![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There was no response before this got archived at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 20#User:Jonas Vinther is insisting it is not his responsibility to list nominations that he passes at WP:GA from what I can tell. From what I recall, User:Jonas Vinther still had a few alphabetization issues to resolve:
Adamdaley has started a bunch of good article reassessments and plopped a bunch of citation needed tags where they were not needed or already inline. I picked one at random and got found obvious signs of alteration on the Nanbu clan. I restored the page, but the editor seems not to be checking sources very well or looking for obvious vandalism. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment let alone a "B-class" assessment., is not a valid reason, even ignoring its grammatical infelicities. The good article criteria are specific, and it is up to you to explain which of those criteria are not met by a particular article. The goal of a reassessment is to, if at all possible, fix those facets of the article that fall short of the GA criteria: without an explanation from you of what is actually wrong with the article beyond inline citations, you're not helping it to be improved. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
As explained twice already: that is a summation sentence to tell the reader the content of the section. Adamdaley - The fact you do not have the source does not change the fact that the sentence serves as a lead-in for the section and references 26-33 and 35 are used to cite examples and give the reader the information which not only comprises the section, but completes it. If you are incapable of understanding this concept you are clearly demonstrating your lack of competence. Magicpiano explained this is a prime example of an instance where a citation at the end of the paragraph is not needed. If you don't understand this, read it again and again until you do understand. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 07:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The {{ al}} template is the one that shows the toolbar links at the top of each GA review: "Article", "edit", "history" and so on. I've suggested a change to it at Template_talk:Al but want to make sure the suggestion is widely seen, and I know GA reviewers use this template all the time. Please comment at that page. Thanks. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I want to withdraw my nomination for David Hume, as I can see no possibility if accommodation with its reviewer. Do I simply delete the entries in GAN? Myrvin ( talk) 12:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
My review count count didn't go up after a recent review. I suspect that it is because I automatically failed the article (without triggering the bot with a "reviewing" edit), then changed the talk page to a failed GAN. I suspect the bot treated it as a withdrawn nomination, however, this is my theory, and I would like someone more knowledgeable about the bot to confirm if this is correct or not. If it is, I guess I will always trigger the bot first before failing an article.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I've posted at Template talk:GA nominee#On hold wording and anyone is welcome to join it. - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 15:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, the person who is reviewing the Black Eye article, Sparklism, has concerns about the use of the CBGB image in the article. Are the pink notices that appear in the image's commons page suitable for a good article? Thanks in advance. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 19:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I nominated History of the New York Yankees for GA several months ago. After a long wait at GAN, Secret agreed to review the article about a week ago. While checking to see whether he had made progress with his review, I noticed that he may be retiring from the site, per User talk:Secret. If he's gone, then the article will require a new reviewer. It's a shame since he had strong subject knowledge, but those are the breaks you get sometimes. I know this is a long article and will take time to go through, but the latest development is disappointing all the same. Is there anything I should be doing, and would anyone be willing to provide a fresh review if he doesn't come back? Thanks to anybody who can help. Giants2008 ( Talk) 02:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
If someone was working on getting Magna Carta ready for a GA nomination which category should they nominate it in? It could potentially fit World History or Law. Does the fact that it is listed as a vital article at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences in the law section mean that it has to go under law rather than history?— Rod talk 19:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I recently failed the 2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, but it seems that a few people think I was too hasty. I listed some of my concerns at the review page, and I'd appreciate it if an experienced user who is knowledgeable about basketball could read through the article and give their opinion on it. Thanks! -- Biblio worm 22:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I nominated Shaina NC 6 months ago. Waited for 6 long months for this review to start. Then User:SNUGGUMS took 12 days for review. He was aware that I am checking review page several times a day. But still he failed the article without giving me even 1 day or few hours. I don't think this is proper way reviewing article. Abhi ( talk) 19:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've put Talk:Songs from the Black Hole/GA1 on "second opinion". The review is currently stalled because I asked for specific time locations for some audio interview citations, but the nominator couldn't easily access them. What should we do in that instance. The review has been queued up since July so it would be good to make a decision soon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but I would like to nominate the article Sybil Plumlee for Good status. I am not sure which "|subtopic=" field is most appropriate, though. Any recommendation? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
A few questions on a GA review I'm doing ...
Thanks for feedback - DOCUMENT ★ ERROR 05:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 21:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am reviewing Sahure here and objected that in many cases a whole work is cited without page numbers. The nominator has argued that page numbers are only required for FA, not GA. I think page numbers are needed as otherwise it is difficult or impossible to check references, but I would like confirmation of the GAN requirements. Dudley Miles ( talk) 13:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
One of the current nominees, List of Narcissus horticultural divisions appears to be ineligible for GA since it is a standalone list. I notified the nominator, but I wasn't sure if there was any process for removing the nomination. Fredlyfish4 ( talk) 21:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions about sourcing and reliability related to the review I'm currently doing of Wings (Bonnie Tyler album). I'm more familiar with the FA criteria than I am with GA, and I hope some experienced GA reviewer can help me out here.
First, there are some statements sourced to a TV interview, which as far as I can tell is correctly cited using {{ cite episode}}. I asked how the nominator had been able to access it, and they gave me a url to a Youtube clip of the interview, here. It's clearly the original show, so the fact that it was accessed via YouTube doesn't make it unreliable. But the clip is a copyright violation, and we are not supposed to post links to copyright violations. However, without the link, a reader of the article can't verify the statements sourced to the interview. I think the rules say not to include the link, but would like to get that confirmed.
The second issue is about some statements that are sourced to freecovers.net, which is a member upload site, which makes it not a reliable source. The facts that are being sourced to freecovers.net are not exactly controversial -- the existence of a promotional single CD version of one song is sourced here, for example. Clearly that promo single exists. Since the website includes a picture of the CD cover, can we ignore the fact the site is not an RS in general, and assert that it's good enough for this? Or would it be better, as I suspect, to drop the references to this site, and instead cite the CD single itself -- it may be a primary source, but it's OK to cite a primary source as evidence that something physically exists. You could argue that the lack of mention of this in a secondary source indicates it should not be mentioned in the article but I don't think we need to be that legalistic.
Any opinions would be appreciated. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
For some time, I've wondered why the bot doesn't update my review counts or correctly notify nominators of the review status. I think I've found this happens if you start a review, perform the whole review in a single edit (for The Rambling Man's boat race GAs, this is particularly common), save it, and immediately switch the talk page template from blank to "onhold". If the bot doesn't detect a change from (blank) to "onreview", it doesn't seem to log the review correctly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Where would I put Stuart Scott? User talk:dghavens 23:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been GA reviewing Widener Library for the last week and EEng and I have generally had a productive time working together to improve it. Pretty much the last sticking point now in the review are the citation needed tags left on it. EEng says they're not required to be fixed before passing, I disagree. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The library's [facts] comprise a "labyrinth" which one student "could not enter without feeling that she ought to carry a compass, a sandwich, and a whistle."The article is so full of purple prose that the article which is not encyclopedic so much as it is whimsical. This article is pretty shameful because readers instead get a gushy self-admiring load of trivia and quips that should have been paraphrased or discarded. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 07:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I recently failed Talk:Mud Creek (Chillisquaque Creek)/GA1. The nominator has asked me to keep the nomination open as they are willing to put in significant work to fix it. I've agreed, but I'm not sure how to reopen it -- if I just reinstate the old nomination template and removed the FailedGA template, will that work? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there is a discussion of a GA (and FA) improved by an experienced editor/administrator being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name. Prhartcom ( talk) 16:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I just started reviewing this article which had been queued since last August, only to find with appalling timing that the nominator has just retired. Can anyone else help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I discovered that the article Texan schooner Invincible, which is currently listed as GA, was heavily plagiarized from Handbook of Texas online. I've removed the offending text, but that leaves big content gaps in the article. I'm unsure what the process is at this point for having the GA status removed, so I hope someone here can take care of that. Karanacs ( talk) 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
For some reason I was personally summoned to the review at Talk:Django Unchained/GA1, which seems to be suspect. I think it may need to be recalled for further review.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This can't be the number of times the article has been reviewed for GA status, can it? Popcornduff ( talk) 19:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Can someone review my Josh Walker or Cillian Sheridan - GAN. It has been very long I nominated them. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি ( talk) 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. On the 4th of February, I nominated Sleaford for GA and it was reviewed within an hour by a user with only 16 edits (review: Talk:Sleaford/GA1). He/she has opened the review and states that he/she thinks it is a good article and has made no suggestions for improvement. There must be some issues with the article and I wonder if it might be better for a more experienced editor to either take over or work with him/her to review it. I have suggested they speak to a mentor but I haven't had a response yet. I am aware that the process is an open one in which everyone is able to review, but I am concerned that it might not have been scrutinised as thoroughly as it should be; aside from the issue of maintaining standards, I could do with a thorough review now because I am to take it FA in the future. I am not quite sure what to do in this situation. Thanks, — Noswall59 ( talk) 11:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC).
I have scanned the archives for discussion of the minimum length for articles to be nominated (eg Article size, Long enough for GAs?, Very short articles acceptable?, How short may a GA be? and "Featured short articles" etc) and don't wish to flog a dead horse but.... I have a couple of articles Dunster Butter Cross and Gallox Bridge, Dunster which are very short, but as far as I can ascertain from the sources available are comprehensive. As I was aiming for a "Good Topic" of English Heritage Properties in Somerset (see box below with current status) I asked at FT questions what "audited article of limited subject matter" means and whether I could use this to achieve a good topic? I was told that this was only for lists too short to be FL and that as GAN has no minimum length I should submit them here. Can anyone advise whether a nomination would be possible or how I might expand them for a GA nomination?— Rod talk 21:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Last June I wrote an article James Balfour (died 1845), which I nominated for GA in (I think) early July.
The article was reviewed in October 2014 (see Talk:James_Balfour_(died_1845)/GA1#GA_Review), at a time when I was taking a long wikibreak. It was failed outright, despite the objections of an uninvolved editor.
I have now responded in detail to the review, at Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)/GA1#Reply_to_review, noting my view that the review was multiply flawed. I have left a note for the reviewer ( Jonas Vinther) at their talk page ( User talk:Jonas Vinther#Your_GA_review_of_James_Balfour_.28died_1845.29). However, I see that JV has marked their talk page as "semi-retired".
I have not been in this situation before, and am not sure where to go from here. The note on the article's talk page says "Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake" ... but "reassessment" links to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, which seems to relate solely to considering whether to delist existing good articles.
I think that this article is fairly close to GA status, and would like to get it across the line. What do I do now? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
{{subst:GAN|page=2|subtopic=World history}}
to the top of the article's talk page. I could do the GA review myself, but I am struggling to keep up with three GA reviews at the moment.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems that Socialist Party (Ireland) may meet the criteria. However, I am unable to nominate. Could someone please include it under the "Politics and government" if they agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.248.241 ( talk) 21:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I've just nominated the article Black Creek (Susquehanna River) and I'd like to request that it be reviewed in a fairly timely manner. I normally wouldn't ask for this, but the main source for the article is a library book that I'll only have until March and I want to have the book on hand during the review in case sourcing/factual questions arise. Thanks in advance, -- Jakob ( talk) 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Could we add some text somewhere to the effect that one should not close ongoing reviews by other reviewers unless the reviewer is inactive for a long time. Some people are very strict on closing reviews that look "stale", I am personally against that, as I see no harm or inconvenience in having protracted reviews. In professional academic publishing reviews can last many months, even more than a year. However since some people apparently disagree I do understand that perhaps sometimes there is a need to speed up review processes, but I think this should be done with the active involvement of the reviewer and nominator - unless they are unresponsive. Another reason why third parties should not close other reviewers' reviews is that the GA-bot sends an automated message in the reviewers name with the decision. That should not be done unless the decision is made by the reviewer. When I make a review I enter into a process of dialogue with the nominator and I commit to doing my best in collaborating with the nominator to get the review through the process, regardless of how much time they need to do that. Only if the nominator decides they are unable or unwilling to go through that process with me do I fail the article. If someone else interferes with my review by closing it they break the understanding and agreement I have with the nominator, in effect making me break my word. That is why I take exception to others doing that. I think the very least would be to consult me on my talkpage and give me a specific deadline for when the review should supposedly be closed (which should be based in some kind of policy not just in someone's subjective feeling of when it has taken too long). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/GA2 is way too short and scanty for a satisfactory GA review. It is the first one conducted by Vincent60030 ( talk · contribs), so they probably need some guidance from the team. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Could I suggest that we add a step in the review process, somewhere near the end (possibly after success, or just as a final review point):
{{
WikiProject Trains}}
has |UK-importance=
which is used when |UK=yes
is set; it has several other such pairings. However, it does not have an importance rating that corresponds to |stations=yes
, |locos=yes
and others. There are also some WikIprojects where the main project does not use importance ratings; the biggest of these is {{
WikiProject Military history}}
|importance=
parameter is present - is at all necessary. The importance rating is independent of the class; and indeed, it is set differently between WikiProjects - and intentionally so. A medium-size railway station in the UK might have |UK-importance=mid
but |importance=low
in its {{
WikiProject Trains}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Trains}}
{{
WikiProject Yorkshire}}
and {{
WikiProject Architecture}}
, I can easily assess the |importance=
for Trains, but have no idea of what to assign for the other two - I leave that to members of those projects to decide.{{
talk header}}
: there should be be no requirement for this, since it is not required by
WP:TPL; moreover, that template's doc page states "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page.", and restates that in several different ways. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
20:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
is being run again in March - see Wikipedia:The Core Contest for details. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
An entry at WP:GAN ( Vietnamese Cambodians) has "Error parsing timestamp" in place of the time stamp although the article's talk page seems to be stamped correctly.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone please review my articles/any of my article Cillian Sheridan, Alan Carvalho, George Taft. I would be very much pleased. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি ( talk) 10:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone please review my article Ion Agârbiceanu? Gug01 ( talk) 19:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Never made a request for more people to take a look at Good Topic Candidates here before but hopefully there are people here willing to help review. The oldest nomination has been up since January so its been stalled a bit. The help will be much appreciated. GamerPro64 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The review for this page has been accepted by @ Kai Tak:, however the article is not GA or stable, due to an SPA and likely covert COI @ Intchar*: that keeps adding information that mis-represents or isn't actually supported by the sources, or just adds original research. I brought this up at COIN and the discussion was archived without a response from Intchar or anyone else. I've pinged both @ Drmies: and @ Crisco 1492:, but the editor just restores poor edits after they leave and keeps repeating the same arguments to omit sourced content and add unsourced content in a manner that suggests a COI. Because I myself have a disclosed COI and have been complying with WP:COI, I've been unable to resolve the issue without bold editing for two months now.
I realize GA reviewers don't deal with any of this. So should the review just be rejected? I won't break from WP:COI by doing bold editing and the page is unlikely to meet GA without it, so I don't see it going anywhere. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Further to my comments at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 20#Misuse of Good article, I've just fixed this which had been there for over 8 weeks. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 09:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Luvcookies made 14 GA nominations about 14 hours ago, in addition to 4 nominations made on March 23. The same user has made Wikipedia edits on only two days before the 23rd and 25th: on October 17, 2014, and on February 11, 2015. This is clearly insufficient experience to shepherd a single GA through the process, much less 18 of them.
Luvcookies has also been adding multiple FACs without contacting the article's editors, to the point where Dank has said on the Luvcookies talk page, if you keep doing this, I'm sorry, but I'll have to block your account.
One of the 18 nominations is under review; I think we should revert the other 17 nominations, and request that Luvcookies stop making GA nominations until significantly more Wikipedia experience has been gained. Unless someone objects, I plan to do so in the next few hours. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I will undo what I did on some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvcookies ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it normal for a nominator to dispute a fail by reverting the fail to request a second opinion? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"Holy Christ—look, I'm simply not going to waste my time reading through another wall of text like this. If you have a point to make, find a better way to make it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)"
I'm trying to withdraw as a reviewer of Talk:Norodom Ranariddh/GA1. I don't see in the instructions how to do it. Can someone help? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This review had surprisingly little initial commentary for such a long article, and was written on the reviewer's most recent day editing, now over two months old. The few issues have apparently been addressed by the nominator, but I think that either someone should take on the review and do a thorough check, or that the review be ended as effectively abandoned and the nomination put back into the reviewing pool with its seniority intact. Does anyone want to take it on? BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I am currently reviewing the article for the Catholic Church article, and I have about the proper usage of citations. I asked the question in the criteria section, but I'm not sure if that was the right place to ask. There are a few instances in the article were lists of particular groups/organizations e.g.: Social services. Do the last two paragraphs still need a citation at the end of the paragraph?(I might have a few more questions to ask before this process is over, too...but not now) LeftAire ( talk) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The second GA review of Boeing 787 Dreamliner (done by AlanZhu314159265358979 ( talk · contribs · count), who has made less than 100 edits and created his account last October) seems very short for such a detailed article. I don't oppose his reasons for passing (other than that there are a couple of dead links), but since I'm not very familiar with this process maybe someone else should check it? Jc86035 ( talk • contribs) Use {{ re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It would seem that the nominator is conducting the GA review of this article. Per WP:GAI, "Articles can be ... reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator". What should be done about this? Thanks, C 679 06:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, The gene article still doesn't have an official reviewer. There are a number of editors already working on improving the article ( discussion), but it would be helpful to have someone act as an impartial GA reviewer. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 23:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a lot of clunky prose in this article at the moment, it would probably be better if the article was substantially improved before the GA review actually began. If the prose is that clunky, the article might be failed right off the bat, which I doubt is what you want. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Requesting Admin assistance. Kit Carson/GA2 was closed January 31, 2015, because of unresolved issues. The same editor re-nominated the article again on April 11, and issues have not been resolved. Now the editor has been Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of an editor who has been permanently banned for years. — Maile ( talk) 13:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Today I would like to bring to the attention of the community an article that just today failed GAN, Bikini, and why this article's experience at GAN leads me to believe that the following element of the GA review criteria:
Note that the standard holding time is seven days; however, reviewers can shorten/extend the time limit if they wish.
Needs to be modified.
This article failed its first GA nomination in January of 2014 under the authorship of Azx2 for important structural reasons that were never addressed during the review; nonetheless despite minimal activity on the page I think it is important to point out that long-time reviewer TonyTheTiger started the review on 16 December 2013 and did not finally fail the article until 11 January 2014, a period of just under a month. This is an advisable level of discretion that I have also attempted to practice in my own reviews and have indeed come to expect from my reviewers as well.
For instance, when I reviewed Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles also in January 2014 nominator EnigmaMcmxc stated that "I am currently suffering from the flu. Is it possible for the deadline to be extended by about a week, until I am feeling better and able to work on the recommendations and the article?". My immediate reply was to assure him that "Take what time you need, I've always seen "two weeks" as more a suggestion than a rule." Later on the situation reversed itself; I was unavailable to finish the review and it was Enigma's turn to wait the week that was necessary for me to unbury myself. End result: the article passed GA. Everyone wins.
As you all know, GAN has an enormous and almost consistently-growing backlog of articles to review and as a result a lot of the article that are put up for GA review have been listed for months or more. In the intervening time a lot of things can happen IRL that take an editor's attention away from Wikipedia. Another example: in 2010 Casliber, another superlatively experienced editor, began reviewing my nomination at the time, Davidson Seamount. The original review came down on the 6th of February; my response did not come until the 17th—I had simply not logged into Wikipedia in the intervening time and quite frankly forgotten I had a nomination listed at all! When I "rediscovered" this fact I very nearly did a flip—I felt so lucky to have gotten a reviewer who knew the virtues of patience! The rest of the procedure was short and sweet. End result: article passed GA; everyone wins.
Aditya Kabir had been working to slowly but consistently bring the Bikini article up in quality from shortly after it failed its first GA nomination. In June of 2014 he listed his article for peer review; I reviewed it. All of my points were handled and we've maintained a cordial relationship since then; though I wasn't willing to handle the GA nomination (and didn't think that, having already been involved in a PR, that was advisable) I watched with interest and encouragement (something so rarely seen on here nowadays—but I digress). He finally felt confident enough to nominate the article in November. Between the time that he put it up for review to the time that it was reviewed and placed on hold, exactly three months passed (27 November to 27 February). SNUGGUMS was the reviewer, and an initial comment on the review page was "I don't think there's too many problems".
Then the following exchange occurred, which I strongly believe is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong:
My fellow Wikipedians. This is unacceptable. When an editor who is actively working on a nomination asks for an extension to allow them to continue the work they are doing on the article in question, you don't fail the GAN whilst doling out pity in your failing statement; you ought to have no right to do so; you ought to consider the activity of the editor in question and, gauging the situation, offer whichever length of an extension you deem necessary for the writer to do what they're there to do—improve the encyclopedia. This ought to be the way we operate, and it ought to be what the guidelines say. I don't know how quickly GA reviews were once handled in the past, when this particular element of the nominations procedure was created—perhaps S even felt generous, he had granted twice the allotted time after all—but if an editor has to wait three months for their article to finally be reviewed, the reviewer can wait more than one week for the necessary work to be finished.
I propose that the guidelines on review length be rewritten to better fit what I believe the situation has always been anyway and always ought to be:
Note that there is no standard holding time; reviewers can shorten/extend their time limit as they wish, taking into consideration the level of activity the nomination has generated and whether or not the nominator has asked for an extension given their off-wiki circumstances. The ultimate goal of a good article nomination is a good article—the reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen.
It's furthermore unfair to Kabir that he must wait another expected three months for his article to be reviewed again, and I petition that this review be reopened and the editor given a time extension.
Thank you. Res Mar 01:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The standard holding time is seven days. The reviewer can and should extend this holding time, generally in seven-day increments, if there has been meaningful and substantive progress toward satisfying the Good Article Criteria. In recognition of the project's volunteer nature, nominators' reasonable requests for additional time should also be honored. However, held nominations should be closed as passing or failing within four weeks barring exceptional circumstances.
The reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen.The word "this" has lost its referent, and if what remains would take a month or two to fix, I don't think the reviewer should have to allow so long a time, since the article would have to be in very rough shape to require so much work. I think I'd drop the entire final sentence, not just the first half, but you might want to add another criterion in the sentence that remains (noted by italics): "... taking into consideration the level of activity the nomination has generated, the issues still to be addressed, and whether or not the nominator has asked for an extension given their off-wiki circumstances." BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know the GA procedure on this, but the nominator of The Figurine under Film has been blocked indefinitely. — Maile ( talk) 13:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Like the editor above, I don't know what the exact review procedures are, but the reviewer for Sonny Bill Williams has been blocked indefinitely. As an aside, I find it a bit curious that an IP address with an edit count of three is able to make a GA nomination; who is ever going to follow up if (or rather 'when') the review brings up any issues? As a further aside, may I suggest that the standard GA review form produces a link back to the project page? Schwede 66 05:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Anyone, including unregistered users, can nominate an article...The nominator is the person who listed the article at the Good article nominations page. It is not a special position, does not indicate that the person has had any involvement in improving the article, and the nominator has no duty to participate in the review... the nominator indicates that he or she believes the article to meet the criteria...I agree with you that an IP address with an edit count of three, assuming they have not otherwise more extensively edited under another identity, could not possibly have a grasp of "the criteria". — Maile ( talk) 13:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Just giving a link to the discussion here. Basically, I'm going to have to drop the GAs from the Signpost (and thus Portal:Featured content) if the bot keeps going crazy. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems like twice this weekend, the bot has been hung up on GA reviews, not noting them in the status= box, causing the bot to continually count it without updating the status on the history. It's not a particularly major issue, but it's annoying to have the history making null edits over and over. Can someone either make a note or keep an eye out on this in the future? I'm not really touching GAN anymore so I'd rather not continually fix it if I don't have to. Wizardman 20:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Due to lack of response on the GAR talk page, I'll re-post my query here. I've recently opened a new GAR archive ( number 60) and I wanted to ask whether I did it correctly. Appreciate your advice.-- Retrohead ( talk) 08:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Eric Corbett: had made some comments at Talk:Dunkery Beacon/GA1 which I was addressing and then I received a message saying it had been failed. I think this is because I moved the article from Dunkery Beacon to Dunkery Hill (at his suggestion). The nomination list now points to a discussion at Talk:Dunkery Hill/GA1 which obviously doesn't exist. What should I have done/how can I fix this?— Rod talk 19:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Currently, I intend to close Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/British Bangladeshi/1 as no consensus. For really obvious GA flaws, I delist them if there is no opposition, and I don't think it applies in this case. Are up to date numbers that important to a GA? I understand it's usually more laxed for sales figures due to reasons like lack of available resources, but how about population numbers? Thanks. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 07:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I just tagged a talk page with {{subst:GAR}} and in the first paragraph, last sentence ("To start your reassessment you need to create this subpage (i.e., Talk:Impalement/GA3), and that is the purpose of the edit box below."), in italics "Please report any problems on the Good article nominations talk page" covers the "...box below." part. 96.52.0.249 ( talk) 23:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, does there any way, a tool or something like that through which I can identify dead reference links in an article? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি ( talk) 17:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Miri, Malaysia looks like it's about to be passed despite what I believe are quite clear deficiencies in prose and some problems with its organisation. I have left a notice at the review page and politely asked the reviewer to take a closer look. I am not going to be around enough over the next few days to go over it in detail, so I've recommended that the nominator take it to the guild of copy-editors and suggested that it's not quite ready to pass yet. I thought I would notify people here in case anyone would like to take a look. Kind regards, — Noswall59 ( talk) 15:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC).
Hi, due to time issues I cannot complete the reviews of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire and Škabrnja massacre. I would be very happy if anyone can do it on my behalf. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি ( talk) 08:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Argo (2012 film) was nominated in good faith by User:Captain_Assassin! and I've just started the review. However, I just noticed that the nominator has not contributed significantly to the article ( three edits) and his major contribution to the topic consists of splitting out the accolades section into a new article. I prefer to review articles by significant contributors and/or people who are familiar with the subject. I'm afraid that this review may require some work that the nominator may not be able to do. What are the current guidelines on how to proceed? Viriditas ( talk) 22:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If I edit a page that contains {{
WikiProject Video Games}}
, such as
Talk:Amplitude Studios, the "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" list at the bottom of the page has about a dozen redlinks. They are all GA review pages, for example
Talk:Angry Video Game Nerd/GA1,
Talk:Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto IV/GA1,
Talk:Development of The Last of Us/GA1 etc. Why are these being transcluded to a page which is nothing to do with any of those GA noms? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Currently, newly promoted GAs are eligible for DYK. There is currently a discussion at RFC DYK process improvement 2015. This is a solicitation for suggestions to streamline the DYK process in order that fewer errors appear on the main page. — Maile ( talk) 15:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
— Calvin999 18:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. The current reviewer of the gene article ( User:ヒストリ案) put themselves forwards as reviewer by accident (I think intending to leave a normal talk page comment). Is it possible to reset the process so that a new editor can put themselves forwards? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 12:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it better to select a subtopic which is a poor fit to the contents of an article, or make one up which is a good fit? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The StatisticianBot that refreshes the GAN reports page hasn't run since Thursday, and the bot owner recommends using email to request repairs or restarts or the like. Since I don't use Wikipedia email myself, I thought maybe someone here could email a request to get the bot running again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
With the Labs problems now into their second day, many bots (including Legobot) and tools (like the Copyvio and Duplication detectors) are down, and cannot be restarted until fixes have been completed. So if new nominations, reviews, holds, passes, and failures aren't showing up, it's because Legobot isn't able to be restarted yet. They don't yet have an estimated restoration time for Labs. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:06, 19 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 had a review "On hold", and Legobot took it off 13 minutes later. What is going on? — Maile ( talk) 15:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It keeps on telling "New 1984 European Super Cup (sports and recreation)" in every edit, while nothing really happens with this article. Kareldorado ( talk) 11:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'm here to ask if someone else can takeover with the article and finish the review or pass it along to someone else. I had some things come up and was unable to tackle the review like I wanted. I'm very sorry I couldn't obtain the materials needed to finish the review. I should only aim to tackle articles that I can finish reviewing properly. Please respond as soon as you can. Please. Thanks for reading. LeftAire ( talk) 19:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please could someone with experience in GA reviewing please cast their eye over at Talk:Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1. The reviewer alone has admitted to only being familiar with doing FA reviews, yet they still conduct a FA-style review, using FA criteria, on a GA nomination. I find this somewhat bizarre, and the finickiness of the reviewer is just petty. For example, stating that the bolding of the article title in the opening line is not permitted. Suggesting that we should change the terms "contest" to "race". Not a clue what they mean by "Easter egg link" when it comes to linking to yearly terms. Telling us not to "shout" in ref titles. It is not our fault if the website uses capitalised headlines. And they also asked us "what happened after the tour". How the hell are we to know, if no sources are published about what happened back-stage. And he also has threatened to "fail the review" if a second opinion request is submitted. That is just down-right childish and tantrum-like behaviour.
Talk:Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1 which had a review a mere few days prior, is written in the same style, and was passed easily. The reviewer of that GAN carried out their style using the GA criteria, and they were more helpful when asked a question. This reviewer for the Netherlands article however, is just not being helpful, he assuming everyone knows everything, expects everyone to know where "phrases" are within the article that need to be changed by using "cmd-F" (something that even I didn't know could be done, be he assumed I MUST have known), rather than point them out. So please, could someone take a look and intervene and re-review if necessary. Thank you. Wes Mouse | T@lk 10:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I have appropriately requested a 2nd Opinion on the talk page and explained on Talk:Leni Riefenstahl/GA1. I would appreciate the 2nd opinion coming from an editor who has much experience on GAN. The article evolved as patchwork, and correcting it with a little adjustment here and there isn't going to help much. I've literally been going through sentence by sentence, source by source, because so much is unreliable. This is Day 2 of doing that, and I'm not at the end. But in fairness to the nominator, I've asked for a second set of eyes on this. — Maile ( talk) 22:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the article Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum is ready for GA nomination but I am unsure which topic to put it under. It is more about engineering technology than the building so it could go under "Engineering and technology" however I note that British Engineerium covering similar areas is under "Art and architecture". Any advice appreciated.— Rod talk 08:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The GA review has been abandoned for almost two months now and the reviewer is unresponsive. Is there a way to get it back into the queue for review? CorporateM ( Talk) 06:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a small attempt at outreach from one of the Featured Article guys ... I suggested this a few weeks back at WT:FAC and no one objected. What I'm looking for is a good writer who's familiar with Good Article standards to write some of the Today's Featured Article columns, maybe two per month. FAC experience is not required; I can help with FAC stuff, if necessary. For anyone who wants to apply for the job (here or on my talk page), take a look at the Today's Featured Article columns for this month at WP:TFAA, and compare those with the article leads ... if you're thinking "yeah, I see what's going on here, I could do that", then I'll give you some leads to play around with and we'll see how it goes. Part of what I'm hoping for here is that people who usually don't venture over to FAC might get an in-depth look at one small part of the process, and maybe that will humanize it and demystify it a bit. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if and when someone has a spare moment, if they could kindly have a look at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1. The nomination was made almost 8 months ago, and the reviewer started to review; I carried out the proposed changes. The user then said they are going to pass the review, but nothing else has happened. The article talk page hasn't been updated and all the other loose ends that need tying up as part of the review closure. I have pinged the reviewer, and they have been active since I left that ping. But alas still nothing has happened. The user has got a GA Cup submissions page with points added, yet the review has still not been closed down properly. Thanks in advance. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
IndianBio began the GA review of Dreaming of You (Selena song) and believed that the majority of what makes up the lead is undue weight. I was told in my earlier days on Wikipedia that as a rule of thumb, I should incorporate a little of something for every section used in one article for the lead; this is how I have done my leads for every article I have helped or wrote on my own. He ended his first part of the review with "will the article be worth it?", which I believe he may fail the article based on the lead alone. I asked him if he can step down and allow someone else to review the article since he didn't really care to review it anyways (despite his constant activity on Wikipedia since the 6 June start of the review). He has since replied "Nope" in the edit summary. Am I in the wrong here or am I right to be worried that IndianBio is not taking his reviewing seriously. Best, jona (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello all. It appears that I have inadvertently offended the GAN nominator(s) of negative resistance by trying to request at least some adherence to the WP:OVERCITE essay. Essays are just guidelines, and WP:OVERCITE is not in WP:WIAGA, but in my opinion, there are limits to how much leeway any given article has in such matters.
WP:OVERCITE states: "A good rule of thumb is that, except for certain controversial topics, one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient. Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should usually be avoided; if more than three are truly beneficial as an additional range, consider WP:Bundling (merging) the citations."
The article negative resistance has the following count of cites per assertion (totals may be off by one; I banged this out in a hurry):
I admit that I am not qualified to judge the topic domain well enough to judge whether all the instances with more than one cite are controversial, but offhand I doubt it. examples follow:
So the question is, should I completely drop my request that the nominator(s) thin the cites? Many thanks for your time and trouble. • Lingzhi♦ (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
My objection to the reviewer was not that the issue of overciting had been raised. Nor do I approve of overciting. Rather, my problem was his declaration that he would not pass the article over a non-GA issue ("I could not personally pass one with this issue") and an apparent desire to impose a higher standard than the GA criteria ("[t]he goal is to work this article up to something near-ish academic standards").
Since he has chosen to open a new thread here rather than reply to the one I started on the main talk page (did I post in the wrong place?) I will repost my comment below and close the other thread. Spinning Spark 07:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have passed Piotr Skarga but in the GA history it says I have failed it. Have I done something wrong? Should I have deleted the previous failure from the article talk page? Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
By making a comment at Talk:Gamergate controversy/GA1 I have unintentionally been marked as the reviewer. Can this be fixed, please? - Sitush ( talk) 13:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: I could just remove my name but I'm unsure how it might affect transclusions etc. - Sitush ( talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
My nomination of Neepaulakating Creek at Talk:Neepaulakating Creek/GA1 needs a second opinion, or possibly a new reviewer. I think Jakec is reviewing the article based more on personal subjective demands of article content at the expense of actually judging the article on the GA criteria. He is presently stuck on insisting on information that doesnt exist. I've pointed out this isn't an FAC and the standard, per WP:WIAGA is not one of comprehensiveness. He's intimated that my article is too short for a GA although there is no size requirement. I can't add certain information to an article if no information or no reliable sources for such information exists, and he thinks that flaw justifies his belief that some articles aren't GA worthy, despite all other extant major aspects being addressed. SECOND OPINION OR NEW REVIEWER REQUESTED. JackTheVicar ( talk) 17:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: A second opinion has been offered, and the last few days the reviewer (User:Jakec aka Jakob) who was insisting on his personal prefernces beyond the GA criteria seems to have just given up, picked up his toys and gone home. He has proceeded to ignore his obligations to complete the review. He has been on-wiki doing work, but none of it would prevent him from completing the review. For some pointy reason hasn't been back to finish what he started....after walking off with a cavalier "you pass it, I don't care". Finish the review Jakob, or pass it to a new reviewer. JackTheVicar ( talk) 18:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
G'day, apologies if this has been asked before, but shouldn't "Warfare" be a subtopic of "History"? Currently, the History topic has "World history" and "Royalty, nobility and heraldry" as subtopics, but I would see "Warfare" (which currently has its own topic towards the bottom of the GAN page) as a subtopic of History also (there certainly seems to be cross over at least). Obviously, this isn't a major issue, but I thought I'd ask (if only to satisfy my own curiosity). Thoughts? AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Article was nominated by @ RightCowLeftCoast: in June. I began the review here in early July, however almost a month has passed without any response even after directly notifying the nominator on their Talk page. What do we do with abandoned nominations? CorporateM ( Talk) 17:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can someone experienced please review these two articles ( Earl Warren and Chris Christie) that I've nominated for GA and worked on to see if they meet the criteria? I know that things can get backlogged for as much as 3 months, and I'm mentioning this here so it doesn't happen here. Thank you. Spaghetti07205 ( talk) 18:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I was very surprised to see the article as GA-rated. A few excerpts include:
Also, it has an alarming number of citations to press release and the article-subject's own website, even given that a couple cites to summarize corporate structure might be ok.
Because I have a potential COI, I'm not comfortable sending it to GAR myself or performing the necessary cleanup and trimming, but I thought I would drop a line here and flag it. It was GA reviewed several years ago, so our standards were probably not as high back then. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
You may recall I asked last month for someone to help regularly with Today's Featured Article. Biblioworm stepped up, with great results so far. While I'm here ... I'm copyediting yet another mushroom lead for TFA today. Before our readership starts to wonder about our phallic obsession, it would be really nice to get more variation among the articles at FAC. FAC isn't that bad, there's just more work to do than one person typically wants to do ... but if you're interested in taking your GAs to FAC, you can use that fact to your advantage: regular FAC nominators are usually delighted if someone offers to help out. And if you do that, maybe they'll help you get your articles through FAC as well. Of course, some articles are actually better as GAs than as FAs, if you prefer your articles "broad" rather than "comprehensive", I'm not saying FAs are superior ... but more people read about FAs, in the Signpost and on the Main Page. Let me know if I can help, if you're interested. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Some Gadget Geek delisted the Windows RT article without allowing any time for other editors to respond. Some Gadget Geek also did not add the {{ ArticleHistory}} template to the article talk page after delisting the article. The GAR is at Talk:Windows RT/GA2. What should be done in this situation? sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 12:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking for a second opinion (or third, or fourth) at Talk:Paulo Francis/GA4. If you are willing to help, please do! Wugapodes ( talk) 02:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Between 03:57 and 08:25, new Wikipedia editor Tortle nominated 18 articles for GAN (one of which was later rescinded), and opened five GA reviews, three of which were listed (two without any comment whatever). The reviews are:
Tortle's first two edits were eight days ago, on August 18; it was as user Eheu!, requesting to usurp the Tortle username (first edit was on the Tortle username's talk page, since usurped, and the second edit was to formally submit that request, saying I would like to change my username because I dont like having the exclamation point in mine now and want a more simple one.
This despite the fact that the account had been created mere hours before. The usurpation was processed late on August 22, and edits recommenced on August 23. The flood of nominations and reviews started three days later.
I have reverted all the GANs that Tortle submitted: Tortle had not edited any of them, nor contacted significant editors on any of them. While the bulk were technical, they also included Microsoft, Apple Inc. and Wikipedia.
I will be pre-emptively reverting the Boeing717 GA listing: no comment at all, nothing from the nominator, no reason not to. I'll request that the review page be speedy deleted. My inclination would be to revert the other two GA listings, Ayrshire cattle and Agar.io, since it's clear this editor is not yet equipped to give a valid review, and put the nominations back in the reviewing pool without a loss of seniority. If this had been an isolated review, then perhaps a reassessment would have been in order, but this was too extensive for that; we've generally reverted in the past when this level of damage has been done. The remaining incomplete reviews, iPhone 5S and Bernie Sanders, would be terminated and also put back into the reviewing pool with the same retention of seniority.
This has been a severe disruption to the GA process, even if not intended. I would like to propose that Tortle be required to refrain from nominating any articles for GA and opening any GA reviews for at least three months, and only allowed to resume reviewing and nominating one article at a time thereafter, and only with a mentor in place. Further loosening of the restrictions can certainly happen once Tortle has demonstrated competence in these areas. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think a good compromise would be to watch me close the iphone and bernie sanders requests with the new input you have all given me and lets see how I handle these. If you think I am handling them wrong, give input as the process progresses and you can always relist it if things get extremely out of hand which they most likely wont. Tortle ( talk) 18:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Prhartcom, I think I will work on improving and nominating one, I appreciate it and I am sorry for the disruption I caused. Tortle ( talk) 21:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I have a couple of articles I began reviews on, but have put on hold. How long do they stay on hold? Onel5969 TT me 02:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a serious discussion about redesigning the Main Page at the link. Two things I take away from this discussion: 1. People have no problems with the Today's Featured Article segment or with its position in the first slot, which means TFA is probably creating some good publicity for WP:FAC in general, and 2. Many people are less than happy with the quality of the WP:DYK articles. So, couldn't we kill 4 or 5 birds with one stone by creating a Today's Good Article section? I'd be happy to try to get a team together that would work on the daily text, if that would help. There are lots of potential problems ... but WP:TFA runs pretty smoothly, which gives me hope that a hypothetical WP:TGA would run smoothly too. If anyone wants to discuss this ... now would be the time, we haven't had a big redesign of the Main Page in many years. Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, User:Hijiri88 here. Posting logged-out because I'm afraid of yet more harassment if I post this logged-in.
I recently posted a comment on a GA review that had passed a few days earlier, but in my opinion had failed to adequately analyze the article's sourcing (it is presently classified as a GA, but has obvious sourcing problems, in at least one case obviously misrepresents its source, and also contains at least one instance of SYNTH). I was under the impression that pages/sections in the Talk namespace that don't specifically state either that they are closed or that posting is forbidden were still open for comment.
I was reverted shortly thereafter. I am not sure how to deal with this: if my somewhat-too-late comment was a violation of some guideline of which I am not aware, then I guess reverting me was acceptable, but if my comment was allowed, then the other user removing it was a violation of talk page etiquette. (Ironically enough, the same user posted in an overdue-to-be-closed ANI thread. Twice.)
Was my comment a violation? Should I have just put in a reassessment request instead?
180.221.235.82 ( talk) 17:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Wyangala was assessed on October 19, 2014 by User:JSwho, a user apparently created for that purpose, given an almost total lack of edit history other than the review. He made no other edits, and yet reviewed and passed an article on his first "day" here. He indicated he was not a new user, but did not disclose who he was. The account then went dormant until yesterday. This could be "good hand bad hand"-type editing, so I think in all fairness, an established reviewer needs to reassess this article. MSJapan ( talk) 22:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Albert Einstein had a son named spencer einstein and he was the best at a lot of sports baseball, football and basketball. I herd that he was the coolest kid ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.144.210 ( talk) 16:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
If you have delisted the same article before, are a major contributor, or delisting could be seen as controversial consider requesting a community reassessment.Basically, someone who is "involved" (such as a major contributor) or unable/unwilling to do the review leaves it to the community to make the determination. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, a cursory lookover indicates it is missing citations in several places where GA claims they are needed. There's a lot of "paragraph-level" citation that might as well be copied verbatim from the books if it's really only from one page. MSJapan ( talk) 17:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron's declaration that he intends to list this article if the issues he raised are fixed, disagreeing with all of the problems I noted last week—some factual, violations of WP:LEAD, unclear prose, and so on—is a clear indication that he is currently unfit to review at GAN. There have been issues since his first reviews here that reflect a failure to fundamentally understand the GA criteria.
LavaBaron and I have not seen eye to eye—he's currently banned me from his talk page—but on my side it has always been concern that he doesn't adequately understand the GA process or what the criteria ask for. He's amply demonstrated my concerns are valid. His current GA nominations are further evidence of this: Leschi (fireboat), Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances, and Coast Guard City are none of them ready, with some fundamental criteria unmet. A quick check shows that both Leschi and Washington Doctrine have very short leads that do not summarize the article and neither meets the MOS layout requirements, Coast Guard City again has lead issues, is quite short overall, and fails to meet the broadness criteria (indeed, this is practically a list, and might not be eligible for GA at all). His Trevor Kincaid might fare better, but one out of four is not an adequate showing.
His lack of understanding also extends to Featured Articles and A-class reviews: Coast Guard City was simultaneously nominated for GAN and an
A-class review with the statement I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the A-Class criteria
(it was far from doing so), and he changed his GAN for
First interracial kiss on television to make it a
Featured Article Candidate instead, saying on the page there that it was a short but comprehensive and exhaustively sourced article
(it was described there as "little more than a stub" and "fails most of the FA criteria").
With regret, I ask that LavaBaron either be restricted to reviewing GAs only under the guidance of a mentor whose agreement must be obtained before the review is either passed or failed, or be asked to refrain from reviewing until he can demonstrate competence by nominating articles that are actually GA-ready. And that both of his current GANs (the other is Talk:Bozh/GA1) not be closed until a decision is made here. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This user appears to have left the site, leaving five GA reviews open in various states:
Hopefully someone can continue the reviews that are open, and maybe the two that haven't even been started can be reverted? Harrias talk 08:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
YohanN7 opened this review by mistake, merely hoping to comment on an existing review. When I queried his talk page, he said, Best is if someone else can take over, since I will not be here much in the near future.
Can someone please take over the review?
GA Cup folks ( 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo), since no review has been done as yet, would this count as a new review for the purposes of the GA Cup? That might help attract a reviewer more quickly. It was originally nominated on August 9. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Though I am glad someone took the time to begin a review of one of my articles, however Azealia911 quick failed my GA nomination. In it, the user says that the article qualify's for a quick fail based on immediate failures because of "some really large referencing issues towards the end of the article"; what referencing issues might those be? The user fails to answer this in their review of the article but does state that there's not even one source for the filmography section (which can easily been retrieved since the content was taken from IMDB) but earlier said it would take more than a week to address that and "other" issues. In the user's contributions, it takes him several minutes to write a review for a Mariah Carey article shortly after commenting on a FAC article, but takes him five hours to write a one short paragraph for a lengthy article. If I had five hours to do a review I would have wrote down my thoughts on the article, not simply quick fail based on referencing and not specifically go into detail about what those might be. I don't mind criticism (that's what GAN is for), but I expect a detail review on an article I spent some time expanding and researching on. Best, jona (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I've actually done nothing wrong, thankyou very much. Point one of the immediate failures is "It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid or needs new cleanup banners." Are you telling me a {{ Unreferenced section}} didn't need to be added to the Filmography section? Azealia911 talk 20:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
As much as I'd rather this just go away, have the article re-assessed by someone, and we all move on with our lives, I'm not going to be repeatedly ridiculed and called out for doing something perfectly in my rights. "It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid or needs new cleanup banners" is grounds for immediate failure, which means "An article can be failed without further review". At the time I reviewed the article, it needed an {{
Unreferenced section}} template in the Filmography section, and actually still needs one. Could you have addressed the issue in seven days? Quite possibly, but the decision to fail the article lies with the reviewer, not the nominator. You may have not liked my review, but calling it poor, incompetent, incomplete and unprofessional is completely uncalled for when I did nothing more than review the article against criteria page. Also, "since been asked to stop and reexamine what a good GA reviewer is, which he agreed he should do.
" is false, I never agreed to do anything.
Azealia911
talk
18:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to AJona1992 for improving and nominating this article; keep up the good work! Thanks to Azealia911 for the professional review; please continue to review articles here at Wikipedia. And thanks also to Freikorp for picking up the review. The Quick fail section of the GA Criteria page needs to be slightly improved. It was used to justify this kind of issue, so I have made an improvement that now clarifies when to quick fail. By touching on the roles of both the nominator and the reviewer, the section now brings a little more accountability to both roles. Hopefully, we will keep this kind of issue from happening again in the near future. Since all of us would have preferred to have seen this issue turn out differently, I do not believe anyone is to blame. Best, Prhartcom ( talk) 21:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This individual reassessment was opened by an editor who had prior edits to the article. The review was started two months ago, but the reviewer immediately delisted and tag-bombed the article after posting the issues to be solved, without notifying major contributors to the article and relevant WikiProjects (e.g. WP:SWIFT). The delisting and tag-bombing has been reverted. How should this be handled? ⛅ ✈ 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Links to GA review subpages clearly already have a GA Reviewer, subpage link says discuss review and not start review, but for a lot of them it's lacking the note below it saying Review: this article is being reviewed .
Any ideas on how to fix this?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 04:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
When I tried to contact the nominating editor for Akira Kurosawa (he nominated the article for GA in Media section) last week, there was no reply since then from that editor. Could someone update the status of the nomination when there is no reply from the nominating editor. MusicAngels ( talk) 20:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
What's wrong with this picture?
I left some comments at their user talk page, could use some feedback from others, as well.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 02:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Messers Run/GA1 was just reviewed by someone who made a series of bizarrely inaccurate, irrelevant to GA, and unaddressable comments. I initially used the 2nd opinion template, but it seems that that's for reviewers, not nominators. So can someone who knows what they're doing please step in and review? Thanks. -- Jakob ( talk) aka Jakec 12:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Pope Francis/GA2 - by the same reviewer, who seems to have very limited edits of their own. I would suggest this review be taken over by someone else. — Maile ( talk) 13:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Japanese Committee on Trade and Information/GA1 - Here's another one by the same reviewer. — Maile ( talk) 13:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I have left the reviewer a message on their Talk page. — Maile ( talk) 13:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
May I ask for the deletion of the page Talk:Pope Francis/GA2? The user that made the minimal review accepted his mistake here. It may be more simple if we take it back to a nomination awaiting reviews. Cambalachero ( talk) 17:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
As I did a year ago, I've had my students develop several articles on Shakespeare's sonnets for GA status. Last year, one of our articles successfully achieved this status ( Sonnet 86). If GA reviewers feel so inclined, I invite them to expedite the reviewing of our nominations. Also, as a note, whether students pass or fail is not a significant part of their grade, so no pressure on that end. Thank you! Westhaddon ( talk) 21:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Darejan Dadiani/GA1 - The reviewer who opened the template is an active editor. However after stating the intent to review on August 26, nothing was ever done with the review. — Maile ( talk) 16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Qubool Hai was recently reviewed and passed GA status by Derevation in an extremely cursory review. They've nominated other articles that aren't even close to ready for a GA (a film article on a just released film with no plot section?). The writing is stilted at times, references need substantial cleaning and other issues. There's also some concern because this user and Digvijay411 seem to have traded cursory GA reviews (see Karanvir Bohra, which was reverted). The user hasn't responded to questions given to them and from experience they aren't likely to respond. Derevation also commented Talk:Shreya Ghoshal/GA1 on another GA review in a cursory manner and when challenged on their Qubool Hai review responded very defensively. An independent review would be helpful here. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Chittagong/GA1 - This template was opened by a new (2015) editor who added two sentences on August 7 and never returned. There is an August 8 "Attention Nominator" note on the template by someone else, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with specifics. — Maile ( talk) 16:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
What is the fuss with the mass nomination of sonnet articles at WP:GAN#LIT? Can anyone take a look at them? Possible WP:ASSIGN? sst ✈ 09:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
After writing 50 Good Articles, I've never received a GA review quite like this: Talk:Webster Sycamore/GA1. I didn't even have an opportunity to respond to the reviewer's comments before it was failed. Can someone recommend a course of action that is available to me after receiving a review such as this? I guess I can always resubmit, but I'm a bit perplexed. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Please review and discuss here. Thank you. – Grondemar 23:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Zahamena National Park/GA1 - The review template was opened Sept 1, 2015, but no review was ever done. That reviewer has been inactive since that date. This was nominated on June 4 by @ Lemurbaby:. Is there any process to cancel an abandoned review and leave it for a new reviewer? — Maile ( talk) 16:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I've left a note at User_talk:Derevation#Please_stop_nominating_to_GA_and_reviewing_at_GA.
This user has been nominating articles to WP:GAN that clearly fail the WP:WIAGA quick-fail criteria.
In addition, the user has been taking on reviews, and then issuing sub-par, one-line-in-total poor reviews, which requires wasted time to clean up and correct.
I've asked the user not to nominate or review GA candidates until they read some more pages about site policy.
Would appreciate some additional eyes on this.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 11:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I just nominated the Pamplin College of Business for Good article status. Huskers110110 ( talk) 18:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I just nominated the Emergency Management Institute for Good article status. Huskers110110 ( talk) 19:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I just nominated the Defense Acquisition University for Good article status. Huskers110110 ( talk) 19:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
May I ask for the deletion of Talk:Pope Francis/GA2, so that it is open for reviews? Someone made a basic and minimal review, which was rejected for it, and the reviewer accepted his mistake. See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 21#2nd opinion request Cambalachero ( talk) 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed that the 2002 FA Cup Final article has been approved as GA on the basis of a very minimal and, in my view, inadequate review. What is the correct cause of action to address this ? -- Wolbo ( talk) 21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't reviewers strive to review nominations which are older and have been waiting a while over reviewing newer ones? I just noticed that Jaguar opened a review for Frank Sinatra nominated by Dr. Blofeld nine minutes after Dr. Blofeld nominated it. Some articles have been waiting weeks, if not months, for a review. — Calvin999 17:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that Lawrence Lessig has been listed under Computing and engineering. This seems entirely inappropriate to me. Although he has been a campaigner on some internet issues, he is not an engineer and would fit better under Law or Politics and government. However, I'm not sure about the mechanics, or the propriety, of moving the listing. Spinning Spark 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi folks, could you please nominate " Change the World" for a Good article for me. I'm usually working on German Wikipedia, but worked so hard for the last week or so on the English "Change the World" article, I think it deserves a Good article feature. Thank you very much. Regards, -- Matthiasberoli ( talk) 11:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there an overview of what Legobot will and won't do for you related to GA reviews? For a bit there I was hopeful that I as a reviewer could lean back and just update the GAN template on the article talk page and Legobot would take care of all the housekeeping elsewhere (i.e. update status on WP:GAN and notify nominators etc.); but based on my last couple of reviews there seem to be at least some cases that it doesn't cover, and which I've not quite managed to nail down. Is there a description anywhere of what it does and doesn't do, and any limitations that may apply (e.g. if the bot's input feed is lossy so it might miss things sometimes, or if it's finicky about formats of various things or the order in which things are done, etc.)? A quick scan of the GA-related pages and the bot's user page / BAG-request didn't turn up anything, but that may just be me being blind. Anyone? Legoktm? -- Xover ( talk) 09:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to post an update regarding this. I spoke to Lego on IRC today and there is definitely a problem. Lego believes that it has to do with one of the many many templates that Legobot monitors. Small changes in the templates can throw off the bot and cause the automated process to fail. Lego said that he is going to do some debugging this weekend to try to find the problem. Until then...
Attention reviewers: Please look back at the GAs that you passed in the past few weeks or so. Legobot has not been recognizing the successful GA nominations and has not added the GA top icon to the page. Perhaps this note should be added to the top of the GA nomination list in the meantime? -- Stabila711 ( talk) 06:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not reviewing this article, nor did I nominate it, but it seems the reviewer has been inactive for awhile now with this. The review started in July and all comments have been addressed since September, so is it possible that this article could have a new reviewer so it can be finally finished? Burklemore1 ( talk) 10:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Nominations by User:JackTheVicar, blocked indefinitely on Oct 31 as a sock. He also started a review of a nomination, as listed below.
Does GA have a process to handle this? — Maile ( talk) 17:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
By my count, I had reviewed 17 GA nominations, with the last one being 18. This last one when I opened that GA review template, and the Legobot posted on the Nominations page that I'd be reviewing it, the bot said I had reviewed 25 GAC. Somewhere along the line, it counted 8 reviews I didn't know I did. Perhaps I commented on 8 somewhere? I only nominated 4 for GAC under my name, so that still doesn't account for the extra numbers. Is there a tool somewhere that I can check my GA reviews by title? — Maile ( talk) 21:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking for opinions on the importance of the use of summary style, particularly in regards to criterion 3b: "Broad in its coverage: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." At least one user, who may not be all that familiar with the review process to begin with, seems to think that summary style is more or less voluntary because it's a guideline not a policy. How do I communicate the importance of this criterion in the review? Viriditas ( talk) 20:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It's now come to my attention that the article was not nominated by the primary author but by another editor, which gives me a bit more insight into what's going on here. Viriditas ( talk) 20:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Would someone familiar with the GA criteria please take a look at this? The GA reviewer is a fairly new account, and I think a second opinion may be ideal. Thank you. sst✈ discuss 17:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to retract a GAN pre-review? I do have one nomination that after reflection isn't suitable for GA yet but hasn't been reviewed so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I ran into a disagreement with the reviewer. Asked for a new reviewer. Instead of using the 2nd opinion option, he failed the GA. Now I have to wait 3-6 months again. What am I supposed to do? -- Jakob ( talk) aka Jakec 20:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried to nominate 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team the other night, but the nomination hasn't appeared on GAN yet. After checking and re-checking the article's talk page, I can't see what I did wrong. I am an infrequent nominator at GAN, so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a step somewhere. Any attempts to clean up my mess would be appreciated. Thanks. Giants2008 ( Talk) 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Recently we have a bunch of socks who have been nominating various subpar articles for FA/FL/GA status without majorly working on them. All socks are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TekkenJinKazama. The socks seem to be infecting entertainment related page majorly. Hence requesting all reviewers to do a basic background check of the nominator, their edit histories related to the nomination page, etc. before starting the review and wasting your time. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 05:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, a second opinion has been requested at Talk:Electromagnetic articulography. Would anyone be willing to take a look at it? Wugapodes ( talk) 05:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Joan Lindsay/GA1 I'm a little uncertain of whether or not to let the two images of Joan Lindsay pass. I'm unfamiliar with copyright law in Australia. Would someone please give their input on the template? — Maile ( talk) 21:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Porcupine (Cheyenne)/GA1 2nd opinion requested. — Maile ( talk) 13:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The article bicycle kick has been on the list for GA review for a few months. It is the fourth article that I have submitted for GA nomination. Recently, the user Alpinu began to edit the article inappropriately and also began to raise questions of non-neutrality in the article's talk page—the questions have been addressed, albeit apparently not to Alpinu's satisfaction. There was also strange behavior through IP edits, which have been reported to administrators (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alpinu). The user has now initiated a GA review of the article, despite never having shown experience with the process in the English Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, the "review" he has presented is not really a review (see Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1), but again the same POV-pushing from the talk page. This goes against WP:GAMING. I kindly request that this GA review by Alpinu be removed and that the article be examined by an editor that does not have an ax to grind on this subject. Thanks.-- MarshalN20 Talk 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
In my talk page, the GA Review bot wrote that the process would take "up to 7 days." The GA Instructions page points out that the review can be completed in about 7 days. It has been well over seven days, and the Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1 continues being anything but a review that addresses the GA criteria standards. It is clear that the "reviewer," the user Alpinu, created the GA page solely to sabotage the article's chances of achieving GA status. This article has been waiting for a dedicated reviewer for various months, and it would be unfair for it to be dismissed at this point. Therefore, I kindly request that the bicycle kick review be taken up by a different user or that the current review be deleted (or archived) and that the article get placed in its prior spot in the GA waiting line. Thank you very much.-- MarshalN20 Talk 15:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi folks, am going to run this competition in January. see Wikipedia:Take the lead!. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this is the first time I've posted here. I'm bringing this as a general issue as I have seen this recently on two GAs for articles on TV episodes nominated at "Did You Know". I'm going to use an example here but its not against any particular editor/ article but I do want to just discuss/mention/propose/remind best practice and maybe this point will improve.
What is happening here is that a reference, in an article, is given to someone else's work correctly. The user is directed to look at say...(Reference. x: Rob Thomas's DVD commentary Veronica Mars: The Complete Third Season) but then the url is not assigned correctly but directed to another wiki article (try it?). This is interfering with what the reader wants. They click to find the source and to see the work done by Rob Thomas but they are redirected back to Wikipedia (annoying on other sites and here). If we have no url then we should just leave it blank. This has been fixed on the article in question, but I thought I'd raise it here as it I have seen it twice on new GAs recently. Thanks for listening to this. Victuallers ( talk) 13:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned about SNUGGUMS' insistence that Talk:Genesis (band)/GA1 must be wrapped up within 7 days, no ifs no buts. I am perfectly fine with closing out a review as "time up - not listed" if little or no work has been done in the standard allocated time, but when a substantial effort has gone into improving the article and the reviewer also admits is not far off passing bar a few critical issues, it seems counter-productive to impose a hard deadline on it. In particular, the reviewer took over 6 weeks to complete the original review, yet I did not complain about that. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I was inspired to write an essay with ideas to improve the next GA Cup competitions to better encourage greater reduction of the GAN backlog. You can see the essay here. I appreciate any feedback given. Thanks! – Grondemar 06:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Last week I submitted Morning/Evening for GA review, but it has not been added to the list at WP:GAN#Albums. Did I do something wrong? I think perhaps the forward slash in the page title might have caused the issue. Any ideas? Thanks! — sparklism hey! 09:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In case editors here haven't already seen it, there's an issue involving sockpuppetry that may affect the validity of several recent GA nominations. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Numerounovedant. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I can't remember the last time LegoBot actually marked a GA review as passed on this page and delivered a "Your GA review has passed, well done, have 1,000 vestal virgins and a bag of nuts" (or something like that, I forget...) message to the nominator's talk page. The latest example, Passenger pigeon is just one of many, I'm sure. Anyone know what's making it trip? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
On Talk:IPhone 6/GA1, reviewer Happypillsjr ( talk · contribs) is the GA nominator of the iPhone 6 article. Isn't that not allowed? Personally I think that the article is very far from GA quality. sst✈ discuss 12:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone started a review of O Street Market, but to be honest, I think another user needs to step in and help. I'm not getting a lot of feedback on areas that need improvement. The suggestion to remove or cut down the "Design" section seems completely against the layout of other National Register of Historic Places articles. (a description of the building is always included in a historic property's NRHP nomination form; that's why we cover it in the articles) Is there a process whereby I can find another reviewer? APK whisper in my ear 21:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
On 23 December 2015, the whole article, Billboard (magazine) was removed and replaced by a "new" article associated with a paid contributor, CorporateM. Also, on 23 December, Billboard (magazine) was nominated to be reviewed for upgrade to GA status. On 27 December 2015, SNUGGUMS took up the task of reviewing the article. When I questioned the stability of the article recently, CorporateM quoted the Good Article criteria, and didn't feel the need to wait for the article to stabilise. In this case, I might not have been pursuing the right line of questioning. I also asked: "How can the Wikipedia community have confidence that the article in its current form represents the consensus of the community after such a short time?" There was no reply.
Right now, as I am writing this post, SNUGGUMS has passed the GA nomination: has it been rushed through? Is this mode of operation in the interests of the Wikipedia Community? Is it fair to the editors of the previous version of Billboard (magazine), who have seen their work eliminated at a stroke? Is it fair to the editors who are waiting patiently at GAN for their articles to be reviewed (for months)? Are we seeing the emergence of a super-editor, who can not only get paid for their work (and good luck to them), but also get the procedures of English Wikipedia to run at super-human speed? Do other editors have concerns in this area? CaesarsPalaceDude ( talk) 05:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Accusing me of being a super-user with powers to get an instant GA is of course quite silly. My nomination of Public Storage has been in the queue since last August (5 months). In my experience, in most cases, COI is a target on my head for editors that want to lash out and often the real issue is actually something else. One of the most frustrating parts of editing Wikipedia is spending time on something just to see your work deleted, modified or reworked by others and that's what Caesar is going through. In any case, I went ahead and made the edit being discussed above, but I disagree with @ Snuggums: deferring to me. To the contrary, I do not own the page and defer to @ CaesarsPalaceDude:. I encourage him/her to edit boldly.
PS - It's always a bit funny that editors feel the need to disclose that they have collaborated with me before as if COI is contagious ;-)
Cheers. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) ( Talk) 16:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The stability argument was dead some time ago. If you believe the review was passed and should not have been, open a reassessment where the concerns can actually be addressed. If you have concerns about the GA criteria or policy on the order in which reviews are undertaken, start an RFC and try and get consensus for a change. If you have problems with CorporateM's editing, that's not a GA issue and shouldn't be brought up on the GAN talk page. If you have a particular complaint related to the GAN process that can be solved here, let us know, otherwise I think this discussion should be closed as I don't see it going anywhere productive. Wugapodes ( talk) 21:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Adrian 8076 nominated more than a dozen articles for GA on 20 January alone. I left a message advising that this is probably not a good idea. I don't know if there's consensus to just batch revert or give the editor enough rope. Chris Troutman ( talk) 10:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
A second opinion is being requested on the GA review of Mustafizur Rahman. If an experienced reviewer would be willing to lend some time to give input on the review page, it would be very appreciated. Thanks. Wugapodes ( talk) 04:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Appears to have been listed as a good article since Jan 2015, but without evidence of any review. It's 1850 characters long and probably at the wrong name. Can anyone shed any light? Espresso Addict ( talk) 07:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been trying to help clear up WikiProject Anime and manga's GAN backlog. The above GAN's reviewer has not edited since November, so I decided to add comments to the page (while not actually either passing or failing it; please note that this is my first time making an input on a GAN of an article which I did not contribute to). Given the circumstances, is it alright for me to take over reviewing the article, or not? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting in a grant request for a contest in March. Well two contests, one a content building contest like Wales or Vital articles or whatever and the other a GA reviewing drive. £150 in Amazon vouchers allocated to a GA reviewing drive, with £100 given to the best GA reviewer in a month and £25 runners up. More kudos would be given to tackling older nominations and overall winners would be judged on the quality of their reviews as well as numbers, otherwise people would just speedy pass as many as possible! I want to do a trial, but something like that which might urge some editors to do more reviews and increase the quality of their reviews might work. Worth a try I think. I think part of the current problem is that articles often sit around stale for six months and nobody feels compelled to review them. That has a negative effect on editors who want to promote articles to GA and many give up on nominating things out of frustration. If we can get some sort of mechanishm which rewards editors who produce quality work and nominate articles and something at the same time to encourage people to get them reviewed I think we can increase the rate that articles are promoted and increase the quality of reviewing and articles at the same time. Potentially something could also be organized to run a sweeps on existing articles and ensure listed articles are up to 2016 quality standards. Again rewards would be given to editors who re review and improve/retain the most articles. That could be considered later, but we need to start somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, Wugapodes, Miyagawa, FunkMonk, Jaguar, SNUGGUMS, Figureskatingfan: The next GA Cup will probably be this March - do we really want a separate drive running at the same time? Especially since the WikiCup is also going on.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Love Me like You isn't showing up in the songs nominations, even though it is nominated. — Calvin999 17:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Would anybody be willing to take over these GA reviews I started a while back? I've got to go into hospital for an uncertain amount of time and feel bad enough as it is that I've delayed their reviews until now, let alone in possibly 2-4 weeks when I emerge from hospital. It would be very appreciated. Azealia911 talk 11:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I nominated Gabor B. Racz for GA, the review was started, is still listed at GA/N as being reviewed even though it is not because toward the end of the review, the reviewer advised me he could not complete it, [11]. The review is stuck in limbo and quite frankly, I don't know how to proceed. The review notice is still on the TP as is the open discussion at Talk:Gabor_B._Racz/GA2. Can someone please help or at least advise as to what steps to take next to either end the review, or get another reviewer on it? Thanks in advance. Atsme 📞 📧 18:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
A former head of state that is still alive, should go in "World history" or "Politics and government"? Cambalachero ( talk) 18:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The reviewer at Talk:On the Art of the Cinema/GA1 has informed me that he can't finish the review because of personal issues. I'm looking for a new reviewer. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone give me some advices when reviewing good articles? And see this discussion also, thanks. 333 -blue 13:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I wrote and nominated Hi-Level. It's just been promoted, but the review was inadequate at best and I don't feel comfortable with promotion under the circumstances. May I, as the nominator, request a second opinion at this point? Mackensen (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to delete all of the sub-subtopic "Includes" sentences from the GAN page. For example, Under the subtopic heading "Television" is the sentence: "Includes Television series; Television episodes; Television characters" ( seen here). This one is a particularly good example of why the sub-subtopic "Includes" sentences need be deleted, because in the past year or so, the television subtopic has been sub-divided into many, many more sub-subtopics, even including actual television series titles (Simpsons, X-Files, etc.), so we really really don't need to say "Includes Simpsons, X-Files" etc. here; that sentence would go on forever (some are already starting to: seen here, and that list is even out of date!). Of course, the sub-subtopic headings themselves on the GA page are absolutely staying ( seen here). If there's objection, tell me why exactly why these "Includes" sentences are useful on the GAN page and let me know how we are supposed to keep up with so many sub-subtopic headings. If there's no objection, I'll start in a few days. Best, Prhartcom ( talk) 22:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The nominator for Mariam Dadiani is absent, but I have reviewed the article. I've asked at the relevant wikiproject without luck, so if anyone here wants to take over and fix the issues listed, it would be nice. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I am looking at Chennai, a GAN currently listed in the review needed box. This article is HUGE, almost 200K and it already has a series of subpages. I assume this fails criteria 3b in a major way. But is that enough to fail the GA? If it is reduced significantly it would not be the same article submitted for GA. MPJ -US 01:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The Peer reviewer tool has been temporarily removed from the Template:Good article tools (that appears at the top of every review page). The editor who removed it gives their reason here: Template talk:Good article tools#Peer reviewer (briefly, it is because the tool recommends a " " between numeric values and non-abbreviated units, i.e. "1000 metres"). In the meantime, I encourage reviewers to continue using the tool if they wish. Prhartcom ( talk) 23:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: The editor has restored the link to the tool in Good article tools, but this is still being resolved. Prhartcom ( talk) 16:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I passed Talk:Ahmad Maymandi/GA3 today. However, Legobot stated that the nomination failed and notified the nominator about the same. Did I do something wrong or was it some bug? Cheers, Ya sh ! 13:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I nominated the article 1982 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game for GA a while ago and since a user, Grondemar, reviewed it and listed some errors to fix and whatnot. I've addressed the issues he/she outlined, but he/she has since been inactive for nearly two months. Is there any way to further the review? Thanks Disc Wheel ( T + C) 03:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I am reviewing Samuel L. M. Barlow I and the article is just extremly short. I am not sure what the 1(b) criteria is but to me it feels like it's too short to be a Good Article, it's barely an article at this point in time. My instincts says to review what's there, ask if it can be expanded and put it on hold for a while to allow expansion to take place. I would like some guidance from more experienced GA reviewers please. MPJ -US 02:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
A quick question regarding the article, Hasta la Raíz (song). It was nominated for GA, and I reviewed the article, suggesting any changes that should be made before passing. However, the seven days had passed without a single change being made, so it failed. The nominator wasn't active on Wikipedia until today, and let me be aware of the changes he/she made. I have re-read the article and believe it is GA status, but the question is, does it need to renominated or am I allowed to put the GA stamp on it? Thanks. Carbrera ( talk) 21:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The reviewer of Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid does not seem to understand the system of how the reviews work. Not quite a surprise considering they started it after making about 10 edits themselves. Someone should close this review and fail it, the article is quite far from being GA. Can I do that myself or does some sort of admin need to step in? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 13:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Should all of the subcategories of the Wikipedia:Good articles page continue to be placed on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page?
The list of good articles (GA) is organized onto topics (or pages; there are 15 topics/pages), subtopics (there are 37 subtopics across the topics). From the beginning, all of the topics and subtopics on the good articles page have also all been placed onto the good article nominations (GAN) page. [1] [2]
I propose we add the following subtopics to these topics, simply reflecting the same structure as WP:GA:
To add subtopics to the GAN involves editing the GAN page to add them and enhancing Legobot to use them. [3]
Of course, the developer/operator of Legobot, Legoktm, who took over this responsibility in 2012, is invited to this discussion and their input is critical. It appears we haven't yet had a subtopic change under Legoktm's watch.
There are a few other things to consider. First: The GAN page looks odd with empty subtopics and empty subtopics could confuse people, although of course it's only temporary, so we should probably not add them until Legobot is nearly ready to use them. Second: Remember that a subtopic on the GAN page is also a queue in which we wait for our GAN to be reviewed; more subtopics may mean it is not as far from the bottom of the queue to the top. And last: Maybe some other GA/GAN subtopics should also be divided into additional subtopics; for example the "Sports and recreation" subtopic is quite large on the GAN page. [4]
Thank-you for your comments. My thanks to BlueMoonset who helped research this. Best, Prhartcom ( talk) 17:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Support as nominator. Prhartcom ( talk) 17:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I've just pulled this back from the archives; RfCs typically run a month, and this was archived far too soon.
My impressions of the changes are that we don't necessarily have to follow GA's lead in their hierarchy, since the determinant as to where the new GAs need to be added is the sub-subtopic, a level of granularity that is unnecessary to our process, which deals with a limited number active nominations (in the 300 to 600 range), as opposed to a historical archive of over 23,000 entries that needs a great many subdivisions to remain manageable.
I wasn't sure I saw the necessity of separating out "Classical compositions" from the "Other music articles" section, but it seems to be a significant plurality of the 24 in that section now, and even though there are only 59 Classical composition good articles, it seems that the number is now actively increasing. (When it was separated out, seemingly arbitrarily, in 2013, there were 27 in this new subtopic, quite a bit less than other active sub-subtopics that weren't elevated.) It makes more sense now than I initially thought.
Fragmenting Warfare into a full seven subtopics seems a bit excessive; there are currently 33 nominations. Six of the seven seem to have a large number of entries at GA; the seventh, Military decorations and memorials, seems likely to be empty most of the time (there are 16 total GAs), but as it doesn't fit well with any of the others, if it wasn't its own subtopic, it would need to be in a miscellaneous subtopic, which would still require seven subtopics. Or we could combine a few to have four or five total. But this could be fussiness on my part: there are a number of subtopics currently that rarely have more than a couple of nominations at any one time. I'd be interested to hear what the Warfare WikiProject members who are active at GAN have to say.
It is quite true that Sports and recreation, a topic with itself as the sole subtopic, is by far the largest at GAN, with 81 nominations at present, about 16% of the total. It has 37 sub-subtopics. Even a few well-picked subtopics with a miscellaneous section would help, though looking through, I had trouble cutting it below these five: football (American, Association, Australian, rugby, other), baseball & cricket, basketball, hockey (ice & field), and [professional] wrestling, with the rest in the "other" category. There could be arguments made for another three or four subtopics, but I think that would—at least for now—prove unwieldy. I do wonder, despite what I said above, whether it might make sense to get buy-in from the GA pages, in case they'd want a different division. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed several GAs that I successfully nominated at FAC over six months ago were still sitting in the GA lists until I manually removed them a few minutes ago. Pretty sure that removal of new FAs from the GA list was automated at some stage but not sure if it was Gimmebot or Legobot or some other agent -- anyone know? If the bot that did it is a lost cause then I'll see if FAC Bot can do it but like to know any pertinent info from here first. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
As Wikipedia tries to be more inclusive to women editors, and we have several Wikipedia projects centering on women's issues, what would it take to get a GAC nomination category something like "Women's history"? The reason this comes to mind, in the case of any editor who wants to specifically review women's nominations, is that you can't always tell gender by a person's name. And having just typed that, I'm not sure where a nomination would go if it was about LBGT issues. Hmmmm. — Maile ( talk) 21:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
On the talk page for Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the template for the article's GA review is transcluded as {{Talk:Reed v. Town of Gilbert/GA1}}. However, instead of linking to the Reed v. Gilbert GA review, the transclusion shows Talk:HTC First/GA1 instead. Any suggestions? -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 15:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the point of nominating articles anymore? I see editors all the time nominating articles, and asking/canvassing editors for conduct a review within 24 hours, and usually passed too. Meanwhile the rest of us wait weeks or months. — Calvin999 16:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Josh that is 100% not relevant to the conversation and I'm disappointed in half of your response. How do I not treat the process appropriately? I worked hard on articles, I nominate them, I wait however long for a reviewer to decide they want to review it, and I fulfil their suggestions. What is inappropriate about that? You being personal doesn't help Wikipedia and getting articles reviewed. — Calvin999 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Two scenarios, not totally germane to the issue:
I hope this helps. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Calvin999, I did not know this was happening (but I am not surprised to hear it); thank-you for bringing it to our attention. If I understand you, you are frustrated at this apparent shortcut in the process, especially since you have been following the instructions to the letter, waiting patiently, and you want to know if some policy is being violated. I understand you may also be saying that the canvased reviews are being passed not according to the GA criteria. For the second point, if you really believe that is the case, just as Peter said, then the process is: Please nominate that article for WP:GAR reassessment. For the first point, I am sorry to tell you no, no policy is being violated. The GA Instructions already say that a nomination must wait in the queues for about six months, but that, conversely, it may take only a few days of waiting, as the instructions say that a reviewer may pick any review from the queue that they want. The instructions mention nothing about the canvassing, so let us look at the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline. That page clearly identifies types of inappropriate canvassing, such as spamming and campaigning, and offers solutions, such as "politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop". Have you tried that? I agree with Josh and with the old saying, that I suggest you consider: You can catch more flies with honey. Now, I do not believe it is considered inappropriate for a single nominator to ask a single reviewer to review their article. I think canvassing is probably okay at that scale. If you see that occur, my suggestion to you is: Look away. Try not to think about it. It's not like it's a widespread problem, right? Or, if you prefer, provide us with links to the specific cases where you believe it is a widespread problem. But what I suggest to you is: Take solace in the comfort that you are doing the right thing by waiting with your nomination in the queues the normal amount of time just like practically everyone else is doing. I like the suggestions of Checkingfax above, especially their point 4. All will be well, I promise! All the best, Prhartcom ( talk) 22:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@Blatant cutting of a line will not stand up over time. At BART stations they have black marks to show where the train doors will stop and everybody lines up there. The other day with long lines as soon as the doors opened a person sauntered over to be first into the train.
The train was very full. I was lucky to get a seat. Next to me was a person sitting in a seat with their feet up so as to take up the entire bench seat. They just enacted a $200 fine for seat hogging, but I was too shy to pick up the phone (and it was too noisy) to alert the train operator so he could call the transit police. Plus, it seemed like such overkill. I did not want to approach the person because they were disheveled and I did not want to set them off in the BART tunnel.
We are supposed to give up certain seats to elderly people and people with disabilities (this is a Federal law). Many disabilities are invisible, and how old is elderly?
At the highway tunnel, when traffic backs up everyday somebody will zoom around on the shoulder and cut to the front. At a construction site lane closure in my neighborhood the other day there was a 15 minute backup caused by the gridlock of the construction coupled with the signal light. We all patiently waited except for a couple of hotheads who would jet around and cut to the front of the wait line. I could go on and on. It is discouraging. There is a traffic light that I go through twice a day and it is usually brief. When the signal stalled for over 5-minutes I was ready to drive through when it finally turned green. I was sure it would never change. Sometimes they are broken.
Promotions like the WikiCup can clear review queues but they may have unintended consequences. Hang in there, buddy. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
22:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello all!
I have started reviewing the subject GAN and noted my comments at
Talk:Lucknow/GA3. The nominator is not much active it seems and this review was started by me on 3rd March with no much progress. Nominator has responded only once in between and the nomination is standstill. I had
also posted on India noticeboard about it if anyone else was ready to take it up. Today I have also posted a note on
nominator's talk page.
The comments are quite major and can't be resolved easily. Many non-RS references are used and hence I do not wish to fix the article myself. How long do I wait for nominator to respond? §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits}
04:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) the GA reviewer @ Ugog Nizdast: felt the article was almost ready to be passed after a few pending items. @ Stevenmitchell: made a few edits and suggested the article had "substantial issues", etc. Additional input is welcome. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. The
(90d) link to stats lists
Caitlyn Jenner at 70,000 page views per 90 days but the correct number is 1,617,000 per 90 days as seen
here. grok.se is off by a factor of 35. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
10:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
21:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
page views (90d)
that links off to grok.se. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
21:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Would someone mind stepping into the GA review of my nominated article, Princess Charlotte of Prussia? I had resolved the reviewer's concerns, but it appears Sotakeit hasn't edited in a month. I've posted on their talkpage but heard nothing back yet. I've never had this happen to one of my GAs before, so I'm unclear if this is the proper step, but I thought I'd post anyway. Thanks! Ruby 2010/ 2013 15:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Would appreciate a quick bit of help on a recently-failed GA nom. This page Talk:Ethereum/GA2 says that a GA nomination was speedy failed (which I would agree with; the article is not close to ready for a GA review).
My question is how and when the did the article get nominated a second time for GA, so soon after an initial GA nom was done? The page Talk:Ethereum/GA2 does not say. Am I looking in the wrong place to find the nom, and who made it? Is there a page that shows both the nom (when and by whom) and the speedy fail, or should? Was the second GA nom really different than the first nom?, or were they perhaps the same?
(The first nom is here: Talk:Ethereum/GA1, was very recent also, and apparently was made by an active editor, who then quickly reviewed the article as not ready for GA (which it was, of course, not).
Could someone look these over and be sure that that GA nom process was followed sufficiently cleanly so that future GA discussions and reviews are not impacted by the odd process(es?) used in these rather non-standard GA1 and GA2 noms? Thanks. N2e ( talk) 12:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Calvin999 and MaranoFan have each been blocked for a month for "incessant battleground behavior" (see Special:Diff/716601415 and the comment it replies to). Calvin999 is currently listed as the reviewer on six open GA nominations, and MaranoFan is the nominator on two more. Should something be done about these nominations, rather than just leaving them open for the duration of the block? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
It's been over two years since the previous backlog drive and that one was met with an inadequate success. A backlog drive was proposed in January, which I was a supporter of, but it never materialised as the GA Cup commenced the following month, and I didn't have the time to set it up. It was also met with a positive response from everyone I asked; everybody agreed that we needed a quick and effective way to decrease backlog, and a 30-day backlog elimination drive is the best way to do that. I've started a backlog elimination drive set for May. As a judge in the GA Cup, I'm well aware that the competition is running now. You might be wondering how a drive and a competition which both have the same objective could work well together. The GA Cup is a competition, the backlog drive isn't, it's merely a way of decreasing a backlog through quicker reviews:
I am proposing that someone create a user script that would allow GA nomination review's to be done more efficiently. The user script would probably need to write the review itself, as well as apply the GA top-icon and update the talk page. — Music1201 talk 02:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
For nearly a month now, Royroydeb seems to have completely abandoned reviewing João Sousa's article. I would like to know what I can do to make sure that the review is successfully completed. I wouldn't want to go back to end of the list and wait for another 5-6 months. Could I ask for a new reviewer? If so, where should I do it? Thanks. SOAD KoRn ( talk) 22:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
A reviewer new to GAN, Zppix, started on May 9, and since then has done four very rapid and inadequate reviews, passing three and initially quickfailing a fourth. The quickfail—which had been waiting for review for over four months—was undone, but a proper review seems unlikely.
I have posted to Zppix's talk page, suggesting mentorship, that someone look over reviews before they are finalized, or that a there be a reviewing moratorium while Zppix gets up to speed on the GA criteria: there has been no response beyond archiving the posts. I suggest that we ban Zppix from GA reviewing for three months or longer, and after that only allowing one-at-a-time reviews under the supervision of a mentor, who must concur before a review is passed or failed. (The mentorship requirement can be ended once competence at GA reviewing has been demonstrated.)
These are the reviews conducted so far:
I am boldly reversing the approval of Undertale: the review was not properly conducted and we cannot afford to have an editor approving or rejecting GA nominations at what amounts to his or her whim after a quick read-through. It's unfair to the nominators and it's disruptive: we cannot go the reassessment route every time, but that would be what needs to happen. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Now that Zppix has withdrawn from GA, I would like to suggest that all of his reviews be re-examined or reassigned as follows:
— BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Prhartcom: maybe if I change my mind but for now I'm leaving GA til further notice. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 13:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a note that while Legobot is currently waking up once an hour, it has not done any GAN tasks in the past 11 hours. It has definitely missed two changes that I made to GA-nominated article talk pages, and one review that Prhartcom has opened; I ended up hand-editing mine, but Prhartcom's needs to be picked up by the bot.
I've notified Legoktm on his talk page, but someone may want to contact him via email since he's so infrequently editing on the site. (I don't do Wikipedia email.) Tasks that aren't being done include adding new nominations, removing passes and fails, notifying nominators when reviews begin, are put on hold, or are passed or failed, transcluding review pages on talk pages and modifying the GA nominee template, and adding the GA icon to passed articles. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Khanate General started the review of IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth on 25 March 2016. I responded, and had made changes to fit the suggestions/recommendations of Khanate General on 30 March 2016, pinging Khanate General in the process. Khanate General did not respond, so I asked again on 11 April 2016 (accidentally forgetting to ping Khanate General), which once again led to no response. Can someone else who is a little more active than Khanate General take over the review? Thanks, -- Elisfkc ( talk) 19:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I know they can't review them, but what about nomination? I found that Souled Out (Jhené Aiko album) was nominated that way, and it certainly isn't prepared, just another reason for it to fail. Not much work has been done on it since nomination. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Lehigh Valley Silk Mills was nominated by an unregistered editor in March. FYI WT SPI. The nomination and most of the edits were done by what might be sockpuppets. The are six redlink editors and one blue link. All edits by those accounts were in March, and all on this article. Maybe this nomination should be pulled. It would be hard to review something where the primary editors are gone and maybe not coming back. — Maile ( talk) 18:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Despite starting the review of Spectre, @ Cirt: hasn't edited in a month, and the review is still open ( with a FTRC depending on it). I've even added "second opinion" on the talk page, but I still wonder if someone could please help this get closed. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 01:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
We could use more Featured Articles. Does anyone who feels comfortable with GAN want help getting started with FAC? - Dank ( push to talk) 20:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I have a quick question regarding an article that I have nominated for review. Azealia911 has started the review for " Olivia" around the end of March and beginning of April, but has recently been inactive on Wikipedia and I have not received any updates on the review since April 18.
I have messaged Azealia911 about this and he let me know that he was busy with real life obligations and would be unable to complete the review for some time. However, it has been over a month since the last comments and I am wondering what should I do next in this situation? Thank you in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoba47 ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi... I am looking to nominate the aromatization article for GA once I finish adding some more content. I am seeking advice from anyone who is willing to look at the presentation of diagrams / graphics, as the article has a lot of illustrations and I am not sure how to make it look more elegant. Thoughts / Suggestions? Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 02:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There was no response before this got archived at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 20#User:Jonas Vinther is insisting it is not his responsibility to list nominations that he passes at WP:GA from what I can tell. From what I recall, User:Jonas Vinther still had a few alphabetization issues to resolve:
Adamdaley has started a bunch of good article reassessments and plopped a bunch of citation needed tags where they were not needed or already inline. I picked one at random and got found obvious signs of alteration on the Nanbu clan. I restored the page, but the editor seems not to be checking sources very well or looking for obvious vandalism. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment let alone a "B-class" assessment., is not a valid reason, even ignoring its grammatical infelicities. The good article criteria are specific, and it is up to you to explain which of those criteria are not met by a particular article. The goal of a reassessment is to, if at all possible, fix those facets of the article that fall short of the GA criteria: without an explanation from you of what is actually wrong with the article beyond inline citations, you're not helping it to be improved. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
As explained twice already: that is a summation sentence to tell the reader the content of the section. Adamdaley - The fact you do not have the source does not change the fact that the sentence serves as a lead-in for the section and references 26-33 and 35 are used to cite examples and give the reader the information which not only comprises the section, but completes it. If you are incapable of understanding this concept you are clearly demonstrating your lack of competence. Magicpiano explained this is a prime example of an instance where a citation at the end of the paragraph is not needed. If you don't understand this, read it again and again until you do understand. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 07:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The {{ al}} template is the one that shows the toolbar links at the top of each GA review: "Article", "edit", "history" and so on. I've suggested a change to it at Template_talk:Al but want to make sure the suggestion is widely seen, and I know GA reviewers use this template all the time. Please comment at that page. Thanks. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I want to withdraw my nomination for David Hume, as I can see no possibility if accommodation with its reviewer. Do I simply delete the entries in GAN? Myrvin ( talk) 12:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
My review count count didn't go up after a recent review. I suspect that it is because I automatically failed the article (without triggering the bot with a "reviewing" edit), then changed the talk page to a failed GAN. I suspect the bot treated it as a withdrawn nomination, however, this is my theory, and I would like someone more knowledgeable about the bot to confirm if this is correct or not. If it is, I guess I will always trigger the bot first before failing an article.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I've posted at Template talk:GA nominee#On hold wording and anyone is welcome to join it. - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 15:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, the person who is reviewing the Black Eye article, Sparklism, has concerns about the use of the CBGB image in the article. Are the pink notices that appear in the image's commons page suitable for a good article? Thanks in advance. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 19:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I nominated History of the New York Yankees for GA several months ago. After a long wait at GAN, Secret agreed to review the article about a week ago. While checking to see whether he had made progress with his review, I noticed that he may be retiring from the site, per User talk:Secret. If he's gone, then the article will require a new reviewer. It's a shame since he had strong subject knowledge, but those are the breaks you get sometimes. I know this is a long article and will take time to go through, but the latest development is disappointing all the same. Is there anything I should be doing, and would anyone be willing to provide a fresh review if he doesn't come back? Thanks to anybody who can help. Giants2008 ( Talk) 02:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
If someone was working on getting Magna Carta ready for a GA nomination which category should they nominate it in? It could potentially fit World History or Law. Does the fact that it is listed as a vital article at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences in the law section mean that it has to go under law rather than history?— Rod talk 19:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I recently failed the 2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, but it seems that a few people think I was too hasty. I listed some of my concerns at the review page, and I'd appreciate it if an experienced user who is knowledgeable about basketball could read through the article and give their opinion on it. Thanks! -- Biblio worm 22:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I nominated Shaina NC 6 months ago. Waited for 6 long months for this review to start. Then User:SNUGGUMS took 12 days for review. He was aware that I am checking review page several times a day. But still he failed the article without giving me even 1 day or few hours. I don't think this is proper way reviewing article. Abhi ( talk) 19:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've put Talk:Songs from the Black Hole/GA1 on "second opinion". The review is currently stalled because I asked for specific time locations for some audio interview citations, but the nominator couldn't easily access them. What should we do in that instance. The review has been queued up since July so it would be good to make a decision soon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but I would like to nominate the article Sybil Plumlee for Good status. I am not sure which "|subtopic=" field is most appropriate, though. Any recommendation? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
A few questions on a GA review I'm doing ...
Thanks for feedback - DOCUMENT ★ ERROR 05:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 21:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am reviewing Sahure here and objected that in many cases a whole work is cited without page numbers. The nominator has argued that page numbers are only required for FA, not GA. I think page numbers are needed as otherwise it is difficult or impossible to check references, but I would like confirmation of the GAN requirements. Dudley Miles ( talk) 13:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
One of the current nominees, List of Narcissus horticultural divisions appears to be ineligible for GA since it is a standalone list. I notified the nominator, but I wasn't sure if there was any process for removing the nomination. Fredlyfish4 ( talk) 21:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions about sourcing and reliability related to the review I'm currently doing of Wings (Bonnie Tyler album). I'm more familiar with the FA criteria than I am with GA, and I hope some experienced GA reviewer can help me out here.
First, there are some statements sourced to a TV interview, which as far as I can tell is correctly cited using {{ cite episode}}. I asked how the nominator had been able to access it, and they gave me a url to a Youtube clip of the interview, here. It's clearly the original show, so the fact that it was accessed via YouTube doesn't make it unreliable. But the clip is a copyright violation, and we are not supposed to post links to copyright violations. However, without the link, a reader of the article can't verify the statements sourced to the interview. I think the rules say not to include the link, but would like to get that confirmed.
The second issue is about some statements that are sourced to freecovers.net, which is a member upload site, which makes it not a reliable source. The facts that are being sourced to freecovers.net are not exactly controversial -- the existence of a promotional single CD version of one song is sourced here, for example. Clearly that promo single exists. Since the website includes a picture of the CD cover, can we ignore the fact the site is not an RS in general, and assert that it's good enough for this? Or would it be better, as I suspect, to drop the references to this site, and instead cite the CD single itself -- it may be a primary source, but it's OK to cite a primary source as evidence that something physically exists. You could argue that the lack of mention of this in a secondary source indicates it should not be mentioned in the article but I don't think we need to be that legalistic.
Any opinions would be appreciated. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
For some time, I've wondered why the bot doesn't update my review counts or correctly notify nominators of the review status. I think I've found this happens if you start a review, perform the whole review in a single edit (for The Rambling Man's boat race GAs, this is particularly common), save it, and immediately switch the talk page template from blank to "onhold". If the bot doesn't detect a change from (blank) to "onreview", it doesn't seem to log the review correctly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Where would I put Stuart Scott? User talk:dghavens 23:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been GA reviewing Widener Library for the last week and EEng and I have generally had a productive time working together to improve it. Pretty much the last sticking point now in the review are the citation needed tags left on it. EEng says they're not required to be fixed before passing, I disagree. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The library's [facts] comprise a "labyrinth" which one student "could not enter without feeling that she ought to carry a compass, a sandwich, and a whistle."The article is so full of purple prose that the article which is not encyclopedic so much as it is whimsical. This article is pretty shameful because readers instead get a gushy self-admiring load of trivia and quips that should have been paraphrased or discarded. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 07:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I recently failed Talk:Mud Creek (Chillisquaque Creek)/GA1. The nominator has asked me to keep the nomination open as they are willing to put in significant work to fix it. I've agreed, but I'm not sure how to reopen it -- if I just reinstate the old nomination template and removed the FailedGA template, will that work? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there is a discussion of a GA (and FA) improved by an experienced editor/administrator being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name. Prhartcom ( talk) 16:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I just started reviewing this article which had been queued since last August, only to find with appalling timing that the nominator has just retired. Can anyone else help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I discovered that the article Texan schooner Invincible, which is currently listed as GA, was heavily plagiarized from Handbook of Texas online. I've removed the offending text, but that leaves big content gaps in the article. I'm unsure what the process is at this point for having the GA status removed, so I hope someone here can take care of that. Karanacs ( talk) 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
For some reason I was personally summoned to the review at Talk:Django Unchained/GA1, which seems to be suspect. I think it may need to be recalled for further review.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This can't be the number of times the article has been reviewed for GA status, can it? Popcornduff ( talk) 19:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Can someone review my Josh Walker or Cillian Sheridan - GAN. It has been very long I nominated them. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি ( talk) 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. On the 4th of February, I nominated Sleaford for GA and it was reviewed within an hour by a user with only 16 edits (review: Talk:Sleaford/GA1). He/she has opened the review and states that he/she thinks it is a good article and has made no suggestions for improvement. There must be some issues with the article and I wonder if it might be better for a more experienced editor to either take over or work with him/her to review it. I have suggested they speak to a mentor but I haven't had a response yet. I am aware that the process is an open one in which everyone is able to review, but I am concerned that it might not have been scrutinised as thoroughly as it should be; aside from the issue of maintaining standards, I could do with a thorough review now because I am to take it FA in the future. I am not quite sure what to do in this situation. Thanks, — Noswall59 ( talk) 11:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC).
I have scanned the archives for discussion of the minimum length for articles to be nominated (eg Article size, Long enough for GAs?, Very short articles acceptable?, How short may a GA be? and "Featured short articles" etc) and don't wish to flog a dead horse but.... I have a couple of articles Dunster Butter Cross and Gallox Bridge, Dunster which are very short, but as far as I can ascertain from the sources available are comprehensive. As I was aiming for a "Good Topic" of English Heritage Properties in Somerset (see box below with current status) I asked at FT questions what "audited article of limited subject matter" means and whether I could use this to achieve a good topic? I was told that this was only for lists too short to be FL and that as GAN has no minimum length I should submit them here. Can anyone advise whether a nomination would be possible or how I might expand them for a GA nomination?— Rod talk 21:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Last June I wrote an article James Balfour (died 1845), which I nominated for GA in (I think) early July.
The article was reviewed in October 2014 (see Talk:James_Balfour_(died_1845)/GA1#GA_Review), at a time when I was taking a long wikibreak. It was failed outright, despite the objections of an uninvolved editor.
I have now responded in detail to the review, at Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)/GA1#Reply_to_review, noting my view that the review was multiply flawed. I have left a note for the reviewer ( Jonas Vinther) at their talk page ( User talk:Jonas Vinther#Your_GA_review_of_James_Balfour_.28died_1845.29). However, I see that JV has marked their talk page as "semi-retired".
I have not been in this situation before, and am not sure where to go from here. The note on the article's talk page says "Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake" ... but "reassessment" links to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, which seems to relate solely to considering whether to delist existing good articles.
I think that this article is fairly close to GA status, and would like to get it across the line. What do I do now? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
{{subst:GAN|page=2|subtopic=World history}}
to the top of the article's talk page. I could do the GA review myself, but I am struggling to keep up with three GA reviews at the moment.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems that Socialist Party (Ireland) may meet the criteria. However, I am unable to nominate. Could someone please include it under the "Politics and government" if they agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.248.241 ( talk) 21:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I've just nominated the article Black Creek (Susquehanna River) and I'd like to request that it be reviewed in a fairly timely manner. I normally wouldn't ask for this, but the main source for the article is a library book that I'll only have until March and I want to have the book on hand during the review in case sourcing/factual questions arise. Thanks in advance, -- Jakob ( talk) 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Could we add some text somewhere to the effect that one should not close ongoing reviews by other reviewers unless the reviewer is inactive for a long time. Some people are very strict on closing reviews that look "stale", I am personally against that, as I see no harm or inconvenience in having protracted reviews. In professional academic publishing reviews can last many months, even more than a year. However since some people apparently disagree I do understand that perhaps sometimes there is a need to speed up review processes, but I think this should be done with the active involvement of the reviewer and nominator - unless they are unresponsive. Another reason why third parties should not close other reviewers' reviews is that the GA-bot sends an automated message in the reviewers name with the decision. That should not be done unless the decision is made by the reviewer. When I make a review I enter into a process of dialogue with the nominator and I commit to doing my best in collaborating with the nominator to get the review through the process, regardless of how much time they need to do that. Only if the nominator decides they are unable or unwilling to go through that process with me do I fail the article. If someone else interferes with my review by closing it they break the understanding and agreement I have with the nominator, in effect making me break my word. That is why I take exception to others doing that. I think the very least would be to consult me on my talkpage and give me a specific deadline for when the review should supposedly be closed (which should be based in some kind of policy not just in someone's subjective feeling of when it has taken too long). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/GA2 is way too short and scanty for a satisfactory GA review. It is the first one conducted by Vincent60030 ( talk · contribs), so they probably need some guidance from the team. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Could I suggest that we add a step in the review process, somewhere near the end (possibly after success, or just as a final review point):
{{
WikiProject Trains}}
has |UK-importance=
which is used when |UK=yes
is set; it has several other such pairings. However, it does not have an importance rating that corresponds to |stations=yes
, |locos=yes
and others. There are also some WikIprojects where the main project does not use importance ratings; the biggest of these is {{
WikiProject Military history}}
|importance=
parameter is present - is at all necessary. The importance rating is independent of the class; and indeed, it is set differently between WikiProjects - and intentionally so. A medium-size railway station in the UK might have |UK-importance=mid
but |importance=low
in its {{
WikiProject Trains}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Trains}}
{{
WikiProject Yorkshire}}
and {{
WikiProject Architecture}}
, I can easily assess the |importance=
for Trains, but have no idea of what to assign for the other two - I leave that to members of those projects to decide.{{
talk header}}
: there should be be no requirement for this, since it is not required by
WP:TPL; moreover, that template's doc page states "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page.", and restates that in several different ways. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
20:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
is being run again in March - see Wikipedia:The Core Contest for details. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
An entry at WP:GAN ( Vietnamese Cambodians) has "Error parsing timestamp" in place of the time stamp although the article's talk page seems to be stamped correctly.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone please review my articles/any of my article Cillian Sheridan, Alan Carvalho, George Taft. I would be very much pleased. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি ( talk) 10:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone please review my article Ion Agârbiceanu? Gug01 ( talk) 19:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Never made a request for more people to take a look at Good Topic Candidates here before but hopefully there are people here willing to help review. The oldest nomination has been up since January so its been stalled a bit. The help will be much appreciated. GamerPro64 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The review for this page has been accepted by @ Kai Tak:, however the article is not GA or stable, due to an SPA and likely covert COI @ Intchar*: that keeps adding information that mis-represents or isn't actually supported by the sources, or just adds original research. I brought this up at COIN and the discussion was archived without a response from Intchar or anyone else. I've pinged both @ Drmies: and @ Crisco 1492:, but the editor just restores poor edits after they leave and keeps repeating the same arguments to omit sourced content and add unsourced content in a manner that suggests a COI. Because I myself have a disclosed COI and have been complying with WP:COI, I've been unable to resolve the issue without bold editing for two months now.
I realize GA reviewers don't deal with any of this. So should the review just be rejected? I won't break from WP:COI by doing bold editing and the page is unlikely to meet GA without it, so I don't see it going anywhere. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Further to my comments at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 20#Misuse of Good article, I've just fixed this which had been there for over 8 weeks. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 09:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Luvcookies made 14 GA nominations about 14 hours ago, in addition to 4 nominations made on March 23. The same user has made Wikipedia edits on only two days before the 23rd and 25th: on October 17, 2014, and on February 11, 2015. This is clearly insufficient experience to shepherd a single GA through the process, much less 18 of them.
Luvcookies has also been adding multiple FACs without contacting the article's editors, to the point where Dank has said on the Luvcookies talk page, if you keep doing this, I'm sorry, but I'll have to block your account.
One of the 18 nominations is under review; I think we should revert the other 17 nominations, and request that Luvcookies stop making GA nominations until significantly more Wikipedia experience has been gained. Unless someone objects, I plan to do so in the next few hours. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I will undo what I did on some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvcookies ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it normal for a nominator to dispute a fail by reverting the fail to request a second opinion? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"Holy Christ—look, I'm simply not going to waste my time reading through another wall of text like this. If you have a point to make, find a better way to make it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)"
I'm trying to withdraw as a reviewer of Talk:Norodom Ranariddh/GA1. I don't see in the instructions how to do it. Can someone help? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This review had surprisingly little initial commentary for such a long article, and was written on the reviewer's most recent day editing, now over two months old. The few issues have apparently been addressed by the nominator, but I think that either someone should take on the review and do a thorough check, or that the review be ended as effectively abandoned and the nomination put back into the reviewing pool with its seniority intact. Does anyone want to take it on? BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I am currently reviewing the article for the Catholic Church article, and I have about the proper usage of citations. I asked the question in the criteria section, but I'm not sure if that was the right place to ask. There are a few instances in the article were lists of particular groups/organizations e.g.: Social services. Do the last two paragraphs still need a citation at the end of the paragraph?(I might have a few more questions to ask before this process is over, too...but not now) LeftAire ( talk) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The second GA review of Boeing 787 Dreamliner (done by AlanZhu314159265358979 ( talk · contribs · count), who has made less than 100 edits and created his account last October) seems very short for such a detailed article. I don't oppose his reasons for passing (other than that there are a couple of dead links), but since I'm not very familiar with this process maybe someone else should check it? Jc86035 ( talk • contribs) Use {{ re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It would seem that the nominator is conducting the GA review of this article. Per WP:GAI, "Articles can be ... reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator". What should be done about this? Thanks, C 679 06:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, The gene article still doesn't have an official reviewer. There are a number of editors already working on improving the article ( discussion), but it would be helpful to have someone act as an impartial GA reviewer. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 23:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a lot of clunky prose in this article at the moment, it would probably be better if the article was substantially improved before the GA review actually began. If the prose is that clunky, the article might be failed right off the bat, which I doubt is what you want. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Requesting Admin assistance. Kit Carson/GA2 was closed January 31, 2015, because of unresolved issues. The same editor re-nominated the article again on April 11, and issues have not been resolved. Now the editor has been Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of an editor who has been permanently banned for years. — Maile ( talk) 13:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Today I would like to bring to the attention of the community an article that just today failed GAN, Bikini, and why this article's experience at GAN leads me to believe that the following element of the GA review criteria:
Note that the standard holding time is seven days; however, reviewers can shorten/extend the time limit if they wish.
Needs to be modified.
This article failed its first GA nomination in January of 2014 under the authorship of Azx2 for important structural reasons that were never addressed during the review; nonetheless despite minimal activity on the page I think it is important to point out that long-time reviewer TonyTheTiger started the review on 16 December 2013 and did not finally fail the article until 11 January 2014, a period of just under a month. This is an advisable level of discretion that I have also attempted to practice in my own reviews and have indeed come to expect from my reviewers as well.
For instance, when I reviewed Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles also in January 2014 nominator EnigmaMcmxc stated that "I am currently suffering from the flu. Is it possible for the deadline to be extended by about a week, until I am feeling better and able to work on the recommendations and the article?". My immediate reply was to assure him that "Take what time you need, I've always seen "two weeks" as more a suggestion than a rule." Later on the situation reversed itself; I was unavailable to finish the review and it was Enigma's turn to wait the week that was necessary for me to unbury myself. End result: the article passed GA. Everyone wins.
As you all know, GAN has an enormous and almost consistently-growing backlog of articles to review and as a result a lot of the article that are put up for GA review have been listed for months or more. In the intervening time a lot of things can happen IRL that take an editor's attention away from Wikipedia. Another example: in 2010 Casliber, another superlatively experienced editor, began reviewing my nomination at the time, Davidson Seamount. The original review came down on the 6th of February; my response did not come until the 17th—I had simply not logged into Wikipedia in the intervening time and quite frankly forgotten I had a nomination listed at all! When I "rediscovered" this fact I very nearly did a flip—I felt so lucky to have gotten a reviewer who knew the virtues of patience! The rest of the procedure was short and sweet. End result: article passed GA; everyone wins.
Aditya Kabir had been working to slowly but consistently bring the Bikini article up in quality from shortly after it failed its first GA nomination. In June of 2014 he listed his article for peer review; I reviewed it. All of my points were handled and we've maintained a cordial relationship since then; though I wasn't willing to handle the GA nomination (and didn't think that, having already been involved in a PR, that was advisable) I watched with interest and encouragement (something so rarely seen on here nowadays—but I digress). He finally felt confident enough to nominate the article in November. Between the time that he put it up for review to the time that it was reviewed and placed on hold, exactly three months passed (27 November to 27 February). SNUGGUMS was the reviewer, and an initial comment on the review page was "I don't think there's too many problems".
Then the following exchange occurred, which I strongly believe is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong:
My fellow Wikipedians. This is unacceptable. When an editor who is actively working on a nomination asks for an extension to allow them to continue the work they are doing on the article in question, you don't fail the GAN whilst doling out pity in your failing statement; you ought to have no right to do so; you ought to consider the activity of the editor in question and, gauging the situation, offer whichever length of an extension you deem necessary for the writer to do what they're there to do—improve the encyclopedia. This ought to be the way we operate, and it ought to be what the guidelines say. I don't know how quickly GA reviews were once handled in the past, when this particular element of the nominations procedure was created—perhaps S even felt generous, he had granted twice the allotted time after all—but if an editor has to wait three months for their article to finally be reviewed, the reviewer can wait more than one week for the necessary work to be finished.
I propose that the guidelines on review length be rewritten to better fit what I believe the situation has always been anyway and always ought to be:
Note that there is no standard holding time; reviewers can shorten/extend their time limit as they wish, taking into consideration the level of activity the nomination has generated and whether or not the nominator has asked for an extension given their off-wiki circumstances. The ultimate goal of a good article nomination is a good article—the reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen.
It's furthermore unfair to Kabir that he must wait another expected three months for his article to be reviewed again, and I petition that this review be reopened and the editor given a time extension.
Thank you. Res Mar 01:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The standard holding time is seven days. The reviewer can and should extend this holding time, generally in seven-day increments, if there has been meaningful and substantive progress toward satisfying the Good Article Criteria. In recognition of the project's volunteer nature, nominators' reasonable requests for additional time should also be honored. However, held nominations should be closed as passing or failing within four weeks barring exceptional circumstances.
The reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen.The word "this" has lost its referent, and if what remains would take a month or two to fix, I don't think the reviewer should have to allow so long a time, since the article would have to be in very rough shape to require so much work. I think I'd drop the entire final sentence, not just the first half, but you might want to add another criterion in the sentence that remains (noted by italics): "... taking into consideration the level of activity the nomination has generated, the issues still to be addressed, and whether or not the nominator has asked for an extension given their off-wiki circumstances." BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know the GA procedure on this, but the nominator of The Figurine under Film has been blocked indefinitely. — Maile ( talk) 13:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Like the editor above, I don't know what the exact review procedures are, but the reviewer for Sonny Bill Williams has been blocked indefinitely. As an aside, I find it a bit curious that an IP address with an edit count of three is able to make a GA nomination; who is ever going to follow up if (or rather 'when') the review brings up any issues? As a further aside, may I suggest that the standard GA review form produces a link back to the project page? Schwede 66 05:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Anyone, including unregistered users, can nominate an article...The nominator is the person who listed the article at the Good article nominations page. It is not a special position, does not indicate that the person has had any involvement in improving the article, and the nominator has no duty to participate in the review... the nominator indicates that he or she believes the article to meet the criteria...I agree with you that an IP address with an edit count of three, assuming they have not otherwise more extensively edited under another identity, could not possibly have a grasp of "the criteria". — Maile ( talk) 13:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Just giving a link to the discussion here. Basically, I'm going to have to drop the GAs from the Signpost (and thus Portal:Featured content) if the bot keeps going crazy. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems like twice this weekend, the bot has been hung up on GA reviews, not noting them in the status= box, causing the bot to continually count it without updating the status on the history. It's not a particularly major issue, but it's annoying to have the history making null edits over and over. Can someone either make a note or keep an eye out on this in the future? I'm not really touching GAN anymore so I'd rather not continually fix it if I don't have to. Wizardman 20:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Due to lack of response on the GAR talk page, I'll re-post my query here. I've recently opened a new GAR archive ( number 60) and I wanted to ask whether I did it correctly. Appreciate your advice.-- Retrohead ( talk) 08:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Eric Corbett: had made some comments at Talk:Dunkery Beacon/GA1 which I was addressing and then I received a message saying it had been failed. I think this is because I moved the article from Dunkery Beacon to Dunkery Hill (at his suggestion). The nomination list now points to a discussion at Talk:Dunkery Hill/GA1 which obviously doesn't exist. What should I have done/how can I fix this?— Rod talk 19:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Currently, I intend to close Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/British Bangladeshi/1 as no consensus. For really obvious GA flaws, I delist them if there is no opposition, and I don't think it applies in this case. Are up to date numbers that important to a GA? I understand it's usually more laxed for sales figures due to reasons like lack of available resources, but how about population numbers? Thanks. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 07:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I just tagged a talk page with {{subst:GAR}} and in the first paragraph, last sentence ("To start your reassessment you need to create this subpage (i.e., Talk:Impalement/GA3), and that is the purpose of the edit box below."), in italics "Please report any problems on the Good article nominations talk page" covers the "...box below." part. 96.52.0.249 ( talk) 23:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, does there any way, a tool or something like that through which I can identify dead reference links in an article? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি ( talk) 17:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Miri, Malaysia looks like it's about to be passed despite what I believe are quite clear deficiencies in prose and some problems with its organisation. I have left a notice at the review page and politely asked the reviewer to take a closer look. I am not going to be around enough over the next few days to go over it in detail, so I've recommended that the nominator take it to the guild of copy-editors and suggested that it's not quite ready to pass yet. I thought I would notify people here in case anyone would like to take a look. Kind regards, — Noswall59 ( talk) 15:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC).
Hi, due to time issues I cannot complete the reviews of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire and Škabrnja massacre. I would be very happy if anyone can do it on my behalf. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি ( talk) 08:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Argo (2012 film) was nominated in good faith by User:Captain_Assassin! and I've just started the review. However, I just noticed that the nominator has not contributed significantly to the article ( three edits) and his major contribution to the topic consists of splitting out the accolades section into a new article. I prefer to review articles by significant contributors and/or people who are familiar with the subject. I'm afraid that this review may require some work that the nominator may not be able to do. What are the current guidelines on how to proceed? Viriditas ( talk) 22:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If I edit a page that contains {{
WikiProject Video Games}}
, such as
Talk:Amplitude Studios, the "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" list at the bottom of the page has about a dozen redlinks. They are all GA review pages, for example
Talk:Angry Video Game Nerd/GA1,
Talk:Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto IV/GA1,
Talk:Development of The Last of Us/GA1 etc. Why are these being transcluded to a page which is nothing to do with any of those GA noms? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Currently, newly promoted GAs are eligible for DYK. There is currently a discussion at RFC DYK process improvement 2015. This is a solicitation for suggestions to streamline the DYK process in order that fewer errors appear on the main page. — Maile ( talk) 15:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
— Calvin999 18:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. The current reviewer of the gene article ( User:ヒストリ案) put themselves forwards as reviewer by accident (I think intending to leave a normal talk page comment). Is it possible to reset the process so that a new editor can put themselves forwards? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 12:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it better to select a subtopic which is a poor fit to the contents of an article, or make one up which is a good fit? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The StatisticianBot that refreshes the GAN reports page hasn't run since Thursday, and the bot owner recommends using email to request repairs or restarts or the like. Since I don't use Wikipedia email myself, I thought maybe someone here could email a request to get the bot running again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
With the Labs problems now into their second day, many bots (including Legobot) and tools (like the Copyvio and Duplication detectors) are down, and cannot be restarted until fixes have been completed. So if new nominations, reviews, holds, passes, and failures aren't showing up, it's because Legobot isn't able to be restarted yet. They don't yet have an estimated restoration time for Labs. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:06, 19 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 had a review "On hold", and Legobot took it off 13 minutes later. What is going on? — Maile ( talk) 15:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It keeps on telling "New 1984 European Super Cup (sports and recreation)" in every edit, while nothing really happens with this article. Kareldorado ( talk) 11:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'm here to ask if someone else can takeover with the article and finish the review or pass it along to someone else. I had some things come up and was unable to tackle the review like I wanted. I'm very sorry I couldn't obtain the materials needed to finish the review. I should only aim to tackle articles that I can finish reviewing properly. Please respond as soon as you can. Please. Thanks for reading. LeftAire ( talk) 19:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please could someone with experience in GA reviewing please cast their eye over at Talk:Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1. The reviewer alone has admitted to only being familiar with doing FA reviews, yet they still conduct a FA-style review, using FA criteria, on a GA nomination. I find this somewhat bizarre, and the finickiness of the reviewer is just petty. For example, stating that the bolding of the article title in the opening line is not permitted. Suggesting that we should change the terms "contest" to "race". Not a clue what they mean by "Easter egg link" when it comes to linking to yearly terms. Telling us not to "shout" in ref titles. It is not our fault if the website uses capitalised headlines. And they also asked us "what happened after the tour". How the hell are we to know, if no sources are published about what happened back-stage. And he also has threatened to "fail the review" if a second opinion request is submitted. That is just down-right childish and tantrum-like behaviour.
Talk:Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1 which had a review a mere few days prior, is written in the same style, and was passed easily. The reviewer of that GAN carried out their style using the GA criteria, and they were more helpful when asked a question. This reviewer for the Netherlands article however, is just not being helpful, he assuming everyone knows everything, expects everyone to know where "phrases" are within the article that need to be changed by using "cmd-F" (something that even I didn't know could be done, be he assumed I MUST have known), rather than point them out. So please, could someone take a look and intervene and re-review if necessary. Thank you. Wes Mouse | T@lk 10:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I have appropriately requested a 2nd Opinion on the talk page and explained on Talk:Leni Riefenstahl/GA1. I would appreciate the 2nd opinion coming from an editor who has much experience on GAN. The article evolved as patchwork, and correcting it with a little adjustment here and there isn't going to help much. I've literally been going through sentence by sentence, source by source, because so much is unreliable. This is Day 2 of doing that, and I'm not at the end. But in fairness to the nominator, I've asked for a second set of eyes on this. — Maile ( talk) 22:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the article Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum is ready for GA nomination but I am unsure which topic to put it under. It is more about engineering technology than the building so it could go under "Engineering and technology" however I note that British Engineerium covering similar areas is under "Art and architecture". Any advice appreciated.— Rod talk 08:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The GA review has been abandoned for almost two months now and the reviewer is unresponsive. Is there a way to get it back into the queue for review? CorporateM ( Talk) 06:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a small attempt at outreach from one of the Featured Article guys ... I suggested this a few weeks back at WT:FAC and no one objected. What I'm looking for is a good writer who's familiar with Good Article standards to write some of the Today's Featured Article columns, maybe two per month. FAC experience is not required; I can help with FAC stuff, if necessary. For anyone who wants to apply for the job (here or on my talk page), take a look at the Today's Featured Article columns for this month at WP:TFAA, and compare those with the article leads ... if you're thinking "yeah, I see what's going on here, I could do that", then I'll give you some leads to play around with and we'll see how it goes. Part of what I'm hoping for here is that people who usually don't venture over to FAC might get an in-depth look at one small part of the process, and maybe that will humanize it and demystify it a bit. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if and when someone has a spare moment, if they could kindly have a look at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1. The nomination was made almost 8 months ago, and the reviewer started to review; I carried out the proposed changes. The user then said they are going to pass the review, but nothing else has happened. The article talk page hasn't been updated and all the other loose ends that need tying up as part of the review closure. I have pinged the reviewer, and they have been active since I left that ping. But alas still nothing has happened. The user has got a GA Cup submissions page with points added, yet the review has still not been closed down properly. Thanks in advance. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
IndianBio began the GA review of Dreaming of You (Selena song) and believed that the majority of what makes up the lead is undue weight. I was told in my earlier days on Wikipedia that as a rule of thumb, I should incorporate a little of something for every section used in one article for the lead; this is how I have done my leads for every article I have helped or wrote on my own. He ended his first part of the review with "will the article be worth it?", which I believe he may fail the article based on the lead alone. I asked him if he can step down and allow someone else to review the article since he didn't really care to review it anyways (despite his constant activity on Wikipedia since the 6 June start of the review). He has since replied "Nope" in the edit summary. Am I in the wrong here or am I right to be worried that IndianBio is not taking his reviewing seriously. Best, jona (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello all. It appears that I have inadvertently offended the GAN nominator(s) of negative resistance by trying to request at least some adherence to the WP:OVERCITE essay. Essays are just guidelines, and WP:OVERCITE is not in WP:WIAGA, but in my opinion, there are limits to how much leeway any given article has in such matters.
WP:OVERCITE states: "A good rule of thumb is that, except for certain controversial topics, one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient. Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should usually be avoided; if more than three are truly beneficial as an additional range, consider WP:Bundling (merging) the citations."
The article negative resistance has the following count of cites per assertion (totals may be off by one; I banged this out in a hurry):
I admit that I am not qualified to judge the topic domain well enough to judge whether all the instances with more than one cite are controversial, but offhand I doubt it. examples follow:
So the question is, should I completely drop my request that the nominator(s) thin the cites? Many thanks for your time and trouble. • Lingzhi♦ (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
My objection to the reviewer was not that the issue of overciting had been raised. Nor do I approve of overciting. Rather, my problem was his declaration that he would not pass the article over a non-GA issue ("I could not personally pass one with this issue") and an apparent desire to impose a higher standard than the GA criteria ("[t]he goal is to work this article up to something near-ish academic standards").
Since he has chosen to open a new thread here rather than reply to the one I started on the main talk page (did I post in the wrong place?) I will repost my comment below and close the other thread. Spinning Spark 07:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have passed Piotr Skarga but in the GA history it says I have failed it. Have I done something wrong? Should I have deleted the previous failure from the article talk page? Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
By making a comment at Talk:Gamergate controversy/GA1 I have unintentionally been marked as the reviewer. Can this be fixed, please? - Sitush ( talk) 13:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: I could just remove my name but I'm unsure how it might affect transclusions etc. - Sitush ( talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
My nomination of Neepaulakating Creek at Talk:Neepaulakating Creek/GA1 needs a second opinion, or possibly a new reviewer. I think Jakec is reviewing the article based more on personal subjective demands of article content at the expense of actually judging the article on the GA criteria. He is presently stuck on insisting on information that doesnt exist. I've pointed out this isn't an FAC and the standard, per WP:WIAGA is not one of comprehensiveness. He's intimated that my article is too short for a GA although there is no size requirement. I can't add certain information to an article if no information or no reliable sources for such information exists, and he thinks that flaw justifies his belief that some articles aren't GA worthy, despite all other extant major aspects being addressed. SECOND OPINION OR NEW REVIEWER REQUESTED. JackTheVicar ( talk) 17:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: A second opinion has been offered, and the last few days the reviewer (User:Jakec aka Jakob) who was insisting on his personal prefernces beyond the GA criteria seems to have just given up, picked up his toys and gone home. He has proceeded to ignore his obligations to complete the review. He has been on-wiki doing work, but none of it would prevent him from completing the review. For some pointy reason hasn't been back to finish what he started....after walking off with a cavalier "you pass it, I don't care". Finish the review Jakob, or pass it to a new reviewer. JackTheVicar ( talk) 18:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
G'day, apologies if this has been asked before, but shouldn't "Warfare" be a subtopic of "History"? Currently, the History topic has "World history" and "Royalty, nobility and heraldry" as subtopics, but I would see "Warfare" (which currently has its own topic towards the bottom of the GAN page) as a subtopic of History also (there certainly seems to be cross over at least). Obviously, this isn't a major issue, but I thought I'd ask (if only to satisfy my own curiosity). Thoughts? AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Article was nominated by @ RightCowLeftCoast: in June. I began the review here in early July, however almost a month has passed without any response even after directly notifying the nominator on their Talk page. What do we do with abandoned nominations? CorporateM ( Talk) 17:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can someone experienced please review these two articles ( Earl Warren and Chris Christie) that I've nominated for GA and worked on to see if they meet the criteria? I know that things can get backlogged for as much as 3 months, and I'm mentioning this here so it doesn't happen here. Thank you. Spaghetti07205 ( talk) 18:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I was very surprised to see the article as GA-rated. A few excerpts include:
Also, it has an alarming number of citations to press release and the article-subject's own website, even given that a couple cites to summarize corporate structure might be ok.
Because I have a potential COI, I'm not comfortable sending it to GAR myself or performing the necessary cleanup and trimming, but I thought I would drop a line here and flag it. It was GA reviewed several years ago, so our standards were probably not as high back then. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
You may recall I asked last month for someone to help regularly with Today's Featured Article. Biblioworm stepped up, with great results so far. While I'm here ... I'm copyediting yet another mushroom lead for TFA today. Before our readership starts to wonder about our phallic obsession, it would be really nice to get more variation among the articles at FAC. FAC isn't that bad, there's just more work to do than one person typically wants to do ... but if you're interested in taking your GAs to FAC, you can use that fact to your advantage: regular FAC nominators are usually delighted if someone offers to help out. And if you do that, maybe they'll help you get your articles through FAC as well. Of course, some articles are actually better as GAs than as FAs, if you prefer your articles "broad" rather than "comprehensive", I'm not saying FAs are superior ... but more people read about FAs, in the Signpost and on the Main Page. Let me know if I can help, if you're interested. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Some Gadget Geek delisted the Windows RT article without allowing any time for other editors to respond. Some Gadget Geek also did not add the {{ ArticleHistory}} template to the article talk page after delisting the article. The GAR is at Talk:Windows RT/GA2. What should be done in this situation? sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 12:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking for a second opinion (or third, or fourth) at Talk:Paulo Francis/GA4. If you are willing to help, please do! Wugapodes ( talk) 02:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Between 03:57 and 08:25, new Wikipedia editor Tortle nominated 18 articles for GAN (one of which was later rescinded), and opened five GA reviews, three of which were listed (two without any comment whatever). The reviews are:
Tortle's first two edits were eight days ago, on August 18; it was as user Eheu!, requesting to usurp the Tortle username (first edit was on the Tortle username's talk page, since usurped, and the second edit was to formally submit that request, saying I would like to change my username because I dont like having the exclamation point in mine now and want a more simple one.
This despite the fact that the account had been created mere hours before. The usurpation was processed late on August 22, and edits recommenced on August 23. The flood of nominations and reviews started three days later.
I have reverted all the GANs that Tortle submitted: Tortle had not edited any of them, nor contacted significant editors on any of them. While the bulk were technical, they also included Microsoft, Apple Inc. and Wikipedia.
I will be pre-emptively reverting the Boeing717 GA listing: no comment at all, nothing from the nominator, no reason not to. I'll request that the review page be speedy deleted. My inclination would be to revert the other two GA listings, Ayrshire cattle and Agar.io, since it's clear this editor is not yet equipped to give a valid review, and put the nominations back in the reviewing pool without a loss of seniority. If this had been an isolated review, then perhaps a reassessment would have been in order, but this was too extensive for that; we've generally reverted in the past when this level of damage has been done. The remaining incomplete reviews, iPhone 5S and Bernie Sanders, would be terminated and also put back into the reviewing pool with the same retention of seniority.
This has been a severe disruption to the GA process, even if not intended. I would like to propose that Tortle be required to refrain from nominating any articles for GA and opening any GA reviews for at least three months, and only allowed to resume reviewing and nominating one article at a time thereafter, and only with a mentor in place. Further loosening of the restrictions can certainly happen once Tortle has demonstrated competence in these areas. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think a good compromise would be to watch me close the iphone and bernie sanders requests with the new input you have all given me and lets see how I handle these. If you think I am handling them wrong, give input as the process progresses and you can always relist it if things get extremely out of hand which they most likely wont. Tortle ( talk) 18:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Prhartcom, I think I will work on improving and nominating one, I appreciate it and I am sorry for the disruption I caused. Tortle ( talk) 21:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I have a couple of articles I began reviews on, but have put on hold. How long do they stay on hold? Onel5969 TT me 02:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a serious discussion about redesigning the Main Page at the link. Two things I take away from this discussion: 1. People have no problems with the Today's Featured Article segment or with its position in the first slot, which means TFA is probably creating some good publicity for WP:FAC in general, and 2. Many people are less than happy with the quality of the WP:DYK articles. So, couldn't we kill 4 or 5 birds with one stone by creating a Today's Good Article section? I'd be happy to try to get a team together that would work on the daily text, if that would help. There are lots of potential problems ... but WP:TFA runs pretty smoothly, which gives me hope that a hypothetical WP:TGA would run smoothly too. If anyone wants to discuss this ... now would be the time, we haven't had a big redesign of the Main Page in many years. Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, User:Hijiri88 here. Posting logged-out because I'm afraid of yet more harassment if I post this logged-in.
I recently posted a comment on a GA review that had passed a few days earlier, but in my opinion had failed to adequately analyze the article's sourcing (it is presently classified as a GA, but has obvious sourcing problems, in at least one case obviously misrepresents its source, and also contains at least one instance of SYNTH). I was under the impression that pages/sections in the Talk namespace that don't specifically state either that they are closed or that posting is forbidden were still open for comment.
I was reverted shortly thereafter. I am not sure how to deal with this: if my somewhat-too-late comment was a violation of some guideline of which I am not aware, then I guess reverting me was acceptable, but if my comment was allowed, then the other user removing it was a violation of talk page etiquette. (Ironically enough, the same user posted in an overdue-to-be-closed ANI thread. Twice.)
Was my comment a violation? Should I have just put in a reassessment request instead?
180.221.235.82 ( talk) 17:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Wyangala was assessed on October 19, 2014 by User:JSwho, a user apparently created for that purpose, given an almost total lack of edit history other than the review. He made no other edits, and yet reviewed and passed an article on his first "day" here. He indicated he was not a new user, but did not disclose who he was. The account then went dormant until yesterday. This could be "good hand bad hand"-type editing, so I think in all fairness, an established reviewer needs to reassess this article. MSJapan ( talk) 22:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Albert Einstein had a son named spencer einstein and he was the best at a lot of sports baseball, football and basketball. I herd that he was the coolest kid ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.144.210 ( talk) 16:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
If you have delisted the same article before, are a major contributor, or delisting could be seen as controversial consider requesting a community reassessment.Basically, someone who is "involved" (such as a major contributor) or unable/unwilling to do the review leaves it to the community to make the determination. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, a cursory lookover indicates it is missing citations in several places where GA claims they are needed. There's a lot of "paragraph-level" citation that might as well be copied verbatim from the books if it's really only from one page. MSJapan ( talk) 17:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron's declaration that he intends to list this article if the issues he raised are fixed, disagreeing with all of the problems I noted last week—some factual, violations of WP:LEAD, unclear prose, and so on—is a clear indication that he is currently unfit to review at GAN. There have been issues since his first reviews here that reflect a failure to fundamentally understand the GA criteria.
LavaBaron and I have not seen eye to eye—he's currently banned me from his talk page—but on my side it has always been concern that he doesn't adequately understand the GA process or what the criteria ask for. He's amply demonstrated my concerns are valid. His current GA nominations are further evidence of this: Leschi (fireboat), Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances, and Coast Guard City are none of them ready, with some fundamental criteria unmet. A quick check shows that both Leschi and Washington Doctrine have very short leads that do not summarize the article and neither meets the MOS layout requirements, Coast Guard City again has lead issues, is quite short overall, and fails to meet the broadness criteria (indeed, this is practically a list, and might not be eligible for GA at all). His Trevor Kincaid might fare better, but one out of four is not an adequate showing.
His lack of understanding also extends to Featured Articles and A-class reviews: Coast Guard City was simultaneously nominated for GAN and an
A-class review with the statement I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the A-Class criteria
(it was far from doing so), and he changed his GAN for
First interracial kiss on television to make it a
Featured Article Candidate instead, saying on the page there that it was a short but comprehensive and exhaustively sourced article
(it was described there as "little more than a stub" and "fails most of the FA criteria").
With regret, I ask that LavaBaron either be restricted to reviewing GAs only under the guidance of a mentor whose agreement must be obtained before the review is either passed or failed, or be asked to refrain from reviewing until he can demonstrate competence by nominating articles that are actually GA-ready. And that both of his current GANs (the other is Talk:Bozh/GA1) not be closed until a decision is made here. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This user appears to have left the site, leaving five GA reviews open in various states:
Hopefully someone can continue the reviews that are open, and maybe the two that haven't even been started can be reverted? Harrias talk 08:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
YohanN7 opened this review by mistake, merely hoping to comment on an existing review. When I queried his talk page, he said, Best is if someone else can take over, since I will not be here much in the near future.
Can someone please take over the review?
GA Cup folks ( 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo), since no review has been done as yet, would this count as a new review for the purposes of the GA Cup? That might help attract a reviewer more quickly. It was originally nominated on August 9. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Though I am glad someone took the time to begin a review of one of my articles, however Azealia911 quick failed my GA nomination. In it, the user says that the article qualify's for a quick fail based on immediate failures because of "some really large referencing issues towards the end of the article"; what referencing issues might those be? The user fails to answer this in their review of the article but does state that there's not even one source for the filmography section (which can easily been retrieved since the content was taken from IMDB) but earlier said it would take more than a week to address that and "other" issues. In the user's contributions, it takes him several minutes to write a review for a Mariah Carey article shortly after commenting on a FAC article, but takes him five hours to write a one short paragraph for a lengthy article. If I had five hours to do a review I would have wrote down my thoughts on the article, not simply quick fail based on referencing and not specifically go into detail about what those might be. I don't mind criticism (that's what GAN is for), but I expect a detail review on an article I spent some time expanding and researching on. Best, jona (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I've actually done nothing wrong, thankyou very much. Point one of the immediate failures is "It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid or needs new cleanup banners." Are you telling me a {{ Unreferenced section}} didn't need to be added to the Filmography section? Azealia911 talk 20:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
As much as I'd rather this just go away, have the article re-assessed by someone, and we all move on with our lives, I'm not going to be repeatedly ridiculed and called out for doing something perfectly in my rights. "It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid or needs new cleanup banners" is grounds for immediate failure, which means "An article can be failed without further review". At the time I reviewed the article, it needed an {{
Unreferenced section}} template in the Filmography section, and actually still needs one. Could you have addressed the issue in seven days? Quite possibly, but the decision to fail the article lies with the reviewer, not the nominator. You may have not liked my review, but calling it poor, incompetent, incomplete and unprofessional is completely uncalled for when I did nothing more than review the article against criteria page. Also, "since been asked to stop and reexamine what a good GA reviewer is, which he agreed he should do.
" is false, I never agreed to do anything.
Azealia911
talk
18:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to AJona1992 for improving and nominating this article; keep up the good work! Thanks to Azealia911 for the professional review; please continue to review articles here at Wikipedia. And thanks also to Freikorp for picking up the review. The Quick fail section of the GA Criteria page needs to be slightly improved. It was used to justify this kind of issue, so I have made an improvement that now clarifies when to quick fail. By touching on the roles of both the nominator and the reviewer, the section now brings a little more accountability to both roles. Hopefully, we will keep this kind of issue from happening again in the near future. Since all of us would have preferred to have seen this issue turn out differently, I do not believe anyone is to blame. Best, Prhartcom ( talk) 21:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This individual reassessment was opened by an editor who had prior edits to the article. The review was started two months ago, but the reviewer immediately delisted and tag-bombed the article after posting the issues to be solved, without notifying major contributors to the article and relevant WikiProjects (e.g. WP:SWIFT). The delisting and tag-bombing has been reverted. How should this be handled? ⛅ ✈ 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Links to GA review subpages clearly already have a GA Reviewer, subpage link says discuss review and not start review, but for a lot of them it's lacking the note below it saying Review: this article is being reviewed .
Any ideas on how to fix this?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 04:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
When I tried to contact the nominating editor for Akira Kurosawa (he nominated the article for GA in Media section) last week, there was no reply since then from that editor. Could someone update the status of the nomination when there is no reply from the nominating editor. MusicAngels ( talk) 20:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
What's wrong with this picture?
I left some comments at their user talk page, could use some feedback from others, as well.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 02:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Messers Run/GA1 was just reviewed by someone who made a series of bizarrely inaccurate, irrelevant to GA, and unaddressable comments. I initially used the 2nd opinion template, but it seems that that's for reviewers, not nominators. So can someone who knows what they're doing please step in and review? Thanks. -- Jakob ( talk) aka Jakec 12:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Pope Francis/GA2 - by the same reviewer, who seems to have very limited edits of their own. I would suggest this review be taken over by someone else. — Maile ( talk) 13:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Japanese Committee on Trade and Information/GA1 - Here's another one by the same reviewer. — Maile ( talk) 13:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I have left the reviewer a message on their Talk page. — Maile ( talk) 13:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
May I ask for the deletion of the page Talk:Pope Francis/GA2? The user that made the minimal review accepted his mistake here. It may be more simple if we take it back to a nomination awaiting reviews. Cambalachero ( talk) 17:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
As I did a year ago, I've had my students develop several articles on Shakespeare's sonnets for GA status. Last year, one of our articles successfully achieved this status ( Sonnet 86). If GA reviewers feel so inclined, I invite them to expedite the reviewing of our nominations. Also, as a note, whether students pass or fail is not a significant part of their grade, so no pressure on that end. Thank you! Westhaddon ( talk) 21:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Darejan Dadiani/GA1 - The reviewer who opened the template is an active editor. However after stating the intent to review on August 26, nothing was ever done with the review. — Maile ( talk) 16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Qubool Hai was recently reviewed and passed GA status by Derevation in an extremely cursory review. They've nominated other articles that aren't even close to ready for a GA (a film article on a just released film with no plot section?). The writing is stilted at times, references need substantial cleaning and other issues. There's also some concern because this user and Digvijay411 seem to have traded cursory GA reviews (see Karanvir Bohra, which was reverted). The user hasn't responded to questions given to them and from experience they aren't likely to respond. Derevation also commented Talk:Shreya Ghoshal/GA1 on another GA review in a cursory manner and when challenged on their Qubool Hai review responded very defensively. An independent review would be helpful here. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Chittagong/GA1 - This template was opened by a new (2015) editor who added two sentences on August 7 and never returned. There is an August 8 "Attention Nominator" note on the template by someone else, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with specifics. — Maile ( talk) 16:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
What is the fuss with the mass nomination of sonnet articles at WP:GAN#LIT? Can anyone take a look at them? Possible WP:ASSIGN? sst ✈ 09:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
After writing 50 Good Articles, I've never received a GA review quite like this: Talk:Webster Sycamore/GA1. I didn't even have an opportunity to respond to the reviewer's comments before it was failed. Can someone recommend a course of action that is available to me after receiving a review such as this? I guess I can always resubmit, but I'm a bit perplexed. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Please review and discuss here. Thank you. – Grondemar 23:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Zahamena National Park/GA1 - The review template was opened Sept 1, 2015, but no review was ever done. That reviewer has been inactive since that date. This was nominated on June 4 by @ Lemurbaby:. Is there any process to cancel an abandoned review and leave it for a new reviewer? — Maile ( talk) 16:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I've left a note at User_talk:Derevation#Please_stop_nominating_to_GA_and_reviewing_at_GA.
This user has been nominating articles to WP:GAN that clearly fail the WP:WIAGA quick-fail criteria.
In addition, the user has been taking on reviews, and then issuing sub-par, one-line-in-total poor reviews, which requires wasted time to clean up and correct.
I've asked the user not to nominate or review GA candidates until they read some more pages about site policy.
Would appreciate some additional eyes on this.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 11:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I just nominated the Pamplin College of Business for Good article status. Huskers110110 ( talk) 18:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I just nominated the Emergency Management Institute for Good article status. Huskers110110 ( talk) 19:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I just nominated the Defense Acquisition University for Good article status. Huskers110110 ( talk) 19:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
May I ask for the deletion of Talk:Pope Francis/GA2, so that it is open for reviews? Someone made a basic and minimal review, which was rejected for it, and the reviewer accepted his mistake. See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 21#2nd opinion request Cambalachero ( talk) 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed that the 2002 FA Cup Final article has been approved as GA on the basis of a very minimal and, in my view, inadequate review. What is the correct cause of action to address this ? -- Wolbo ( talk) 21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't reviewers strive to review nominations which are older and have been waiting a while over reviewing newer ones? I just noticed that Jaguar opened a review for Frank Sinatra nominated by Dr. Blofeld nine minutes after Dr. Blofeld nominated it. Some articles have been waiting weeks, if not months, for a review. — Calvin999 17:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that Lawrence Lessig has been listed under Computing and engineering. This seems entirely inappropriate to me. Although he has been a campaigner on some internet issues, he is not an engineer and would fit better under Law or Politics and government. However, I'm not sure about the mechanics, or the propriety, of moving the listing. Spinning Spark 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi folks, could you please nominate " Change the World" for a Good article for me. I'm usually working on German Wikipedia, but worked so hard for the last week or so on the English "Change the World" article, I think it deserves a Good article feature. Thank you very much. Regards, -- Matthiasberoli ( talk) 11:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there an overview of what Legobot will and won't do for you related to GA reviews? For a bit there I was hopeful that I as a reviewer could lean back and just update the GAN template on the article talk page and Legobot would take care of all the housekeeping elsewhere (i.e. update status on WP:GAN and notify nominators etc.); but based on my last couple of reviews there seem to be at least some cases that it doesn't cover, and which I've not quite managed to nail down. Is there a description anywhere of what it does and doesn't do, and any limitations that may apply (e.g. if the bot's input feed is lossy so it might miss things sometimes, or if it's finicky about formats of various things or the order in which things are done, etc.)? A quick scan of the GA-related pages and the bot's user page / BAG-request didn't turn up anything, but that may just be me being blind. Anyone? Legoktm? -- Xover ( talk) 09:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to post an update regarding this. I spoke to Lego on IRC today and there is definitely a problem. Lego believes that it has to do with one of the many many templates that Legobot monitors. Small changes in the templates can throw off the bot and cause the automated process to fail. Lego said that he is going to do some debugging this weekend to try to find the problem. Until then...
Attention reviewers: Please look back at the GAs that you passed in the past few weeks or so. Legobot has not been recognizing the successful GA nominations and has not added the GA top icon to the page. Perhaps this note should be added to the top of the GA nomination list in the meantime? -- Stabila711 ( talk) 06:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not reviewing this article, nor did I nominate it, but it seems the reviewer has been inactive for awhile now with this. The review started in July and all comments have been addressed since September, so is it possible that this article could have a new reviewer so it can be finally finished? Burklemore1 ( talk) 10:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Nominations by User:JackTheVicar, blocked indefinitely on Oct 31 as a sock. He also started a review of a nomination, as listed below.
Does GA have a process to handle this? — Maile ( talk) 17:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
By my count, I had reviewed 17 GA nominations, with the last one being 18. This last one when I opened that GA review template, and the Legobot posted on the Nominations page that I'd be reviewing it, the bot said I had reviewed 25 GAC. Somewhere along the line, it counted 8 reviews I didn't know I did. Perhaps I commented on 8 somewhere? I only nominated 4 for GAC under my name, so that still doesn't account for the extra numbers. Is there a tool somewhere that I can check my GA reviews by title? — Maile ( talk) 21:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking for opinions on the importance of the use of summary style, particularly in regards to criterion 3b: "Broad in its coverage: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." At least one user, who may not be all that familiar with the review process to begin with, seems to think that summary style is more or less voluntary because it's a guideline not a policy. How do I communicate the importance of this criterion in the review? Viriditas ( talk) 20:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It's now come to my attention that the article was not nominated by the primary author but by another editor, which gives me a bit more insight into what's going on here. Viriditas ( talk) 20:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Would someone familiar with the GA criteria please take a look at this? The GA reviewer is a fairly new account, and I think a second opinion may be ideal. Thank you. sst✈ discuss 17:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to retract a GAN pre-review? I do have one nomination that after reflection isn't suitable for GA yet but hasn't been reviewed so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I ran into a disagreement with the reviewer. Asked for a new reviewer. Instead of using the 2nd opinion option, he failed the GA. Now I have to wait 3-6 months again. What am I supposed to do? -- Jakob ( talk) aka Jakec 20:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried to nominate 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team the other night, but the nomination hasn't appeared on GAN yet. After checking and re-checking the article's talk page, I can't see what I did wrong. I am an infrequent nominator at GAN, so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a step somewhere. Any attempts to clean up my mess would be appreciated. Thanks. Giants2008 ( Talk) 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Recently we have a bunch of socks who have been nominating various subpar articles for FA/FL/GA status without majorly working on them. All socks are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TekkenJinKazama. The socks seem to be infecting entertainment related page majorly. Hence requesting all reviewers to do a basic background check of the nominator, their edit histories related to the nomination page, etc. before starting the review and wasting your time. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 05:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, a second opinion has been requested at Talk:Electromagnetic articulography. Would anyone be willing to take a look at it? Wugapodes ( talk) 05:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Joan Lindsay/GA1 I'm a little uncertain of whether or not to let the two images of Joan Lindsay pass. I'm unfamiliar with copyright law in Australia. Would someone please give their input on the template? — Maile ( talk) 21:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Porcupine (Cheyenne)/GA1 2nd opinion requested. — Maile ( talk) 13:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The article bicycle kick has been on the list for GA review for a few months. It is the fourth article that I have submitted for GA nomination. Recently, the user Alpinu began to edit the article inappropriately and also began to raise questions of non-neutrality in the article's talk page—the questions have been addressed, albeit apparently not to Alpinu's satisfaction. There was also strange behavior through IP edits, which have been reported to administrators (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alpinu). The user has now initiated a GA review of the article, despite never having shown experience with the process in the English Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, the "review" he has presented is not really a review (see Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1), but again the same POV-pushing from the talk page. This goes against WP:GAMING. I kindly request that this GA review by Alpinu be removed and that the article be examined by an editor that does not have an ax to grind on this subject. Thanks.-- MarshalN20 Talk 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
In my talk page, the GA Review bot wrote that the process would take "up to 7 days." The GA Instructions page points out that the review can be completed in about 7 days. It has been well over seven days, and the Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1 continues being anything but a review that addresses the GA criteria standards. It is clear that the "reviewer," the user Alpinu, created the GA page solely to sabotage the article's chances of achieving GA status. This article has been waiting for a dedicated reviewer for various months, and it would be unfair for it to be dismissed at this point. Therefore, I kindly request that the bicycle kick review be taken up by a different user or that the current review be deleted (or archived) and that the article get placed in its prior spot in the GA waiting line. Thank you very much.-- MarshalN20 Talk 15:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi folks, am going to run this competition in January. see Wikipedia:Take the lead!. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this is the first time I've posted here. I'm bringing this as a general issue as I have seen this recently on two GAs for articles on TV episodes nominated at "Did You Know". I'm going to use an example here but its not against any particular editor/ article but I do want to just discuss/mention/propose/remind best practice and maybe this point will improve.
What is happening here is that a reference, in an article, is given to someone else's work correctly. The user is directed to look at say...(Reference. x: Rob Thomas's DVD commentary Veronica Mars: The Complete Third Season) but then the url is not assigned correctly but directed to another wiki article (try it?). This is interfering with what the reader wants. They click to find the source and to see the work done by Rob Thomas but they are redirected back to Wikipedia (annoying on other sites and here). If we have no url then we should just leave it blank. This has been fixed on the article in question, but I thought I'd raise it here as it I have seen it twice on new GAs recently. Thanks for listening to this. Victuallers ( talk) 13:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned about SNUGGUMS' insistence that Talk:Genesis (band)/GA1 must be wrapped up within 7 days, no ifs no buts. I am perfectly fine with closing out a review as "time up - not listed" if little or no work has been done in the standard allocated time, but when a substantial effort has gone into improving the article and the reviewer also admits is not far off passing bar a few critical issues, it seems counter-productive to impose a hard deadline on it. In particular, the reviewer took over 6 weeks to complete the original review, yet I did not complain about that. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I was inspired to write an essay with ideas to improve the next GA Cup competitions to better encourage greater reduction of the GAN backlog. You can see the essay here. I appreciate any feedback given. Thanks! – Grondemar 06:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Last week I submitted Morning/Evening for GA review, but it has not been added to the list at WP:GAN#Albums. Did I do something wrong? I think perhaps the forward slash in the page title might have caused the issue. Any ideas? Thanks! — sparklism hey! 09:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In case editors here haven't already seen it, there's an issue involving sockpuppetry that may affect the validity of several recent GA nominations. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Numerounovedant. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I can't remember the last time LegoBot actually marked a GA review as passed on this page and delivered a "Your GA review has passed, well done, have 1,000 vestal virgins and a bag of nuts" (or something like that, I forget...) message to the nominator's talk page. The latest example, Passenger pigeon is just one of many, I'm sure. Anyone know what's making it trip? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
On Talk:IPhone 6/GA1, reviewer Happypillsjr ( talk · contribs) is the GA nominator of the iPhone 6 article. Isn't that not allowed? Personally I think that the article is very far from GA quality. sst✈ discuss 12:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone started a review of O Street Market, but to be honest, I think another user needs to step in and help. I'm not getting a lot of feedback on areas that need improvement. The suggestion to remove or cut down the "Design" section seems completely against the layout of other National Register of Historic Places articles. (a description of the building is always included in a historic property's NRHP nomination form; that's why we cover it in the articles) Is there a process whereby I can find another reviewer? APK whisper in my ear 21:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
On 23 December 2015, the whole article, Billboard (magazine) was removed and replaced by a "new" article associated with a paid contributor, CorporateM. Also, on 23 December, Billboard (magazine) was nominated to be reviewed for upgrade to GA status. On 27 December 2015, SNUGGUMS took up the task of reviewing the article. When I questioned the stability of the article recently, CorporateM quoted the Good Article criteria, and didn't feel the need to wait for the article to stabilise. In this case, I might not have been pursuing the right line of questioning. I also asked: "How can the Wikipedia community have confidence that the article in its current form represents the consensus of the community after such a short time?" There was no reply.
Right now, as I am writing this post, SNUGGUMS has passed the GA nomination: has it been rushed through? Is this mode of operation in the interests of the Wikipedia Community? Is it fair to the editors of the previous version of Billboard (magazine), who have seen their work eliminated at a stroke? Is it fair to the editors who are waiting patiently at GAN for their articles to be reviewed (for months)? Are we seeing the emergence of a super-editor, who can not only get paid for their work (and good luck to them), but also get the procedures of English Wikipedia to run at super-human speed? Do other editors have concerns in this area? CaesarsPalaceDude ( talk) 05:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Accusing me of being a super-user with powers to get an instant GA is of course quite silly. My nomination of Public Storage has been in the queue since last August (5 months). In my experience, in most cases, COI is a target on my head for editors that want to lash out and often the real issue is actually something else. One of the most frustrating parts of editing Wikipedia is spending time on something just to see your work deleted, modified or reworked by others and that's what Caesar is going through. In any case, I went ahead and made the edit being discussed above, but I disagree with @ Snuggums: deferring to me. To the contrary, I do not own the page and defer to @ CaesarsPalaceDude:. I encourage him/her to edit boldly.
PS - It's always a bit funny that editors feel the need to disclose that they have collaborated with me before as if COI is contagious ;-)
Cheers. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) ( Talk) 16:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The stability argument was dead some time ago. If you believe the review was passed and should not have been, open a reassessment where the concerns can actually be addressed. If you have concerns about the GA criteria or policy on the order in which reviews are undertaken, start an RFC and try and get consensus for a change. If you have problems with CorporateM's editing, that's not a GA issue and shouldn't be brought up on the GAN talk page. If you have a particular complaint related to the GAN process that can be solved here, let us know, otherwise I think this discussion should be closed as I don't see it going anywhere productive. Wugapodes ( talk) 21:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Adrian 8076 nominated more than a dozen articles for GA on 20 January alone. I left a message advising that this is probably not a good idea. I don't know if there's consensus to just batch revert or give the editor enough rope. Chris Troutman ( talk) 10:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
A second opinion is being requested on the GA review of Mustafizur Rahman. If an experienced reviewer would be willing to lend some time to give input on the review page, it would be very appreciated. Thanks. Wugapodes ( talk) 04:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Appears to have been listed as a good article since Jan 2015, but without evidence of any review. It's 1850 characters long and probably at the wrong name. Can anyone shed any light? Espresso Addict ( talk) 07:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been trying to help clear up WikiProject Anime and manga's GAN backlog. The above GAN's reviewer has not edited since November, so I decided to add comments to the page (while not actually either passing or failing it; please note that this is my first time making an input on a GAN of an article which I did not contribute to). Given the circumstances, is it alright for me to take over reviewing the article, or not? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting in a grant request for a contest in March. Well two contests, one a content building contest like Wales or Vital articles or whatever and the other a GA reviewing drive. £150 in Amazon vouchers allocated to a GA reviewing drive, with £100 given to the best GA reviewer in a month and £25 runners up. More kudos would be given to tackling older nominations and overall winners would be judged on the quality of their reviews as well as numbers, otherwise people would just speedy pass as many as possible! I want to do a trial, but something like that which might urge some editors to do more reviews and increase the quality of their reviews might work. Worth a try I think. I think part of the current problem is that articles often sit around stale for six months and nobody feels compelled to review them. That has a negative effect on editors who want to promote articles to GA and many give up on nominating things out of frustration. If we can get some sort of mechanishm which rewards editors who produce quality work and nominate articles and something at the same time to encourage people to get them reviewed I think we can increase the rate that articles are promoted and increase the quality of reviewing and articles at the same time. Potentially something could also be organized to run a sweeps on existing articles and ensure listed articles are up to 2016 quality standards. Again rewards would be given to editors who re review and improve/retain the most articles. That could be considered later, but we need to start somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, Wugapodes, Miyagawa, FunkMonk, Jaguar, SNUGGUMS, Figureskatingfan: The next GA Cup will probably be this March - do we really want a separate drive running at the same time? Especially since the WikiCup is also going on.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Love Me like You isn't showing up in the songs nominations, even though it is nominated. — Calvin999 17:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Would anybody be willing to take over these GA reviews I started a while back? I've got to go into hospital for an uncertain amount of time and feel bad enough as it is that I've delayed their reviews until now, let alone in possibly 2-4 weeks when I emerge from hospital. It would be very appreciated. Azealia911 talk 11:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I nominated Gabor B. Racz for GA, the review was started, is still listed at GA/N as being reviewed even though it is not because toward the end of the review, the reviewer advised me he could not complete it, [11]. The review is stuck in limbo and quite frankly, I don't know how to proceed. The review notice is still on the TP as is the open discussion at Talk:Gabor_B._Racz/GA2. Can someone please help or at least advise as to what steps to take next to either end the review, or get another reviewer on it? Thanks in advance. Atsme 📞 📧 18:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
A former head of state that is still alive, should go in "World history" or "Politics and government"? Cambalachero ( talk) 18:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The reviewer at Talk:On the Art of the Cinema/GA1 has informed me that he can't finish the review because of personal issues. I'm looking for a new reviewer. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone give me some advices when reviewing good articles? And see this discussion also, thanks. 333 -blue 13:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I wrote and nominated Hi-Level. It's just been promoted, but the review was inadequate at best and I don't feel comfortable with promotion under the circumstances. May I, as the nominator, request a second opinion at this point? Mackensen (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to delete all of the sub-subtopic "Includes" sentences from the GAN page. For example, Under the subtopic heading "Television" is the sentence: "Includes Television series; Television episodes; Television characters" ( seen here). This one is a particularly good example of why the sub-subtopic "Includes" sentences need be deleted, because in the past year or so, the television subtopic has been sub-divided into many, many more sub-subtopics, even including actual television series titles (Simpsons, X-Files, etc.), so we really really don't need to say "Includes Simpsons, X-Files" etc. here; that sentence would go on forever (some are already starting to: seen here, and that list is even out of date!). Of course, the sub-subtopic headings themselves on the GA page are absolutely staying ( seen here). If there's objection, tell me why exactly why these "Includes" sentences are useful on the GAN page and let me know how we are supposed to keep up with so many sub-subtopic headings. If there's no objection, I'll start in a few days. Best, Prhartcom ( talk) 22:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The nominator for Mariam Dadiani is absent, but I have reviewed the article. I've asked at the relevant wikiproject without luck, so if anyone here wants to take over and fix the issues listed, it would be nice. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I am looking at Chennai, a GAN currently listed in the review needed box. This article is HUGE, almost 200K and it already has a series of subpages. I assume this fails criteria 3b in a major way. But is that enough to fail the GA? If it is reduced significantly it would not be the same article submitted for GA. MPJ -US 01:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The Peer reviewer tool has been temporarily removed from the Template:Good article tools (that appears at the top of every review page). The editor who removed it gives their reason here: Template talk:Good article tools#Peer reviewer (briefly, it is because the tool recommends a " " between numeric values and non-abbreviated units, i.e. "1000 metres"). In the meantime, I encourage reviewers to continue using the tool if they wish. Prhartcom ( talk) 23:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: The editor has restored the link to the tool in Good article tools, but this is still being resolved. Prhartcom ( talk) 16:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I passed Talk:Ahmad Maymandi/GA3 today. However, Legobot stated that the nomination failed and notified the nominator about the same. Did I do something wrong or was it some bug? Cheers, Ya sh ! 13:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I nominated the article 1982 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game for GA a while ago and since a user, Grondemar, reviewed it and listed some errors to fix and whatnot. I've addressed the issues he/she outlined, but he/she has since been inactive for nearly two months. Is there any way to further the review? Thanks Disc Wheel ( T + C) 03:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I am reviewing Samuel L. M. Barlow I and the article is just extremly short. I am not sure what the 1(b) criteria is but to me it feels like it's too short to be a Good Article, it's barely an article at this point in time. My instincts says to review what's there, ask if it can be expanded and put it on hold for a while to allow expansion to take place. I would like some guidance from more experienced GA reviewers please. MPJ -US 02:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
A quick question regarding the article, Hasta la Raíz (song). It was nominated for GA, and I reviewed the article, suggesting any changes that should be made before passing. However, the seven days had passed without a single change being made, so it failed. The nominator wasn't active on Wikipedia until today, and let me be aware of the changes he/she made. I have re-read the article and believe it is GA status, but the question is, does it need to renominated or am I allowed to put the GA stamp on it? Thanks. Carbrera ( talk) 21:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The reviewer of Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid does not seem to understand the system of how the reviews work. Not quite a surprise considering they started it after making about 10 edits themselves. Someone should close this review and fail it, the article is quite far from being GA. Can I do that myself or does some sort of admin need to step in? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 13:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Should all of the subcategories of the Wikipedia:Good articles page continue to be placed on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page?
The list of good articles (GA) is organized onto topics (or pages; there are 15 topics/pages), subtopics (there are 37 subtopics across the topics). From the beginning, all of the topics and subtopics on the good articles page have also all been placed onto the good article nominations (GAN) page. [1] [2]
I propose we add the following subtopics to these topics, simply reflecting the same structure as WP:GA:
To add subtopics to the GAN involves editing the GAN page to add them and enhancing Legobot to use them. [3]
Of course, the developer/operator of Legobot, Legoktm, who took over this responsibility in 2012, is invited to this discussion and their input is critical. It appears we haven't yet had a subtopic change under Legoktm's watch.
There are a few other things to consider. First: The GAN page looks odd with empty subtopics and empty subtopics could confuse people, although of course it's only temporary, so we should probably not add them until Legobot is nearly ready to use them. Second: Remember that a subtopic on the GAN page is also a queue in which we wait for our GAN to be reviewed; more subtopics may mean it is not as far from the bottom of the queue to the top. And last: Maybe some other GA/GAN subtopics should also be divided into additional subtopics; for example the "Sports and recreation" subtopic is quite large on the GAN page. [4]
Thank-you for your comments. My thanks to BlueMoonset who helped research this. Best, Prhartcom ( talk) 17:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Support as nominator. Prhartcom ( talk) 17:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I've just pulled this back from the archives; RfCs typically run a month, and this was archived far too soon.
My impressions of the changes are that we don't necessarily have to follow GA's lead in their hierarchy, since the determinant as to where the new GAs need to be added is the sub-subtopic, a level of granularity that is unnecessary to our process, which deals with a limited number active nominations (in the 300 to 600 range), as opposed to a historical archive of over 23,000 entries that needs a great many subdivisions to remain manageable.
I wasn't sure I saw the necessity of separating out "Classical compositions" from the "Other music articles" section, but it seems to be a significant plurality of the 24 in that section now, and even though there are only 59 Classical composition good articles, it seems that the number is now actively increasing. (When it was separated out, seemingly arbitrarily, in 2013, there were 27 in this new subtopic, quite a bit less than other active sub-subtopics that weren't elevated.) It makes more sense now than I initially thought.
Fragmenting Warfare into a full seven subtopics seems a bit excessive; there are currently 33 nominations. Six of the seven seem to have a large number of entries at GA; the seventh, Military decorations and memorials, seems likely to be empty most of the time (there are 16 total GAs), but as it doesn't fit well with any of the others, if it wasn't its own subtopic, it would need to be in a miscellaneous subtopic, which would still require seven subtopics. Or we could combine a few to have four or five total. But this could be fussiness on my part: there are a number of subtopics currently that rarely have more than a couple of nominations at any one time. I'd be interested to hear what the Warfare WikiProject members who are active at GAN have to say.
It is quite true that Sports and recreation, a topic with itself as the sole subtopic, is by far the largest at GAN, with 81 nominations at present, about 16% of the total. It has 37 sub-subtopics. Even a few well-picked subtopics with a miscellaneous section would help, though looking through, I had trouble cutting it below these five: football (American, Association, Australian, rugby, other), baseball & cricket, basketball, hockey (ice & field), and [professional] wrestling, with the rest in the "other" category. There could be arguments made for another three or four subtopics, but I think that would—at least for now—prove unwieldy. I do wonder, despite what I said above, whether it might make sense to get buy-in from the GA pages, in case they'd want a different division. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed several GAs that I successfully nominated at FAC over six months ago were still sitting in the GA lists until I manually removed them a few minutes ago. Pretty sure that removal of new FAs from the GA list was automated at some stage but not sure if it was Gimmebot or Legobot or some other agent -- anyone know? If the bot that did it is a lost cause then I'll see if FAC Bot can do it but like to know any pertinent info from here first. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
As Wikipedia tries to be more inclusive to women editors, and we have several Wikipedia projects centering on women's issues, what would it take to get a GAC nomination category something like "Women's history"? The reason this comes to mind, in the case of any editor who wants to specifically review women's nominations, is that you can't always tell gender by a person's name. And having just typed that, I'm not sure where a nomination would go if it was about LBGT issues. Hmmmm. — Maile ( talk) 21:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
On the talk page for Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the template for the article's GA review is transcluded as {{Talk:Reed v. Town of Gilbert/GA1}}. However, instead of linking to the Reed v. Gilbert GA review, the transclusion shows Talk:HTC First/GA1 instead. Any suggestions? -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 15:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the point of nominating articles anymore? I see editors all the time nominating articles, and asking/canvassing editors for conduct a review within 24 hours, and usually passed too. Meanwhile the rest of us wait weeks or months. — Calvin999 16:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Josh that is 100% not relevant to the conversation and I'm disappointed in half of your response. How do I not treat the process appropriately? I worked hard on articles, I nominate them, I wait however long for a reviewer to decide they want to review it, and I fulfil their suggestions. What is inappropriate about that? You being personal doesn't help Wikipedia and getting articles reviewed. — Calvin999 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Two scenarios, not totally germane to the issue:
I hope this helps. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Calvin999, I did not know this was happening (but I am not surprised to hear it); thank-you for bringing it to our attention. If I understand you, you are frustrated at this apparent shortcut in the process, especially since you have been following the instructions to the letter, waiting patiently, and you want to know if some policy is being violated. I understand you may also be saying that the canvased reviews are being passed not according to the GA criteria. For the second point, if you really believe that is the case, just as Peter said, then the process is: Please nominate that article for WP:GAR reassessment. For the first point, I am sorry to tell you no, no policy is being violated. The GA Instructions already say that a nomination must wait in the queues for about six months, but that, conversely, it may take only a few days of waiting, as the instructions say that a reviewer may pick any review from the queue that they want. The instructions mention nothing about the canvassing, so let us look at the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline. That page clearly identifies types of inappropriate canvassing, such as spamming and campaigning, and offers solutions, such as "politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop". Have you tried that? I agree with Josh and with the old saying, that I suggest you consider: You can catch more flies with honey. Now, I do not believe it is considered inappropriate for a single nominator to ask a single reviewer to review their article. I think canvassing is probably okay at that scale. If you see that occur, my suggestion to you is: Look away. Try not to think about it. It's not like it's a widespread problem, right? Or, if you prefer, provide us with links to the specific cases where you believe it is a widespread problem. But what I suggest to you is: Take solace in the comfort that you are doing the right thing by waiting with your nomination in the queues the normal amount of time just like practically everyone else is doing. I like the suggestions of Checkingfax above, especially their point 4. All will be well, I promise! All the best, Prhartcom ( talk) 22:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@Blatant cutting of a line will not stand up over time. At BART stations they have black marks to show where the train doors will stop and everybody lines up there. The other day with long lines as soon as the doors opened a person sauntered over to be first into the train.
The train was very full. I was lucky to get a seat. Next to me was a person sitting in a seat with their feet up so as to take up the entire bench seat. They just enacted a $200 fine for seat hogging, but I was too shy to pick up the phone (and it was too noisy) to alert the train operator so he could call the transit police. Plus, it seemed like such overkill. I did not want to approach the person because they were disheveled and I did not want to set them off in the BART tunnel.
We are supposed to give up certain seats to elderly people and people with disabilities (this is a Federal law). Many disabilities are invisible, and how old is elderly?
At the highway tunnel, when traffic backs up everyday somebody will zoom around on the shoulder and cut to the front. At a construction site lane closure in my neighborhood the other day there was a 15 minute backup caused by the gridlock of the construction coupled with the signal light. We all patiently waited except for a couple of hotheads who would jet around and cut to the front of the wait line. I could go on and on. It is discouraging. There is a traffic light that I go through twice a day and it is usually brief. When the signal stalled for over 5-minutes I was ready to drive through when it finally turned green. I was sure it would never change. Sometimes they are broken.
Promotions like the WikiCup can clear review queues but they may have unintended consequences. Hang in there, buddy. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
22:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello all!
I have started reviewing the subject GAN and noted my comments at
Talk:Lucknow/GA3. The nominator is not much active it seems and this review was started by me on 3rd March with no much progress. Nominator has responded only once in between and the nomination is standstill. I had
also posted on India noticeboard about it if anyone else was ready to take it up. Today I have also posted a note on
nominator's talk page.
The comments are quite major and can't be resolved easily. Many non-RS references are used and hence I do not wish to fix the article myself. How long do I wait for nominator to respond? §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits}
04:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) the GA reviewer @ Ugog Nizdast: felt the article was almost ready to be passed after a few pending items. @ Stevenmitchell: made a few edits and suggested the article had "substantial issues", etc. Additional input is welcome. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. The
(90d) link to stats lists
Caitlyn Jenner at 70,000 page views per 90 days but the correct number is 1,617,000 per 90 days as seen
here. grok.se is off by a factor of 35. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
10:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
21:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
page views (90d)
that links off to grok.se. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
21:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Would someone mind stepping into the GA review of my nominated article, Princess Charlotte of Prussia? I had resolved the reviewer's concerns, but it appears Sotakeit hasn't edited in a month. I've posted on their talkpage but heard nothing back yet. I've never had this happen to one of my GAs before, so I'm unclear if this is the proper step, but I thought I'd post anyway. Thanks! Ruby 2010/ 2013 15:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Would appreciate a quick bit of help on a recently-failed GA nom. This page Talk:Ethereum/GA2 says that a GA nomination was speedy failed (which I would agree with; the article is not close to ready for a GA review).
My question is how and when the did the article get nominated a second time for GA, so soon after an initial GA nom was done? The page Talk:Ethereum/GA2 does not say. Am I looking in the wrong place to find the nom, and who made it? Is there a page that shows both the nom (when and by whom) and the speedy fail, or should? Was the second GA nom really different than the first nom?, or were they perhaps the same?
(The first nom is here: Talk:Ethereum/GA1, was very recent also, and apparently was made by an active editor, who then quickly reviewed the article as not ready for GA (which it was, of course, not).
Could someone look these over and be sure that that GA nom process was followed sufficiently cleanly so that future GA discussions and reviews are not impacted by the odd process(es?) used in these rather non-standard GA1 and GA2 noms? Thanks. N2e ( talk) 12:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Calvin999 and MaranoFan have each been blocked for a month for "incessant battleground behavior" (see Special:Diff/716601415 and the comment it replies to). Calvin999 is currently listed as the reviewer on six open GA nominations, and MaranoFan is the nominator on two more. Should something be done about these nominations, rather than just leaving them open for the duration of the block? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
It's been over two years since the previous backlog drive and that one was met with an inadequate success. A backlog drive was proposed in January, which I was a supporter of, but it never materialised as the GA Cup commenced the following month, and I didn't have the time to set it up. It was also met with a positive response from everyone I asked; everybody agreed that we needed a quick and effective way to decrease backlog, and a 30-day backlog elimination drive is the best way to do that. I've started a backlog elimination drive set for May. As a judge in the GA Cup, I'm well aware that the competition is running now. You might be wondering how a drive and a competition which both have the same objective could work well together. The GA Cup is a competition, the backlog drive isn't, it's merely a way of decreasing a backlog through quicker reviews:
I am proposing that someone create a user script that would allow GA nomination review's to be done more efficiently. The user script would probably need to write the review itself, as well as apply the GA top-icon and update the talk page. — Music1201 talk 02:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
For nearly a month now, Royroydeb seems to have completely abandoned reviewing João Sousa's article. I would like to know what I can do to make sure that the review is successfully completed. I wouldn't want to go back to end of the list and wait for another 5-6 months. Could I ask for a new reviewer? If so, where should I do it? Thanks. SOAD KoRn ( talk) 22:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
A reviewer new to GAN, Zppix, started on May 9, and since then has done four very rapid and inadequate reviews, passing three and initially quickfailing a fourth. The quickfail—which had been waiting for review for over four months—was undone, but a proper review seems unlikely.
I have posted to Zppix's talk page, suggesting mentorship, that someone look over reviews before they are finalized, or that a there be a reviewing moratorium while Zppix gets up to speed on the GA criteria: there has been no response beyond archiving the posts. I suggest that we ban Zppix from GA reviewing for three months or longer, and after that only allowing one-at-a-time reviews under the supervision of a mentor, who must concur before a review is passed or failed. (The mentorship requirement can be ended once competence at GA reviewing has been demonstrated.)
These are the reviews conducted so far:
I am boldly reversing the approval of Undertale: the review was not properly conducted and we cannot afford to have an editor approving or rejecting GA nominations at what amounts to his or her whim after a quick read-through. It's unfair to the nominators and it's disruptive: we cannot go the reassessment route every time, but that would be what needs to happen. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Now that Zppix has withdrawn from GA, I would like to suggest that all of his reviews be re-examined or reassigned as follows:
— BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Prhartcom: maybe if I change my mind but for now I'm leaving GA til further notice. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 13:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a note that while Legobot is currently waking up once an hour, it has not done any GAN tasks in the past 11 hours. It has definitely missed two changes that I made to GA-nominated article talk pages, and one review that Prhartcom has opened; I ended up hand-editing mine, but Prhartcom's needs to be picked up by the bot.
I've notified Legoktm on his talk page, but someone may want to contact him via email since he's so infrequently editing on the site. (I don't do Wikipedia email.) Tasks that aren't being done include adding new nominations, removing passes and fails, notifying nominators when reviews begin, are put on hold, or are passed or failed, transcluding review pages on talk pages and modifying the GA nominee template, and adding the GA icon to passed articles. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Khanate General started the review of IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth on 25 March 2016. I responded, and had made changes to fit the suggestions/recommendations of Khanate General on 30 March 2016, pinging Khanate General in the process. Khanate General did not respond, so I asked again on 11 April 2016 (accidentally forgetting to ping Khanate General), which once again led to no response. Can someone else who is a little more active than Khanate General take over the review? Thanks, -- Elisfkc ( talk) 19:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I know they can't review them, but what about nomination? I found that Souled Out (Jhené Aiko album) was nominated that way, and it certainly isn't prepared, just another reason for it to fail. Not much work has been done on it since nomination. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Lehigh Valley Silk Mills was nominated by an unregistered editor in March. FYI WT SPI. The nomination and most of the edits were done by what might be sockpuppets. The are six redlink editors and one blue link. All edits by those accounts were in March, and all on this article. Maybe this nomination should be pulled. It would be hard to review something where the primary editors are gone and maybe not coming back. — Maile ( talk) 18:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Despite starting the review of Spectre, @ Cirt: hasn't edited in a month, and the review is still open ( with a FTRC depending on it). I've even added "second opinion" on the talk page, but I still wonder if someone could please help this get closed. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 01:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
We could use more Featured Articles. Does anyone who feels comfortable with GAN want help getting started with FAC? - Dank ( push to talk) 20:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I have a quick question regarding an article that I have nominated for review. Azealia911 has started the review for " Olivia" around the end of March and beginning of April, but has recently been inactive on Wikipedia and I have not received any updates on the review since April 18.
I have messaged Azealia911 about this and he let me know that he was busy with real life obligations and would be unable to complete the review for some time. However, it has been over a month since the last comments and I am wondering what should I do next in this situation? Thank you in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoba47 ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi... I am looking to nominate the aromatization article for GA once I finish adding some more content. I am seeking advice from anyone who is willing to look at the presentation of diagrams / graphics, as the article has a lot of illustrations and I am not sure how to make it look more elegant. Thoughts / Suggestions? Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 02:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)