Any volunteers?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I am working on the GA review of Swedish artist Einar Jolin and have two questions:
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 05:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Ummm...why isn't BIOGRAPHY (no matter the related field) on this list? Just wondering....
-- AmritasyaPutra T 12:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I need to see about getting another reviewer. I don't know how to "re-list" the article or whatever procedure makes the most sense… Any help would be gratefully accepted! -- Smkolins ( talk) 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I accepted the review for Robin Raphel a couple of days ago, but since making my initial review, an investigation into the subject has begun to be reported by several major news sources (see also this article). According to the articles, it is a federal counterintelligence investigation, but no charges have been filed against Raphel. This information has already begun to be added to the article by editors.
Given these events certainly affecting the coverage of the article (perhaps moreso if further information comes to light in short order), but potentially also the stability and neutrality of the article, I'm considering placing it on hold for a week or two while more information comes out. Would other reviewers recommend that I place it on hold, or fail it on specific criteria (e.g. stability)? — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 13:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Can someone confirm that this article has gone through the GA process and is a GA? It looks a bit short to me Gbawden ( talk) 09:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
can someone look at my article preliminarily to see if it is ok?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thank you, you've been very helpful-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any specific guidelines, but I recall seeing somewhere that "Bibliography" sections are deprecated. The article I'm reviewing ( Congolese Independence Speech) uses short citations and has a "Notes and references" section with notes (in a "Footnotes" subsection) and the short citations (in a "References" subsection) followed by a "Bibliography" section that the short citations link to. This doesn't seem right, but I don't know the proper fix. I suggested in the review: The "Notes and references" could be changed to "Footnotes" with no subsection for the two footnotes and the "References" section renamed "Citations". Is this an appropriate fix? I just completed the review and put it on hold and am now waiting for the main contributor to respond. This is also my first GA review and if anyone is willing to look for any mistakes, feedback would be appreciated. AHeneen ( talk) 05:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been reviewing this article for several days, and I think it looks good for the most part. My question is on the stability criterion. It seemed stable when I first reviewed it, but since then the review page has attracted several other editors who allege POV concerns. While it's not an edit war, it certainly is a small-scale content dispute. I'd appreciate some more experienced reviewer's opinion on whether it now fails that criterion. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I was just wondering if I would add content on the Nicki Minaj article? I was going to add to the "associated acts" section. I look forward to hearing back from you! -Bekah -- 2.126.107.191 ( talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Robin Raphel was originally nominated by another editor, who did most of the heavy lifting on it late last year. Because of real-world issues he had to drop it, and the GA was failed. In the past few days I've brought the article back to spec per the reviewers' initial comments. I was wondering what the process is to re-nominate? I'm not sure if I just subst the GAN template on top of the talk page again, but I don't want to screw it up. Many thanks. § FreeRangeFrog croak 08:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
hi, we placed our article more than a month ago, and we were wondering when the review would take place. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I've reviewed two GA nominations today for the first time. I'd really appreciate knowing if I've got it right! The two articles are Atlanta Flames ( nom) and Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary ( nom). I notice in particular that a bot so far hasn't added the GA icon to the pages... Thanks for your help. Relentlessly ( talk) 20:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Would it make sense to submit an article that was already listed as A-class to GAN, or would that be redundant? (If it matters I didn't think it merited the A-class before I made substantial improvements to it.) Thanks! delldot ∇. 05:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I copied a Good Article symbol from an article with the intention of using it to illustrate a section in my User profile headed Good Articles to whom I had contributed material. However, instead of sticking in the section where I intended it to be, it is at the head of my user profile page, implying my (incomplete) profile itself is a Good Article, which I did not intend to mean! How can I delete this symbol which is also a link? Cloptonson ( talk) 14:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I've looked around and can't figure out how to look at the reviews of GA nominees (for instance, for articles where it says "4 reviews"). I feel like I'm just missing something obvious. Any help? Puppysnot ( talk) 01:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Compulsory Miseducation | start review) – czar 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Summerhill (book) | start review) – czar 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I am just starting off as a reviewer, and was looking to get some inspiration or examples of reviews. Is there anyplace I can go to see other users reviews? Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG ( ✉) 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been having some differences with the reviewer for Bharatiya Janata Party on the review page. In particular, the reviewer has stated that a certain table contains original research and given me a deadline to fix it, but has not responded to my ideas on how to do so; therefore, more eyes would be most welcome there. The review page is here, and the particular issue is about the table of chief ministers. Since the review itself has been open for a month, any general input to speed the process up would also be welcome. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 22:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I have closed my review of Talk:Argo (2012 film)/GA1 and stepped away as the reviewer for the reasons outlined here: [5] [6] [7] Could someone help the nominator continue the process by deleting the review page and rebooting the nomination? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 02:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The above artciles have been promoted to GA on 15th June and 27 June 2015 respedtively. But I am not getting any formal confirmation from the Admn of this site and even so for my earlier articles promoted to GA. There appears to be some technical glitch. Can you pl clarify? Thanks.-- Nvvchar. 17:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi I am unable to continue the review of Škabrnja massacre, I would be pleased if someone continues it. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি ( talk) 10:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. The reviewer ( ThatKongregateGuy) of my nomination ( Patrick Star) has been indefinitely blocked. He started his review last June 22, but he got blocked. So, what to do now? Do I have to close/renominate it? — Mediran [talk] 08:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Article was reviewed and pased GA criteria, but the GA symbol doesn’t appear. Can someone please explain why it isn’t showing up on the article mainpage?
Cowlibob recently posted the following on my talk page in relation to a relatively recent promotion:
"I've noticed a dubious GA promotion of a key article [ [8]], the biography of Ali, one of the key figures in Islam. The "review" is empty of comments [ [9]] and has been reviewed by a reviewer who has significantly deleted content from the said article [ [10]] which was subsequently reverted here as controversial [ [11]] and has not been restored. Is there a mechanism on wikipedia to quickly reverse this seemingly obvious case of a dubious GA promotion."
I have to agree that this is a problematic promotion. There are some sourcing issues, at least one tag in the text and the prose is not up to scratch in places. Is there a mechanism to "undoing" an out-of-process review, or does it actually have to go through reassessment? - SchroCat ( talk) 07:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to change category without losing nomination date? I nominated 4 articles on decompression at the same time, and put them all into Sports and recreation, but two of them, Decompression theory and History of decompression research and development would probably fit better under Biology and medicine. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Calvin999 picked up the good article nomination for The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill on 26 June and on 12 July they made this revision to the review page, listing complaints (the critical complaints having no basis in Wikipedia guidelines and policy) and archiving it as a failed nomination, not giving a chance to editors to respond to, let alone resolve, the objections. I reverted their archiving of the review page to respond to each of their complaints, citing Wikipedia guidelines when I felt the reviewer was making assumptions based on other stuff on Wikipedia (for a completely unnecessary style change they wanted done at the article they were reviewing, the reviewer actually cited an article of their own they had nominated as precedent). The reviewer's main complaint (according to them, the reason for failing immediately) was the presence of dead links in the article, but the fact is the majority of the links to citations were not dead and even if they were. Furthermore, the reviewer claims not to have performed a quick fail because an immediate fail has no review ( [12]), which sounds like a lame excuse not to bother adequately reviewing the article. Many of the issues they listed were valid, but they were also minor MOS issues that were addressed within less than a day after they posted their review. The other claims, particularly about references format and accessibility were not founded in any guidelines or policies. As I pointed out to them, WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link ( WP:DEADLINK), not that most of the links in this article were dead when they picked up this review. If Calvin999 was not prepared or in the mood to wait for corrections to the so-called issues they pointed out, they should not have bothered with this review in the first place, or at the very least should have asked for a second opinion or withdrew as nominator altogether rather than immediately failing the article in the same revision they post their review of it, because it's an insult to the contributors to the article, myself and DepressedPer included, who immediately after seeing their "review" went on to fix the actual issues. The reviewer refuses to concede anything or actually respond to my responses to their so-called complaints, instead making arrogant claims in their edit summaries as some kind of entitled reviewer whose final word must be respected, no matter how they go about making that final word. I don't want to regurgitate everything from the review page, but I hope the editors most involved in WP:GAN will review the now-archived review page and respond. I would appreciate if another reviewer could continue that review page since Calvin999 has no interest in doing so or even asking for a second opinion. Dan56 ( talk) 23:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't pass an article with so many problems with the references. It makes it very difficult, near on impossible, to check the verifiability and reliability of the prose and information.
an insult to the contributors", scarequotes around "review", "
reviewer refuse to concede anything ... instead making arrogant claims", "
bogus complaints", etc.) It seems to me that Dan56 is trying for a quick fail in WP:CIVILITY, particularly in failing to participate in a respectful and considerate way, use of offensive language, and ignoring the positions and conclusions of fellow editors. Dan56 seems a not unreasonable editor in the main, so possibly all of this was just a passing fit of pique. In that case, perhaps he would apologize for his momentary incivility, thank Calvin999 for taking the time to point out some points for improvement, and everyone can move on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, J. Johnson, Prhartcom Guys, just leave Dan56 alone. He's not listening, he's just sulking. It's only winding him up more than none of you are in his corner on this. Best thing to do when a baby won't stop crying is close the door and let it cry it out. I suggest the same method be applied here, and it will soon blow over (hopefully). Dan56, if you think I acted in any way unreasonable for whatever reason you have come to believe, then I would like to know your stance on your lashings of incivility toward me in the paragraphs above while I have not been online to defend myself. Vana, Johnson, Prhart, thanks for your contributions here. I appreciate it. — Calvin999 07:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I wont ..."). I believe in trying to work with people, but not if they keep picking a fight. A GA review shouldn't be any kind of adversarial contest. So yes, let's shut the door. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Calvin999, no matter how much you disagree, characterizing or implying that your adversary is a crying baby by your use of analogue is a personal attack, is uncivil, and therefore inappropriate. JackTheVicar ( talk) 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap has kindly volunteered his time to perform an excellent, thorough, and competent GA review of Lise Tréhot, an article I wrote and nominated. We are mostly in agreement about everything except the interpretation of criterion 1b ("complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation"). I am willing to admit that I may be completely wrong in my position, which is why I've brought this minor dispute here for uninvolved input and review.
Chiswick Chap and I are at loggerheads about the use of the table listing Tréhot's modeling appearances in the selected works section. Could someone take a look at the review and this table and weigh in on whether my use of it in this article is legitimate? Note: I've recently made all of the image titles in the article internal anchors to the table because I intend to point our readers to it instead of using images in the body, as I find the table an ideal appendix for this purpose. [13] Viriditas ( talk) 03:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I nominated Leo Frank for GA and had someone volunteer to review the article. That person left some initial remarks which seemed promising, but I have not received a full review after 12 days and did not receive any response on his talk page. Furthermore, a significant contributor to the article objected to the reviewer because although they only had made one edit to the article prior to reviewing, the reviewer participated in a RfC shortly before and had another minor content dispute just hours before volunteering as reviewer.
I'm curious if I should consider closing the review and going for a community reassessment as I would not have to worry about a conflict of interest from a single reviewer or that reviewer being excessively slow in completing the GA review process. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 03:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to get a reassessment for Wyangala. I added the GAR template to the talk page, added the new section at the bottom of the talk page, created the GA2 page, and it's not transcluding to the assessment page. MSJapan ( talk) 13:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
For the future, what should I categorize scientists who become science communicators as? Jerod Lycett ( talk) 22:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
To notify people about Talk:British Bangladeshi/GA1, I have placed the {{ GARMessage}} template on a number of WikiProject talk pages, such as here. However, the original GA review seems to be at Talk:British Bangladeshi/GA2, and the template points editors there rather than to the reassessment. Any ideas why this is the case and how it can be fixed? Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I've requested a GA review on the Greyhound Lines article. It received, an initial review and I made the requested changes, but now the reviewer @ StudiesWorld: has now disappeared. Can the review be redone, assigned to a new reviewer, or whatever is done in a situation like this. Thanks! -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 03:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I recently reviewed a GA nomination, an interesting mathematics article on Reversible cellular automaton and had it pass. I think I did everything right but there is no green Plus sign appearing on the article page. On the Talk page it does mention it is a Mathematics GA. What did I do wrong? Edwininlondon ( talk) 11:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I did a review last year, and it is tallied at User:GA_bot/Stats, but "(Reviews: 1)" does not show up by my username on the nominations page. How come? (Ok, I know it's only one review, but still.) Thanks. - hugeTim ( talk) 02:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I've recently nominated the article Ehrhardt (typeface) after polishing it up. The nomination appears on the article's talk page but not on the list. (I decided to place it under Art & Architecture). Any thoughts? This is my first try at this so probably a stupid mistake of mine. Blythwood ( talk) 13:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I have had a previous account, however I went for a clean start. Do I need to have something like a year officially registered on my Wikipedia account or can I review whenever I want. Also, are there any helper scripts? Dat Guy Talk Contribs 12:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
A reviewer can no longer complete the review for whatever reason - time constraints, or whatever that has nothing to do with the quality of the article. How is that best handled? Atsme 📞 📧 02:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Having just gone through an abysmal experience with a GA review, I'd like to know if it is possible or even appropriate to suggest a particular editor not be allowed to do GA reviews. Please see Talk:Billy the Kid/GA2 for continuous examples as to why I feel the reviewer is absolutely not yet ready to be a GA reviewer. Everything from having the original "pass" of the article to GA overturned and taken over by an experienced reviewer, an inability to remain neutral and making derogatory comments about the nominator to other editors, being essentially absent from doing anything more with the review, inappropriate actions, reactions, and comments, a basic lack of understanding general Wikipedia policy, and a final unilateral fail by the reviewer for invalid reasons (and failure to know what has been actually going on at the article) -- all of this brought me here. To say I am frustrated with the final result after working quite hard to comply with the review suggestions to bring it to GA status would be an understatement. But I've had serious doubts about the reviewer's competence from the beginning (and expressed such at the review talk page early on). To be clear, the fail isn't really what brought me here. The consistently demonstrated incompetence of the reviewer is. I don't want to see anyone else go through what I have been through with this reviewer. Any productive and helpful comments about this would be appreciated. Any advice that can be given about whether this needs to be taken elsewhere would also be appreciated. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Chesnaught555 the only criteria I'm aware of relates to the article, not the editor who nominates it. See Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step 2: Starting a review The GA Cup on the other hand is a competition. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Good_articles/GA Cup. As for the turkey shoot - when Winkelvi said, " lift my head back up just in time to be trout-slapped!" it made me think of the cartoons I've seen where there's a turkey hiding behind a log, popping its head up every so often to see if the coast was clear. It was my attempt to make W smile and relieve some of the stress over getting his article listed. Anyway, back on point, go ahead and nominate your article if you haven't already but make sure you will be available during the review. Good luck!! Atsme 📞 📧 19:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Can any user do a good article review? I want to try reviewing an article. StoryKai ( talk) 14:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I am currently reviewing the article on Vladimir Lenin, and am trying to get to grips with the rules on images. I wonder if anyone can give me any pointers.
As far as I can tell, images in GAs have to meet one of three requirements:
So far, so good. (At least, so long as I am understanding the requirements correctly.)
I am having more trouble, however, with identifying whether some of the images are either a) in copyright, and therefore need a fair-use rationale or b) public domain in the USA.
About half of the images are tagged as public domain in the US, or are released under a free license, so they're okay. Of the remainder, one is "not an object of copyright" according to Russian law; twelve are tagged as being Public Domain in author's life+70 countries, but without anything discussing their copyright status in the US (of those, ten were published before 1923, one after, and one probably before but the information is not available); and one I don't even know where to begin.
I assume that the rouble is fine, as the Russian government doesn't claim copyright over it, but I'm totally confused about the others. So I suppose my questions are:
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 22:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Arsenikk, Nehrams2020, and Bibliomaniac15: pinging users registered as GA mentors who mention being able to help with images. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 22:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
If I follow correctly, near the top of WP:GA, the "Recently listed good articles" are updated by User:Jarry1250's User:LivingBot at WP:Good articles/recent. For some reason, it seems to have completely missed the OPEC article that was promoted to GA yesterday (the morning of April 10). If anyone understands how the process works, was there a human procedure that got overlooked somehow, or was the bot malfunctioning? — Patrug ( talk) 03:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello there. I believe I was unfair during a GA review I just conducted and I failed per say review. Therefore I would like to revert my edit and place it on hold so that the nominator could carry on with the review. If that is possible of course, otherwise a more experienced editor could tell me what to do in these situations. Thank You. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Prhartcom for the reply and for the advice I will take that into consideration on my next reviews. @ IndianBio: once more I'm truly sorry and I understand why you might want to wait for another reviewer. Hopefully this won't cause bad blood between us. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 14:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I have selected an article for review, Stand Up for Love, I'm planning to do this review over the weekend. However, the bot is not assuming me as a reviewer on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Songs page. Anyway to fix this?
Thank you in advance, MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 14:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Some how it was sorted out. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 22:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I need help here. I know very little about GA's. However, I noticed at the Talk page that Jason Isaacs is tagged with "GA"-class status. However, there's no {{ good article}} tag at the actual article, and the article has had long-term maintenance tags added. There's also no 'GA' "history" to follow at the Talk page, so I can't figure out when the article was originally promoted to GA, or whether it's even been "demoted" from GA. Any chance somebody can help me out here?... I almost tried to have the article individually "assessed", but I'm pretty ignorant of even that process, so I aborted that. Thanks in advance. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
An individual resassessment was initiated by FutureTrillionaire in March 2015 but is still unresolved, despite the user being reminded about it four months ago. Not sure what the procedure is here, but FWIW I think it should be delisted, the lead does not adequately summarise the article and there are numerous statements throughout that lack citations. PC78 ( talk) 00:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
On July 30, a reviewer declared their intent to review this article (which I nominated for GA). However, they do not seem to have started yet, although I have contacted them twice whether they were still intending to review it (no response). They've also been rather inactive lately. Anyways, I'm seeking advice on how to deal with this particular situation. I hope to get this done before the end of the month. Thanks, GAB gab 15:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Count On Me (Bruno Mars song) was recently passed as GA, however, a GA icon was not added. The reviewer forgot to change some parameters so I (nominator) did it for him. Nevertheless, the "plus symbol" still doesn't appear. Can someone add it manually. I have seen this done here, therefore I would like for someone to add it. Thank You.
Kind Regards, MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 20:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I recently approved this article for GA status: Taylor–Burton Diamond. However, it had failed a previous nomination. Should I have remove the FailedGA tag? Also, presumably related to this, the nominator received an automatic message on their talk page telling them they had failed. I have notified them otherwise, but am now concerned that bots may have misinterpreted the result. Thanks. -- ♫CheChe♫ talk 14:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Can I please have Talk:All We Know Is Falling/GA1 disregarded? The reviewer did not intend to give a full review and was new to the process, considering it to be the same as FAC (see this revision). I have a reviewer who would actually like to take up the article now. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Richfield NY, is in the Southern Tier of The State of New York. Look at a map some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.145.250 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I notice there are several articles pending for Star Trek Next Generation episodes. Now I am a fan and perfectly able to spot if they are adding value or simply grabbing chunks from other sources, but my question is this. Considering the number of places I can already find all this information and the potentially huge number of individual articals this could turn into if this guy writes and nominates each episode, what would people feel is the criteria for these to be passed? Or even should this be the place for all these articles? Thoughts please Lemsterboy ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Just making sure that, if I haven't edited an article since 13 December 2010, I'm okay to review it? I did a sizeable amount of editing to Joan Ganz Cooney in 2006 and 2008, but the article is significantly different even between 2010 and now. -- Zanimum ( talk) 23:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am currently reviewing Quenya, and the nominator and I have different ideas about how to judge whether an article is "reasonably well written" - and since this is a subjective matter I think some additional input from seasoned reviewers would be good. Best, ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 19:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you still need someone else to look at this with you? I am a HUGE Tolkien buff so may be able to help (Lemsterboy Talk)
I started as second reviewer of this article in good faith because the article seemed to be waiting a long time for a second opinion and it read reasonably well. I did see some issues which I have noted. However, reviewing has become hard work because the editor seems to disagree strongly with (almost) every issue I have noted—see the walls of text here. At this moment, I don't feel like proceeding. The article is currently on GA hold. My options would appear to be
In deference to the editor(s), who I can see have worked hard on this article, I will continue for now. I have every intention of passing this article if I can. My tolerance, however, is waning. What advice could be offered in this situation?
I'm in the process of having Bradley Wiggins reviewed, but the reviewer GAtechnical has been given an indefinite block. Of course I'm not going to wait until it's lifted, if ever. What's my next move? Does it need to be closed and renominated? Bald Boris 17:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I've done a review of Ernesto Pérez Balladares (see review here) and was wondering if someone could give a second opinion on whether File:Ernesto Perez Balladares on CSPAN.jpg has an adequate fair use rationale; or whether one is even possible. I'm not convinced, but would appreciate a non-involved editor's opinion. - Shudde talk 03:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a breakdown in a review at Talk:Architecture in early modern Scotland/GA1, which I nominated. There has already been a delay of some weeks, caused, as they accept, by the first reviewer. Whatever the merits of the case, I am unsatisfied that the review follows the GA criteria and, as suggested on the WP:GA nominations page, I wish to take the option of relisting for a new review. I have accordingly requested that the reviewer close the process as a fail so that I can do this. However, I have not as yet received a response and wish to avoid further delay. The wording of the instruction is a bit unclear ("If you wish to withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, then the nomination must be closed using the fail process to record the outcome of the review"). Does that mean I can close the review (withdrawing?), or does the reviewer have to do that? I should also ask, can someone else close the review for me?-- SabreBD ( talk) 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Good morning.Can I talk with one admin of Wikipedia? Mariacciolo ( talk) 11:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated an article several hours ago, see Talk:Stop Crying Your Heart Out, but it's not appearing in the nominations. — AARON • TALK 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for guidance as to what to do in case an article is put on hold for more than seven days. Students in a course on Wikipedia have made several changes to the page Driverless tractor for a class assignment and are not sure what more to do after reaching out to the original reviewer. Should they simply delete the review page and renominate? Thanks for your help. -- RM395 ( talk) 15:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The reviewer who initiated the GAR seems to be retired. A request to WP:India lead to a discussion (of taking up review) without any conclusion. Can someone please help reviewing the same. I am ready to address the review comments. Ssriram mt ( talk) 01:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone who gave comments in an article's peer review also serve as the reviewer for the GAN? Additionally, does contributing a copy edit during that PR process constitute a "significant contribution" that would bar the editor from serving as the GAN reviewer? Couldn't find an answer in the archives, and I was just curious (about both situations separately). czar · · 02:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Are bare urls (used consistently) acceptable as references in GANs? The article to which I am referring and am considering reviewing is Excalibur Estate. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm planning Lenny (Buggles song) to be a good article. The article uses the source Rap Genius. I know I've seen that source being used in other articles, but would the source be unreliable or still credible? Thanks! EditorE ( talk) 23:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you able to fix a little mess I've made? I've nominated ...And Justice for All (album) for GA article, but accidentally I've put myself as a reviewer. Thanks.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 21:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The Article History box at Talk:The World Factbook is missing the link for the article's first GAR (dated September 2008), and I'm having trouble finding it. Can someone help?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Planning for Lock and Key (Rush song) to be a good article. Would songfacts be a reliable source for this article? Thanks. EditorE ( talk) 22:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I notice that this edit adds the "good article" tag on Steven Sasson. I suspect, given the history of the user, that this was not legitimately added. But I don't really know how to find out. By any chance, was this article nominated and reviewed for good article status? I figure I should ask, rather than just assume bad faith and remove the tag myself. -- Why Not A Duck 19:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm planning for Lock and Key (Rush song) to be a good article. I was wondering if a background section for a song article is needed for it to be a good article. Thank you. EditorE ( talk) 22:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday I have finished my first GA review ( Apeomyoides). The article has passed, but still does not appear in Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. I fear I may have forgotten something? -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 06:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Everyone I nominated Torchwood for a good article and left a comment on the review page for the reviewer but me not thinking, I posted the message when there was no reviewer and It made me the reviewer is there anyway to revert this as obviously I can't be the nominator and reviewer. Thanks Kelvin 101 ( talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
May I review the Siah Bishe Pumped Storage Power Plant article if I have made three edits to this article at its very early stage; namely: refining category ( [2]), adding maintenance tags ( [3]) and correcting unit ( [4])? Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 18:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I have undertaken a GA review of Ambrose Channel pilot cable. I think it is reasonably close to GA status, but has some problems, which the nominator has agreed to address (and I have offered to assist), so I put it on "hold". However, these improvements are going to take more than seven days. Questions:
Your article on Bradley Manning was obviously written by someone with an agenda. Chelsea Manning? I was surprised and disappointed by the article. When I want to learn about something new Wikipedia is usually my first stop. Now I wonder how much of the stuff I've read and hold as "true" is actually not true. The Bradley Manning article has many inconsistancies and refers to him as a female. Because of this article I will make a conscious decision to no longer visit Wikipedia.
I nominated Talk:Modern Benoni a few hours ago but it hasn't shown up in the queue. Noticed over at User talk:Chris G that the bot might be down. Cobblet ( talk) 13:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I am reviewing International System of Units and am getting bogged down now. There are a handful of sticking points, two of them to do with the ambiguous use of English words. These ambiguous words would benefit from a few extra words of clarification. I have offered suggested improvements that would fix these issues, but the nominator seems reluctant to accept these or any fixes for these problems and the discussion is now going around in circles.
The problem words are:
My opinion is that to be considered well written, these unnecessary ambiguities must be resolved. Can anyone offer any advice to help move this forward please? FishGF ( talk) 22:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I started a review, but due to bad-faith behaviour towards me by the proposer, I would like to drop it, and leave it to someone else. What is the process to do that please? FishGF ( talk) 21:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I like a link(s) to a list of WP Biographies that have Good Article status, or a List of all GA WP Bios that link to the permalink when an article got Good Article status (article do lose GA status). The same for WP Bios with/had Featured Articles status. Lentower ( talk) 15:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
As Khazar2 pointed out above, some of the lists linked to at the end of WP:GA have the bios segregated out. E.g. Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Artists_and_architects.
But this list of lists at the end of WP:GA doesn't include these sub-lists, nor do the lists have Table of Contents, which makes finding the bios a chore.
Discovered that at the end of WP:FA the list of lists has the sub-lists of biographies labeled as '(bios}, which makes finding and linking to them much easier. E.g. WP:Featured_Articles#Art.2C_architecture_and_archaeology_biographies. -- Lentower ( talk) 14:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't help but notice that user "23 editor" has made about a half dozen article nominations for GA review in about a week, most of them with cursory or no attempts to improve them first, and all on Serbian topics. Whilst I applaud their enthusiasm, they are clearly spamming the process and more interested in just getting loads of Serbian articles listed as GA, than actually improving the articles to genuine GA standard. See their latest nomination, Skull Tower. If this is GA standard, we may as well list anything as GA. Is there no rules or guidelines about just spamming dozens of articles for GA review?!?? - PocklingtonDan ( talk) 19:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking of nominating Brislington House at GAC but can't decide whether it should go in the architecture subject area or medicine. Any advice?— Rod talk 16:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
This article does not possess GA status but has a GA-icon on top of the page.. why?
I was just about to start my review for Last Tango in Halifax when the nominator alerted me to the fact that the second series of this show is currently airing. As a result, the content of the article will change within the next month, for better or worse. What would be the best way to approach this article? I can't see a clear guideline for articles that may undergo constructive changes for a short time, and then probably settle down. Moswento talky 14:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Current (Dec. 16) article on child prostitution: Look at Canadian and US numbers in the Extent table. Canadian numbers should be roughly an order of magnitude lower than US numbers, NOT twice as much in absolute terms. Your reporting system is too complicated.
I was surprised that the Majida El Roumi page is marked as a good article. Firstly, it has only bare URLS, secondly many YouTube 'sources', though these may have been largely added after the page was 'marked'. Some recent edits have added some rather POV and peacocky text. I see that URL only refs are, apparently, acceptable according to an earlier section on this page.
I know nothing about good/featured articles etc, but can't find anything on the talk page about it being nominated or assessed, and when the GA mark was added on 22 March 2013 here, no edit summary was given. The editor concerned has only 2,206 edits from this account. 220 of Borg 16:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Katherine Ritvo was passed for GA on December 24, but the bot hasn't added the little green plus to the article namespace. Possibly a reviewer error? Can this be looked into? Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm about to write a review of Fajsz, which was nominated for GA on November 20. The article is very short (only 283 words of "readable prose"), and because short articles usually attract reviewers quickly, I'm not sure why this one has been sitting there for more than two months. Is there a restriction on the length of GA articles that I should be aware of? Madalibi ( talk) 05:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced reviewer be willing to take a look at a somewhat minor content neutrality dispute involving two sentences in the Sydney Leroux article review? This is the only thing holding up the review according to the reviewer. Thank you. Hmlarson ( talk) 22:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It appears that a bot went bonkers with my review count. How do I revert the count to the actual number, which I think is 11? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I nominated Wookey Hole Caves some time ago. Another editor has contributed to the article and highlighted some other areas which needed work. The review at Talk:Wookey Hole Caves/GA1 was started inadvertently. I asked about this at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Review started accidentally ? withdraw nom suggesting the easiest solution would be to withdraw the nom, but I've not had any response about how to do this. Can anyone advise?— Rod talk 12:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, is there a process for Good articles that require a page move? Do the associated assessment pages have to be moved as well? I've recently had to move a GA and wasn't sure what to do with the associated talk pages. Thanks in advance. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 12:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that on occasion editors involved with an article may chime in on the corresponding GA review although they are neither the nominator nor the reviewer. Do we have any good essays or rules about this? I've always assumed that the review was in the hands of the reviewer. Please advise. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm told that this review can't pass until its images clear OTRS. I didn't see this in the criteria, but I'd like clarification for posterity. czar ♔ 19:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
If these two articles are nominated in future, which subtopics should the nominations be placed in? -- Hildanknight ( talk) 15:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
If so, where can I find guidelines about that? walk victor falk talk 07:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
HIV/AIDS in Malawi is listed on my article alerts for a GA, and has a GA page, so I have taken up the review. However, it's not listed here and neither does it have a GA template on the page? Is this article even waiting for a GA review? Seeking some help determining what to do. -- LT910001 ( talk) 01:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I am debating about requesting that something about not giving problems (see link) be added to the criteria for reviewing good article nomination. Its because my main question right now is, What do you do when a review sets a precedence that causes more problems then solutions? This is a question I have repeated asked myself since I got back to editing on wikipedia. The Graphene article was reviewed back in 2011. In the review, the person specifically cites as his/her reason for not good article nomination as: -- Physics16 ( talk) 04:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that statement is that it was vague in what was specifically "too technical" even under the Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable. At least one of "uncited" statements remains. The organization being poor is an intentionally vague statement and we have had to rely on creating a new sub-article, in an attempt to resolve the issue. However, the true problem is and always remains the vagueness of that first drive-by tagging of "too technical". Its vagueness set a precedence for accepting drive-by tagging of the article -- Physics16 ( talk) 04:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Over the next 3 years, at least 30-50 separate incidents of drive-by tagging, which is tagging without talk pages. I discovered this while searching web.archive.org/. Last year alone, there were three instances of still unresolved drive-by tagging, two of which used the "too technical" tag. As I have mentioned on the graphene talk page last month, I am not sure even I don't know where to begin in what people are finding 'too technical'. Because I understand it, I don't feel the article is too technical at all. If I knew even the first sentence people found too technical, then I could try to fix things. I am so immensely frustrated with people tagging without creating talk pages that I am on the borderline of doing 5 things: -- Physics16 ( talk) 04:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Please answer the question to the best of your ability, so I don't have to do something radical like the number points above. Physics16 ( talk) 06:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone help as I'm not sure if the right process has been applied to put an article up for review. Yesterday King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge, which I nominated, was passed for GA after various comments and requests for references etc - see Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA1. Following this another user removed the GA star & started Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2 stating that the page is full of basic grammar errors. (I believe there was one introduced during the review, but am not aware of others). It has since been copyedited by another editor. It does not appear on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and I was wondering whether the appropriate procedures had been followed or what I need to do now?— Rod talk 17:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I took reviewing 2 articles Peter Ostrum and Marie of Romania few days back. Now due to the shortage of time, I am unable to continue the review. Is there any way in which I can surrender? Thanks. RRD13 ( talk) 08:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I did a bunch of digging to figure out the history of Gun violence in the United States good article status - and then I lost it all in a computer crash. Ugh. I found talk-page discussions from 2007 and 2008 in the article's archives that said it had passed GA, but I didn't see the GA tag/template added until 2010. I don't think the article is a GA, and others have made similar remarks on the talk pages. So the questions is: How does one determine an article's good article history? Is one's addition to or removal from the GA list logged somewhere? Lightbreather ( talk) 22:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Dana boomer began a review of Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, she has not responded there since my last post on 6 May 2014, and she has not been on-line since 3 June 2014, do I need to relist the article for review? Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The reviewer has become inactive and has not responded on his talk page. I tried to follow the instructions on nominating the article again, but that does not produce the desired result. Please help: Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Fai zan 06:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I am interested in getting involved in the GA review process. Because I have not been through the process, I would like to find someone willing to hold my hand through the first one o5 two, to make sure I am doing it correctly.
I am interested in doing science articles, and chose Sebaceous gland as a candidate, choosing it because it was one of the oldest in the queue.
Any volunteers?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I am working on the GA review of Swedish artist Einar Jolin and have two questions:
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 05:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Ummm...why isn't BIOGRAPHY (no matter the related field) on this list? Just wondering....
-- AmritasyaPutra T 12:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I need to see about getting another reviewer. I don't know how to "re-list" the article or whatever procedure makes the most sense… Any help would be gratefully accepted! -- Smkolins ( talk) 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I accepted the review for Robin Raphel a couple of days ago, but since making my initial review, an investigation into the subject has begun to be reported by several major news sources (see also this article). According to the articles, it is a federal counterintelligence investigation, but no charges have been filed against Raphel. This information has already begun to be added to the article by editors.
Given these events certainly affecting the coverage of the article (perhaps moreso if further information comes to light in short order), but potentially also the stability and neutrality of the article, I'm considering placing it on hold for a week or two while more information comes out. Would other reviewers recommend that I place it on hold, or fail it on specific criteria (e.g. stability)? — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 13:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Can someone confirm that this article has gone through the GA process and is a GA? It looks a bit short to me Gbawden ( talk) 09:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
can someone look at my article preliminarily to see if it is ok?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thank you, you've been very helpful-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any specific guidelines, but I recall seeing somewhere that "Bibliography" sections are deprecated. The article I'm reviewing ( Congolese Independence Speech) uses short citations and has a "Notes and references" section with notes (in a "Footnotes" subsection) and the short citations (in a "References" subsection) followed by a "Bibliography" section that the short citations link to. This doesn't seem right, but I don't know the proper fix. I suggested in the review: The "Notes and references" could be changed to "Footnotes" with no subsection for the two footnotes and the "References" section renamed "Citations". Is this an appropriate fix? I just completed the review and put it on hold and am now waiting for the main contributor to respond. This is also my first GA review and if anyone is willing to look for any mistakes, feedback would be appreciated. AHeneen ( talk) 05:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been reviewing this article for several days, and I think it looks good for the most part. My question is on the stability criterion. It seemed stable when I first reviewed it, but since then the review page has attracted several other editors who allege POV concerns. While it's not an edit war, it certainly is a small-scale content dispute. I'd appreciate some more experienced reviewer's opinion on whether it now fails that criterion. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I was just wondering if I would add content on the Nicki Minaj article? I was going to add to the "associated acts" section. I look forward to hearing back from you! -Bekah -- 2.126.107.191 ( talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Robin Raphel was originally nominated by another editor, who did most of the heavy lifting on it late last year. Because of real-world issues he had to drop it, and the GA was failed. In the past few days I've brought the article back to spec per the reviewers' initial comments. I was wondering what the process is to re-nominate? I'm not sure if I just subst the GAN template on top of the talk page again, but I don't want to screw it up. Many thanks. § FreeRangeFrog croak 08:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
hi, we placed our article more than a month ago, and we were wondering when the review would take place. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I've reviewed two GA nominations today for the first time. I'd really appreciate knowing if I've got it right! The two articles are Atlanta Flames ( nom) and Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary ( nom). I notice in particular that a bot so far hasn't added the GA icon to the pages... Thanks for your help. Relentlessly ( talk) 20:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Would it make sense to submit an article that was already listed as A-class to GAN, or would that be redundant? (If it matters I didn't think it merited the A-class before I made substantial improvements to it.) Thanks! delldot ∇. 05:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I copied a Good Article symbol from an article with the intention of using it to illustrate a section in my User profile headed Good Articles to whom I had contributed material. However, instead of sticking in the section where I intended it to be, it is at the head of my user profile page, implying my (incomplete) profile itself is a Good Article, which I did not intend to mean! How can I delete this symbol which is also a link? Cloptonson ( talk) 14:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I've looked around and can't figure out how to look at the reviews of GA nominees (for instance, for articles where it says "4 reviews"). I feel like I'm just missing something obvious. Any help? Puppysnot ( talk) 01:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Compulsory Miseducation | start review) – czar 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Summerhill (book) | start review) – czar 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I am just starting off as a reviewer, and was looking to get some inspiration or examples of reviews. Is there anyplace I can go to see other users reviews? Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG ( ✉) 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been having some differences with the reviewer for Bharatiya Janata Party on the review page. In particular, the reviewer has stated that a certain table contains original research and given me a deadline to fix it, but has not responded to my ideas on how to do so; therefore, more eyes would be most welcome there. The review page is here, and the particular issue is about the table of chief ministers. Since the review itself has been open for a month, any general input to speed the process up would also be welcome. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 22:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I have closed my review of Talk:Argo (2012 film)/GA1 and stepped away as the reviewer for the reasons outlined here: [5] [6] [7] Could someone help the nominator continue the process by deleting the review page and rebooting the nomination? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 02:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The above artciles have been promoted to GA on 15th June and 27 June 2015 respedtively. But I am not getting any formal confirmation from the Admn of this site and even so for my earlier articles promoted to GA. There appears to be some technical glitch. Can you pl clarify? Thanks.-- Nvvchar. 17:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi I am unable to continue the review of Škabrnja massacre, I would be pleased if someone continues it. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি ( talk) 10:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. The reviewer ( ThatKongregateGuy) of my nomination ( Patrick Star) has been indefinitely blocked. He started his review last June 22, but he got blocked. So, what to do now? Do I have to close/renominate it? — Mediran [talk] 08:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Article was reviewed and pased GA criteria, but the GA symbol doesn’t appear. Can someone please explain why it isn’t showing up on the article mainpage?
Cowlibob recently posted the following on my talk page in relation to a relatively recent promotion:
"I've noticed a dubious GA promotion of a key article [ [8]], the biography of Ali, one of the key figures in Islam. The "review" is empty of comments [ [9]] and has been reviewed by a reviewer who has significantly deleted content from the said article [ [10]] which was subsequently reverted here as controversial [ [11]] and has not been restored. Is there a mechanism on wikipedia to quickly reverse this seemingly obvious case of a dubious GA promotion."
I have to agree that this is a problematic promotion. There are some sourcing issues, at least one tag in the text and the prose is not up to scratch in places. Is there a mechanism to "undoing" an out-of-process review, or does it actually have to go through reassessment? - SchroCat ( talk) 07:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to change category without losing nomination date? I nominated 4 articles on decompression at the same time, and put them all into Sports and recreation, but two of them, Decompression theory and History of decompression research and development would probably fit better under Biology and medicine. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Calvin999 picked up the good article nomination for The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill on 26 June and on 12 July they made this revision to the review page, listing complaints (the critical complaints having no basis in Wikipedia guidelines and policy) and archiving it as a failed nomination, not giving a chance to editors to respond to, let alone resolve, the objections. I reverted their archiving of the review page to respond to each of their complaints, citing Wikipedia guidelines when I felt the reviewer was making assumptions based on other stuff on Wikipedia (for a completely unnecessary style change they wanted done at the article they were reviewing, the reviewer actually cited an article of their own they had nominated as precedent). The reviewer's main complaint (according to them, the reason for failing immediately) was the presence of dead links in the article, but the fact is the majority of the links to citations were not dead and even if they were. Furthermore, the reviewer claims not to have performed a quick fail because an immediate fail has no review ( [12]), which sounds like a lame excuse not to bother adequately reviewing the article. Many of the issues they listed were valid, but they were also minor MOS issues that were addressed within less than a day after they posted their review. The other claims, particularly about references format and accessibility were not founded in any guidelines or policies. As I pointed out to them, WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link ( WP:DEADLINK), not that most of the links in this article were dead when they picked up this review. If Calvin999 was not prepared or in the mood to wait for corrections to the so-called issues they pointed out, they should not have bothered with this review in the first place, or at the very least should have asked for a second opinion or withdrew as nominator altogether rather than immediately failing the article in the same revision they post their review of it, because it's an insult to the contributors to the article, myself and DepressedPer included, who immediately after seeing their "review" went on to fix the actual issues. The reviewer refuses to concede anything or actually respond to my responses to their so-called complaints, instead making arrogant claims in their edit summaries as some kind of entitled reviewer whose final word must be respected, no matter how they go about making that final word. I don't want to regurgitate everything from the review page, but I hope the editors most involved in WP:GAN will review the now-archived review page and respond. I would appreciate if another reviewer could continue that review page since Calvin999 has no interest in doing so or even asking for a second opinion. Dan56 ( talk) 23:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't pass an article with so many problems with the references. It makes it very difficult, near on impossible, to check the verifiability and reliability of the prose and information.
an insult to the contributors", scarequotes around "review", "
reviewer refuse to concede anything ... instead making arrogant claims", "
bogus complaints", etc.) It seems to me that Dan56 is trying for a quick fail in WP:CIVILITY, particularly in failing to participate in a respectful and considerate way, use of offensive language, and ignoring the positions and conclusions of fellow editors. Dan56 seems a not unreasonable editor in the main, so possibly all of this was just a passing fit of pique. In that case, perhaps he would apologize for his momentary incivility, thank Calvin999 for taking the time to point out some points for improvement, and everyone can move on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, J. Johnson, Prhartcom Guys, just leave Dan56 alone. He's not listening, he's just sulking. It's only winding him up more than none of you are in his corner on this. Best thing to do when a baby won't stop crying is close the door and let it cry it out. I suggest the same method be applied here, and it will soon blow over (hopefully). Dan56, if you think I acted in any way unreasonable for whatever reason you have come to believe, then I would like to know your stance on your lashings of incivility toward me in the paragraphs above while I have not been online to defend myself. Vana, Johnson, Prhart, thanks for your contributions here. I appreciate it. — Calvin999 07:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I wont ..."). I believe in trying to work with people, but not if they keep picking a fight. A GA review shouldn't be any kind of adversarial contest. So yes, let's shut the door. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Calvin999, no matter how much you disagree, characterizing or implying that your adversary is a crying baby by your use of analogue is a personal attack, is uncivil, and therefore inappropriate. JackTheVicar ( talk) 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap has kindly volunteered his time to perform an excellent, thorough, and competent GA review of Lise Tréhot, an article I wrote and nominated. We are mostly in agreement about everything except the interpretation of criterion 1b ("complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation"). I am willing to admit that I may be completely wrong in my position, which is why I've brought this minor dispute here for uninvolved input and review.
Chiswick Chap and I are at loggerheads about the use of the table listing Tréhot's modeling appearances in the selected works section. Could someone take a look at the review and this table and weigh in on whether my use of it in this article is legitimate? Note: I've recently made all of the image titles in the article internal anchors to the table because I intend to point our readers to it instead of using images in the body, as I find the table an ideal appendix for this purpose. [13] Viriditas ( talk) 03:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I nominated Leo Frank for GA and had someone volunteer to review the article. That person left some initial remarks which seemed promising, but I have not received a full review after 12 days and did not receive any response on his talk page. Furthermore, a significant contributor to the article objected to the reviewer because although they only had made one edit to the article prior to reviewing, the reviewer participated in a RfC shortly before and had another minor content dispute just hours before volunteering as reviewer.
I'm curious if I should consider closing the review and going for a community reassessment as I would not have to worry about a conflict of interest from a single reviewer or that reviewer being excessively slow in completing the GA review process. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 03:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to get a reassessment for Wyangala. I added the GAR template to the talk page, added the new section at the bottom of the talk page, created the GA2 page, and it's not transcluding to the assessment page. MSJapan ( talk) 13:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
For the future, what should I categorize scientists who become science communicators as? Jerod Lycett ( talk) 22:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
To notify people about Talk:British Bangladeshi/GA1, I have placed the {{ GARMessage}} template on a number of WikiProject talk pages, such as here. However, the original GA review seems to be at Talk:British Bangladeshi/GA2, and the template points editors there rather than to the reassessment. Any ideas why this is the case and how it can be fixed? Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I've requested a GA review on the Greyhound Lines article. It received, an initial review and I made the requested changes, but now the reviewer @ StudiesWorld: has now disappeared. Can the review be redone, assigned to a new reviewer, or whatever is done in a situation like this. Thanks! -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 03:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I recently reviewed a GA nomination, an interesting mathematics article on Reversible cellular automaton and had it pass. I think I did everything right but there is no green Plus sign appearing on the article page. On the Talk page it does mention it is a Mathematics GA. What did I do wrong? Edwininlondon ( talk) 11:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I did a review last year, and it is tallied at User:GA_bot/Stats, but "(Reviews: 1)" does not show up by my username on the nominations page. How come? (Ok, I know it's only one review, but still.) Thanks. - hugeTim ( talk) 02:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I've recently nominated the article Ehrhardt (typeface) after polishing it up. The nomination appears on the article's talk page but not on the list. (I decided to place it under Art & Architecture). Any thoughts? This is my first try at this so probably a stupid mistake of mine. Blythwood ( talk) 13:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I have had a previous account, however I went for a clean start. Do I need to have something like a year officially registered on my Wikipedia account or can I review whenever I want. Also, are there any helper scripts? Dat Guy Talk Contribs 12:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
A reviewer can no longer complete the review for whatever reason - time constraints, or whatever that has nothing to do with the quality of the article. How is that best handled? Atsme 📞 📧 02:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Having just gone through an abysmal experience with a GA review, I'd like to know if it is possible or even appropriate to suggest a particular editor not be allowed to do GA reviews. Please see Talk:Billy the Kid/GA2 for continuous examples as to why I feel the reviewer is absolutely not yet ready to be a GA reviewer. Everything from having the original "pass" of the article to GA overturned and taken over by an experienced reviewer, an inability to remain neutral and making derogatory comments about the nominator to other editors, being essentially absent from doing anything more with the review, inappropriate actions, reactions, and comments, a basic lack of understanding general Wikipedia policy, and a final unilateral fail by the reviewer for invalid reasons (and failure to know what has been actually going on at the article) -- all of this brought me here. To say I am frustrated with the final result after working quite hard to comply with the review suggestions to bring it to GA status would be an understatement. But I've had serious doubts about the reviewer's competence from the beginning (and expressed such at the review talk page early on). To be clear, the fail isn't really what brought me here. The consistently demonstrated incompetence of the reviewer is. I don't want to see anyone else go through what I have been through with this reviewer. Any productive and helpful comments about this would be appreciated. Any advice that can be given about whether this needs to be taken elsewhere would also be appreciated. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Chesnaught555 the only criteria I'm aware of relates to the article, not the editor who nominates it. See Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step 2: Starting a review The GA Cup on the other hand is a competition. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Good_articles/GA Cup. As for the turkey shoot - when Winkelvi said, " lift my head back up just in time to be trout-slapped!" it made me think of the cartoons I've seen where there's a turkey hiding behind a log, popping its head up every so often to see if the coast was clear. It was my attempt to make W smile and relieve some of the stress over getting his article listed. Anyway, back on point, go ahead and nominate your article if you haven't already but make sure you will be available during the review. Good luck!! Atsme 📞 📧 19:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Can any user do a good article review? I want to try reviewing an article. StoryKai ( talk) 14:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I am currently reviewing the article on Vladimir Lenin, and am trying to get to grips with the rules on images. I wonder if anyone can give me any pointers.
As far as I can tell, images in GAs have to meet one of three requirements:
So far, so good. (At least, so long as I am understanding the requirements correctly.)
I am having more trouble, however, with identifying whether some of the images are either a) in copyright, and therefore need a fair-use rationale or b) public domain in the USA.
About half of the images are tagged as public domain in the US, or are released under a free license, so they're okay. Of the remainder, one is "not an object of copyright" according to Russian law; twelve are tagged as being Public Domain in author's life+70 countries, but without anything discussing their copyright status in the US (of those, ten were published before 1923, one after, and one probably before but the information is not available); and one I don't even know where to begin.
I assume that the rouble is fine, as the Russian government doesn't claim copyright over it, but I'm totally confused about the others. So I suppose my questions are:
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 22:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Arsenikk, Nehrams2020, and Bibliomaniac15: pinging users registered as GA mentors who mention being able to help with images. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 22:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
If I follow correctly, near the top of WP:GA, the "Recently listed good articles" are updated by User:Jarry1250's User:LivingBot at WP:Good articles/recent. For some reason, it seems to have completely missed the OPEC article that was promoted to GA yesterday (the morning of April 10). If anyone understands how the process works, was there a human procedure that got overlooked somehow, or was the bot malfunctioning? — Patrug ( talk) 03:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello there. I believe I was unfair during a GA review I just conducted and I failed per say review. Therefore I would like to revert my edit and place it on hold so that the nominator could carry on with the review. If that is possible of course, otherwise a more experienced editor could tell me what to do in these situations. Thank You. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Prhartcom for the reply and for the advice I will take that into consideration on my next reviews. @ IndianBio: once more I'm truly sorry and I understand why you might want to wait for another reviewer. Hopefully this won't cause bad blood between us. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 14:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I have selected an article for review, Stand Up for Love, I'm planning to do this review over the weekend. However, the bot is not assuming me as a reviewer on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Songs page. Anyway to fix this?
Thank you in advance, MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 14:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Some how it was sorted out. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 22:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I need help here. I know very little about GA's. However, I noticed at the Talk page that Jason Isaacs is tagged with "GA"-class status. However, there's no {{ good article}} tag at the actual article, and the article has had long-term maintenance tags added. There's also no 'GA' "history" to follow at the Talk page, so I can't figure out when the article was originally promoted to GA, or whether it's even been "demoted" from GA. Any chance somebody can help me out here?... I almost tried to have the article individually "assessed", but I'm pretty ignorant of even that process, so I aborted that. Thanks in advance. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
An individual resassessment was initiated by FutureTrillionaire in March 2015 but is still unresolved, despite the user being reminded about it four months ago. Not sure what the procedure is here, but FWIW I think it should be delisted, the lead does not adequately summarise the article and there are numerous statements throughout that lack citations. PC78 ( talk) 00:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
On July 30, a reviewer declared their intent to review this article (which I nominated for GA). However, they do not seem to have started yet, although I have contacted them twice whether they were still intending to review it (no response). They've also been rather inactive lately. Anyways, I'm seeking advice on how to deal with this particular situation. I hope to get this done before the end of the month. Thanks, GAB gab 15:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Count On Me (Bruno Mars song) was recently passed as GA, however, a GA icon was not added. The reviewer forgot to change some parameters so I (nominator) did it for him. Nevertheless, the "plus symbol" still doesn't appear. Can someone add it manually. I have seen this done here, therefore I would like for someone to add it. Thank You.
Kind Regards, MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 20:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I recently approved this article for GA status: Taylor–Burton Diamond. However, it had failed a previous nomination. Should I have remove the FailedGA tag? Also, presumably related to this, the nominator received an automatic message on their talk page telling them they had failed. I have notified them otherwise, but am now concerned that bots may have misinterpreted the result. Thanks. -- ♫CheChe♫ talk 14:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Can I please have Talk:All We Know Is Falling/GA1 disregarded? The reviewer did not intend to give a full review and was new to the process, considering it to be the same as FAC (see this revision). I have a reviewer who would actually like to take up the article now. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Richfield NY, is in the Southern Tier of The State of New York. Look at a map some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.145.250 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)