![]() | 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. |
Hi there, I have noticed several articles that were nominated in July or August of last year that still haven't gotten a review. I know it can be a lot of work to review an article, but waiting 8-9 months for a good article review is way too long. Can we get some kind of campaign going to help these articles get reviewed? I've started reviewing three articles after I just nominated three of my own for GA. Any help or suggestions would be great. Maybe we could award some barnstars for the people who have done certain amounts of reviews as has been done in the past. Basilisk4u ( talk) 23:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
A potential solution is to allow users to do a partial review of the article, such as allowed by the FAC and FLC processes. I would go through and do image reviews on a few articles (particularly music articles, which tend to have the highest backlog), but that means I have to commit to review the entire article. Others might be comfortable just doing a prose review. Not sure if we should move to a coordinator based approach for closing, or if we should just have one person in charge of verifying all the criteria were reviewed and closing it. Kees08 (Talk) 01:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Has anybody done any analysis of the articles to see if there are patterns that can help us find targeted approaches to managing the backlog? Absent actual data, my impression (which is probably wrong) is that we get a large volume of certain kinds of "boilerplate" articles (and, I hasten to add, I don't mean that in the belitteling or dismissiv sense; just as shorthand for relatively short, relatively fixed structure, using a large proportion of the same sources, and whose titles can be generated from a list, and as a result can and do show up here in relatively large volumes) on things like roads, a specific country's participation in a specific year's olympics (to repeat the example used above), and so forth. Iff it's correct that we have such areas that generate a high volume of nominations, it might be possible to focus on those areas specifically to lessen the impact on the overall backlog. It might be possible to shunt those areas to a separate backlog queue; to recruit steady reviewers by coopting a relevant WikiProject (which might conceivably revitalize relevant WikiProjects as a bonus); or employing some kind of coordinator role to manage that queue specifically.
Or—and I'm not sure I would support this—what if nominations that fail to garner a review in a specific amount of time were archived (without prejudice)? What effects would that have? It's possible it might actually lead to a healthier (more sustainable process) with less frustration for both nominators and reviewers. Those nominators whose articles fail to get reviewed will not be pleased, of course, but it is actually possible that getting that nom archived will feel less frustrating than having it languish for months in limbo. If the time for a GAC is predictable (will take 3-6 weeks: pass, fail, or archive), it is possible this would, overall, be felt to be better than living in limbo for the better part of a year.
"Encourage people to review more" simply does not work without systemic changes. Any backlog reduction drive will not work because it is effectively a one-time fix for a systemic problem.
If we're to do anything about this problem we need to think outside the box, and any actual solution will have to involve some kind of systemic component or a change to the process. -- Xover ( talk) 04:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I was curious so looked at the editors with multiple nominations at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report#Nominators with multiple nominations ( this version in case the bot updates it). I compared the number of reviews they have done (from User:GA bot/Stats version) to how many nominations they have made. Besides human errors with my counting there are other limitations.
The GA bot stats record the number of times a user has started a new page with "/GA". In the early days subpages were not made so editors who have been around a while will not have reviews recorded if they just passed them on the articles talk page. It also does not differentiate between Good Article reviews and individual Good Article Reassessments as they both use the "/GA" form. It does not take into account reviews completed by someone else once the article has been started, second opinions or other contributions to reviews by editors that did not start them. The difference may be quite stark, for example one editor I looked at had a difference of about 20% from what they had recorded as their Good Article reviews on their user page and what the bot had.
For the number of nominations I used the editors own recorded number plus the current nominations they had. Most had userboxs or some other means of counting their Good Articles displayed on their user page. Those that didn't I looked through there contribution history to try and reach a number. Level of accuracy depended on the user counts being up-to-date and recorded correctly. Again it is hard to differentiate between co-noms and contributors to Good Articles who did not nominate. Also it most likely doesn't take into account nominations that fail or were later delisted. There may be other issues I haven't thought of too.
I won't name names unless we decide whether, given the limitations, this is useful and what (if anything) we should do about it. Some general numbers though. Of the 43 editors with multiple nominations:
These look bad at face value, and in some ways are, but I chose editors with multiple nominations as they are more likely to be editors overwhelming the system. I think this confirms that having multiple nominations in itself is not a problem. However, there are definitely some editors out there who are not pulling their weight when it comes to reviews. To my mind the problem are the nine editors with 20 or more nominations who have only reviewed 10% of their nomination number. Again I stress there are possibly errors in this and these editors likely contribute to the encyclopaedia in other ways. I don't think we want to upset our content creators too much as they are vital for the encyclopaedia and many already feel unfairly targeted. Even still there is one editor in that list that has claimed over 100 Good Articles on their talk page on and I can find no evidence of a single review. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Different point, I was wondering if most GANs have to wait a long time, or just a few. I snagged data from the Reports page, and used advanced data analysis (Excel) to create a histogram for GAN age. I fuzzed date for below 30 days since it was not on there, I knew the quantity but not exact number, so it is off by five or so.
It looks like most (> 50%) of GANs wait 60 days or less. About 88% are reviewed by 3.5 months or so. With that, maybe we should focus on analyzing the ones that are waiting greater than 3.5 months. Same people, same topics, length of articles, lots of photos, first time nominators, people that review very little, all might contribute. Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Data: File:History of GAN Age Over Time.png
Sparked by the information above I have collected information about GAs that were nominated in 2017 and haven't been reviewed. The information listed is based on hypothesis listed above for why articles might sit. I am doing this by hand but if there are additions that can reasonably be collected I will do so. It's important to note that this information is existing in a vacuum - we need to compare articles that have sat with articles that have been reviewed. My thought on that is that the comparison should be made to the next article nominated in that subcategory but that's harder to collect and so I haven't attempted to do so. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I was looking at this article about a legal case and realized that most of the citations are to the court's report of the case; not exactly a primary source for the facts of the case but close, and literally the primary source for the case's holding (which is ultimately what the case is about). There must be specific guidelines about how WP:NOR applies to legal cases, but I admit I'm having trouble finding them - anyone here have any pointers/suggestions? Thanks in advance... — Luis ( talk) 22:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Greetings. I have been busy reviewing Talk:Tornerò (Mihai Trăistariu song)/GA1 and came across a WP:SYNTH violation where the article says "Critics gave positive reviews, praised this and that" which is clearly "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The editor refuses to remove the claim and pinged another editor who says this is allowed according to the essay WP:RECEPTION. The editor has now gone on a rant and asked me to close the review saying he has done this for 80+ GAs which I find quite worrying if 80+ of his GA articles contain WP:SYNTH. I was hoping someone could look into this or give some feedback before I close the review. Cool Marc 11:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi - earlier today I passed Gog the Mild's Zoë Porphyrogenita to GA, however, the GA icon didn't trigger and the GAN Notice hasn't appeared on his Talk page. I was going to manually add it but wanted to check and ensure I hadn't done anything incorrectly first? Chetsford ( talk) 21:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The Cricket nominator has accidentally started the review themselves. What's the technical way of fixing this? Would love to know how to do this as it's now the second time I've seen this happen. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
A review of at Talk:Clydesdale Motor Truck Company/GA1 was started on 2nd May, but the editor appears to have abandoned it. On 31st May they wrote this essay apparently retiring from Wikipedia. Spinning Spark 21:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Would anyone be willing to take over as the reviewer on the GA review for Jack Kirby? The reviewer did post a review, and although the review went stale for about a month, Tenebrae and Hiding pitched in and it looks like they addressed all of the reviewer's concerns. I pinged the reviewer, and left a request on their talk page, but they have not responded. BOZ ( talk) 02:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I just started reviewing Cloverfield, and didn't realise until after I had started my review that this was actually the third time the page has been nominated and reviewed as the previous attempts are not listed in the article's history at the talk page. I had a look back at the previous attempts by navigating to Talk:Cloverfield/GA1 and Talk:Cloverfield/GA2, and was surprised to find that the latter had been deleted due to the nominator apparently trying to review the page themselves. Should my new review continue at Talk:Cloverfield/GA3 (where it was automatically created) or should it be counted as the second review of the article? If the the latter, would I need admin help to move the page given a page once existed for the second review before it was deleted? - adamstom97 ( talk) 07:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: I have failed this review, which means a third GAN is possible in the future. I just thought I would mention that since the current Talk:Cloverfield/GA3 redirects to Talk:Cloverfield/GA2 which I'm guessing may cause some issues when someone tries to create a new review for the article in the future. - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason that some articles are ignored for months, whilst newer ones are reviewed with in a day or two in the same category? Sorry if this comes across as a bit of a whinge, but I just want to make sure i've not made a common or obvious error. Have I nominated Arthur Frederick Bettinson to the wrong section? its an historical biography about a person who was of hugely influential figure in the boxing world, so I nominated the article to the Sports and Recreation category.
It's pretty comprehensive, but it's by no means a weighty tome that would take huge amounts of painstaking research to verify. There are however, a lot of sources that originate from the the subscription website British Newspaper Archive, I can see that putting potential reviewers off, so i have placed a note explaining that i'd give the reviewer access to the website.
Any tips or suggestions would be appreciated. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc ( talk) 23:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow GA reviewers,
I have noticed that a ton of reviews have been abandoned for months with either the editors ignoring it or inactivity. I have failed the reviews where no action was taken on either the review page or article in months. Failing criteria was checked by user contributions and if both Nom. and Reviewer have gone a month without editing, its a fail. I have pinged nominators and reviewers of these abandoned reviews. I feel that these are holding up the growing backlog, leaving some article that have been nominator months ago to stay indefinitely. I try to focus my reviews on backlogged requests in topics I feel comfortable with reading extensively (such as Transport).
I propose a cutoff date for the Reviews. If a review is not worked on or NOT ON HOLD within a Month, the users should get pinged. If they do not respond within Three Days, an automatic fail will be applied to the review. I feel with a cutoff date, reviewers and nominators will be more encouraged to respond. Things come up in life and I get that some have to be away from reviewing for a bit to solve their life situations. If something comes up they should put the review on HOLD and notify the reviewer, not abandon the review.
Thank you everyone. We can tame this backlog! AmericanAir88 ( talk) 15:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello all, About five months ago, on 5 March, Ichthyovenator and I nominated Western Roman Empire for Good Article. Previously on 22 February I had reviewed the article myself (at Talk:Western Roman Empire/GA1) and found it lacking in several areas, and offered to drop the review and involve myself in improving the article. Ichthyovenator agreed and we (although he pulled most of the weight) worked on the article extensively, before nominating it on 5 March. It was recently picked up by JohnWickTwo, (at Talk:Western Roman Empire/GA2) who's initial commentary seemed only to list three ways the article was unlike Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire. I responded to his points (as Ichthyovenator had also done before me), and asked him why he was not using the six Good Article criteria, informing him also that I had never seen things reviewed comparatively to its related subjects. After this, he changed his points into six criteria, although these again did not relate to the Six Good Article criteria. I then posted the six Good Article Criteria in their entirety, requesting (although I will admit I did not actually explicitly request such) he restructure the review around them. 43 minutes later he closed the review saying it needed to be edited by the WP:GOCE, and needed to be raised to B class by an impartial editor. Earlier we had discussed the point of it currently being rated B class, and I had pointed out it was only C because no one had re-assessed it, and that of the three Wikiprojects claiming it, only one had a B-class checklist, which was not filled in, and that I had seen articles make the jump from Stub to GA, so the current assessment was immaterial. I will shamelessly admit to doing research; and noticed that JohnWickTwo had similar behavior at Talk:Jared Kushner/GA1, much to the confusion of Emir of Wikipedia, who had nominated it. I then reached out to my partner Ichthyovenator and asked if he thought it worthwhile to pursue community discussion, which he agreed to. In the meantime, I have re-nominated the article, with a regrettably passive-aggressive edit summary. As a result of this affair, I would like to ask the GAN community to review the here-listed actions. Thank you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Yet more than the high-handed and arbitrary review itself, I am now also very much concerned by the reviewer's behaviour here after the concerns with the review were raised. The reviewer's responses here essentially ignore most of the concernes raised and even tries to dodge direct questions. They clutch at the straw that they had provided one single actionable issue (an overlong sentence), but obfuscate the fact that it was provided 5 days into the review, but only 5 hours before closing the review as failed. They also repeatedly bring up one of the co-nominators' "extended wikibreak"—which is a characterization of being offline for 7 days (judging by their edit history), that just happened to coincide with the start of the review, that is at best disingenuous, and at worst raises questions about the reviewer's good faith—as if there is a requirement that both co-noms be available.
In short, they exhibit no sign that they have understood why their review was problematic; they double down on the very positions that were problematic in the review; and they engage in obfuscation and dissimulation to such an extent that it brings their good faith into question. In consequence of this, I question whether this editor should participate in the GA process at all. -- Xover ( talk) 09:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
So I will join the chorus who say that this review isn't in-line with the reviews I've done or read (and at this point I've read a lot of them). However I'd prefer to look forward and encouarage JohnWickTwo to take heed of the several other reviewers who have raised questions about this review and think about finding a GA mentor. We can always use more good people reviewing and he's clearly are interested - in fact one of the underlying issues in this seems to be the frustration at the wait time that articles need to go through to be reviewed. Doing what we can (which includes more reviewers as a best sort of solution) feels productive for the encyclopedia. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Could a coordinator (nomenclat.?) have a look at this, please? I think it probably needs to be reviewed and withdrawn. The GA reviewer was a seven-week-old account at the time of the review, and the review itself consists of an unnecessary discussion about mirror sites. In fact, the review itself consists of the reviewer making two comments, neither of them related to the topic at hand or the GA criteria itself. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 12:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. They were false positives, but-uh, well... y'know... related. Mr rnddude ( talk) 13:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone, sorry for the late response, I've been off for a bit. While I recognize your concern, my opinions are generally those of Aircorn's. I felt that the article met the GA criteria, and ticked the boxes as needed. I ran the article through (I'd say) enough processes to determine that it met the requirements for the green circle. I don't believe my age (as noted by Serial and SoWhy) should be "suspicious" , as the instructions for reviewing state:
"To review an article you must:
These are the only criteria mentioned by the instructions. If the comment about the tenure refers to sockpuppetry, I encourage you to take your concerns to the relevant noticeboards. Also, if I have unintentionally overlooked something, I would point you to the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and while the rules should generally be followed, they should be followed to the spirit of the law. I have attempted, in reviewing articles for GA criteria, to follow the criteria as best as possible. If there's still concerns, please start a re-assessment. Thank you for your time, EggRoll97 ( talk | contribs) 08:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
At times during the last interglacial period (130,000–70,000 BC) Europe had a climate warmer than today's, and early humans may have made their way to Scotland, with the possible discovery of pre-Ice Age axes on Orkney and mainland Scotland. I haven't a foggy what that sentence is supposed to mean (I have an idea of what it means, but that's a butchered sentence). There's a second example of the same problem in a later paragraph in the same section:
The settlers introduced chambered cairn tombs from around 3500 BC, as at Maeshowe,[14] and from about 3000 BC the many standing stones and circles such as those at Stenness on the mainland of Orkney, which date from about 3100 BC, of four stones, the tallest of which is 16 feet (5 m) in height. Very long sentence, fusing several statements together, and not making a clear point. This should be a minimum of two or three separate sentences. A more experienced reviewer would also probably determine that the article should be halved in size, as is suggested by this editing guideline. I'm agreeing with both SN and BlueMoonset. With sentences like these, the article is certainly not, yet, ready to be declared a GA. Mr rnddude ( talk) 16:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I will say that this false accusation of plagiarism is worrying and not what we would expect from GA reviewers, considering that plagiarism can eventually result in serious consequences in real life and on Wikipedia. -- Rs chen 7754 03:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've been trying to tackle our oldest articles in the queue and came across Dual systems model. Editor User:Stash85 nominated this in November 2017 and has not been active ever since. He/she was part of a college course where students write articles with their professor/peers. The article is decent as it stands, but not quite there for GA status just yet. What is the standard procedure in this situation? Remove from the queue? Review and wait 7 days before pass/fail?
I left a comment in the article's talkpage to see if any page watchers would reach out, but I think it's highly unlikely anyone will because this was a new article back in September 2017. I also reached out to the editor in his/her talkpage in hopes of hearing back from him or anyone else. Course instructor User:Benkarney has not been very active in Wikipedia, either. Any direction will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! MX ( ✉ • ✎) 20:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
I am writing this to address concern for a nominator (@ Happypillsjr:) who does not put in effort for GA status. This users GA record is shocking as the user has a history of nominating far from ready articles. The user also sometimes starts reviews on their own.
The main reason is addressing this user is the fact that they nominate articles that they have never edited. All of the articles that were nominated by this user, including one I am reviewing right now (BMT Canarsie Line), have never been touched by the nominator. If the review somehow passes with the other articles, this user is taking the credit for work other editors have done. (See my review of BMT Canarsie Line to elaborate more on that).
The one article this user got passed was a very weak review. IPhone 6 was the article and it seems the reviewer did all the work as Happypillsjr never edited the article to fix the issues, the reviewer did.. Happypills needs to be taught how to properly nominate and to put effort into the articles they nominate. This user has received warnings from admins regarding the nominations but the user does not seem to learn the lesson. The history this user has is terrible and needs to be addressed further. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 15:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I have just posted a note to Happypillsjr's talk page requesting that they not make any further GANs. They made a number in 2015 and 2016, and then would open reviews for them, which got to be quite problematic after a while. I made two or three posts to their talk page explaining what the issues were, to no avail. Ultimately, an admin gave them (as noted in Mr rnddude's link) a short block after a final warning, which stopped the problem for a couple of years. It seems clear that they have no idea of what makes a GA, just what articles they think should become one for whatever reason, hence the out-of-process and not properly considered nominations. I also reverted their sole remaining nomination because (as always) they had not consulted with the article's significant contributors, despite having made zero edits prior to nominating. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Sports and recreation has been the largest queue for a while now, with anywhere from 50-60 nominations. Would it be possible to split this topic into sub-topics, similar to most of the other topics? Off the top of my head, I would think the following sub-topics could work: Biographies, Professional sports and rec and Amateur sports and rec, but I would obviously be open to other sup-topics. Just curious, as it could make it a little easier for Sports and Rec reviewers to differentiate and reviews noms. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
This review got started in June and the editor seems to have left the project. How would I go about restarting it? -- Coemgenus ( talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a newer Good article reviewer (only have started 2 reviews so far). A question I have is about close paraphrasing. I have been rereading Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#When_is_close_paraphrasing_permitted? various times and would like some clarification. How many words of a source is classed as close paraphrasing when it is used in a Wikipedia article?
I am currently reviewing Talk:Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino/GA1 and I have mentioned multiple times a part where I believe something is closely paraphrased. The issue is, I believe that although in some cases there are only a few words closely paraphrased, there is not a limited amount of ways to phrase the sentence.
Should I be saying that something is closely paraphrased when it's only a few words and not have a limited ways of stating? Or should I be mainly focusing on ones where a large amount of words are paraphrased and appear in the same order? Thanks. -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 19:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Proposal: make subjects actively in the news ineligible for GANs and FACs for a RFC that is of interest to this project. AIRcorn (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Today, Bold and Brash ( talk · contribs) reviewed Talk:Floyd Bennett Field/GA1 and left the very cursory comment "I'd recommend this article for good article status based on the properly sourced references, organised and well-written information, and informative and useful photographs provided within the article's contents." However, the review didn't address any of the good article criteria. Since this user is relatively new (only 300 edits since January), I think they might not know about the criteria, and the article might need a second pair of eyes. Would a more experienced editor be willing to guide them through the review process? Thanks. epicgenius ( talk) 23:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Earlier this year there was a bot request to replace Legobot's handling of Good Article Nominations. I have started working on an implementation that would address some of the concerns raised in that thread. After some discussion with barkeep49, I have come to understand that there might be other features that the community would like to see added. I have created User:Kadane/GANBot to track development, and to facilitate discussion about the new bot. Please feel free to leave comments/feature requests on the talk page. I would very much appreciate your feedback! Kadane ( talk) 02:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I see that there are co-nominators for some GA-nominees, but I don't see how to add that information. I am trying to list myself as a co-nominator for Samuel May Williams. Also, the article is misassigned to Politics and Government, though Samuel May Williams is deceased. I tried to move it to the World History subcategory, but this was reversed. Please advise, Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 18:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
note=
parameter to leave a comment, which an include your co-nom status. Similarly, if you believe it to be in the wrong category, change the subtopic=
parameter and the bot will recategorize the nomination. Regards
So
Why
19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
In regards to the discussion above, I regularly see nominations which are technically in a wrong category but for which the category is still reasonable (e.g. example above about a deceased politician). Except in special circumstances (e.g. someone putting something in Miscellaneous for which there is an appropriate category) my feeling has been to leave the nomination where it was placed. So in the above example I would not have changed it if I had noticed it. Now obviously a pertinent fact there is that a co-nom wishes to change the category but I wanted to throw open a discussion about "fixing" "wrong" categories. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#"Factually accurate"
czar
22:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The other day I reviewed the article Goosebumps (film) for GA, and failed it. I left the usual helpful info and saved the review page ( Talk:Goosebumps (film)/GA1), but noticed a while later that the usual things (notifying the nominator, incrementing my review count) did not take place, and eventually the nomination was just removed from the GAN list during a bot maintenance run. I assume that the issue is with how I carried out my review somehow, and was hoping that someone here would both know what it is that I did wrong and whether it can be fixed or not. - adamstom97 ( talk) 00:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure if anyone cares much about this, certainly it is not something which over-troubles me, but the mechanism for tallying reviews carried out may have a bug. I started assessing GANs in March (2018) and while I have been busy, I seriously doubt that I have carried out 97 GAN assessments in the last eight months.
As I said, this does not especially concern me, but I flag it up here in case it a symptom of something more important. Gog the Mild ( talk) 10:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
There are currently 11 reviews open by user Iazyges that are hanging "on hold" since August 24, and one extra since July 22. The user either forgot about them or doesn't care anymore. Is there something that someone could do abot this situation? Cléééston ( talk) 15:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm planning to; I've been busy recently and I'll get around to it as soon as I can.Past experience would indicate that Iazyges does eventually get back to reviews, but it can take several weeks. Perhaps they would agree to open only a couple of reviews at a time in future so if they do get busy in real life, only one or two are left hanging. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm offering a free GAN review service. Just leave me a note on my talk page. GANs older than three months will receive priority. Nothing is expected in return other than courtesy. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been searching through the GA rules and can't seem to find anything addressing whether a single nominator can have more than one GAN pending at the same time. Is this allowed? Ergo Sum 20:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Tplaza64 started reviewing the article Ant-Man and the Wasp that I nominated for GA, but they have not contributed to Wikipedia in the almost two weeks since then. Additionally, Favre1fan93 and I are also concerned that they are not experienced enough to assess the article properly given they only began contributing this January and have made a total of 15 edits (including starting this GA review). My personal preference here is we be allowed to open the article up again for another editor to review it. Does anyone watching know what should be done in this situation? - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97, Favre1fan93, and Barkeep49: I have started a new review for this article, but only now saw this. I only started contributing in September, but I believe that I am experienced enough to be conducting this review (ironic COI noted). However, if anyone disagrees, or would like to help with the review/comment on it, please do. The relevant page is Talk:Ant-Man and the Wasp/GA1 -- DannyS712 ( talk) 09:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It's GA reviewer, DJ-Joker16 seems to have disappeared without a trace, and the review has been languishing for months with no progress. Someone may do something about this. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The review at Talk:Social media addiction/GA1 doesn't appear to have considered any of the GA criteria and the history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social media addiction is, um, interesting. So I don't think the article appears to have received a fair GA review. On the other hand, it has an active merge tag. And although the merge tag is by the same editor who made the bad review, the bad AfD, and the bad AfD self-closure, it nevertheless appears to have some merits, and links to another article on a very closely related topic which appears significantly more complete (but also not in shape for GA). So what to do? I'd suggest re-opening but I'm not convinced that a re-opened nomination would likely to be successful. Apologize to the nominator and move on? Formally admonish the reviewer? — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, it seems like the reviewer at Talk:Don't Tell Me (Madonna song)/GA1 has disappeared so the review is stuck even after addressing all the comments. Is it possible for anyone else to just check and decide upon it? — IB [ Poke ] 09:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated a GAN for the first time since changing my username, and note that my "Reviews" count appears to have been reset to zero. I can only assume this is due to the name change. My review count should be 128, though I recall the count was always inaccurate and used to say I have done considerably more than this. Is there any chance my review count can be updated to reflect what I've done? I'm not too fussed about making it exactly accurate, just raising it somewhat above zero would be appreciated, though I'm not exactly going to lose any sleep if it can't be done. Oh and while I've got people's attention if anyone wants to trade reviews just start reviewing my nomination and tell me which one you'd like done in return. Cheers. Damien Linnane ( talk) 13:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that an IP User, 213.97.52.171, nominated the article Olanzapine for GA. I talked with the principle author of the article who said it was not them, so if a review ever were to be started, I don't think anyone would claim the article. Should I go ahead and fail it or is there some other process or is someone else willing to claim this article? User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 20:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi! It appears that User:TerribleTy2727 failed Obadiah Short after 4 days as an editor. I put the article up for nomination, but didn't hear from the reviewer at all, and so was unable to respond before it was failed. The GA criteria don't seem to have been referred to much during the review process. Should I just re-nominate the article without advising User:TerribleTy2727? Hel-hama 19:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Just a ping. (This concerns the "Today's featured article" section of the Main Page ... but just about everything that shows up there is a Good Article, so feedback from GAN people would be relevant, welcome and appreciated.) - Dank ( push to talk) 14:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
These three articles, about features on Mars, are currently nominated under the category Earth sciences. Shouldn't this be under Physics and astronomy instead? ~ KN2731 { t · c} 04:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a minor point, but it's always stood out to me. Despite the fact that some of the good article topics begin with a vowel, (e.g., "Agriculture, food and drink" and "Art and architecture"), the preceding indefinite article on the talk page for each nominee is always "a"; Ansel Adams, for example, is described as "Ansel Adams is currently a Art and architecture good article nominee." Is there a way to fix this? By my count, the affected categories are Agriculture, food and drink; Art and architecture; Albums; Earth sciences; Education; and Economics and business. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 23:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Any explanation for this bot notification of a GA review of one of my nominations, with the wrong status and broken article title, immediately following the correct notification? — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This is up next on the list of oldest nominations, but I'm a bit hesitant to review as it was nominated by an anonymous user [8] with minimal numbers of edits and none recently. Given that there are some obvious issues with the article that would mean I wouldn't pass it outright, anyone have any thoughts on just removing this nomination until an active editor nominates it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I put this forward on 27 July last year, could someone review it thanks. Govvy ( talk) 14:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello all. I nominated the above article for the GAN process and it was selected for review a few months ago but it seems the reviewer in question has taken a break from editing. I had pretty much completed all suggested work on the article and was only awaiting a reply on a question I had asked. I am unsure how to handle the rest of this process. What is the standard procedure for a situation like this? Thanks in advance to any who assist. Carbrera ( talk) 00:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC).
I recently have removed two articles ( 25 and Rihanna) nominated by User:Trillfendi who did not contribute to the articles at all, and I see nowhere the user discussed with the primary contributors of the articles, per WP:GANI. — IB [ Poke ] 13:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Please note Talk:Erich Hartmann, where the article was nominated for GAR and delisted by the same editor. The instructions state that discussion should be closed by an uninvolved editor when a conclusion has been reached - can the nominator of an article for re-assessment be suitably uninvolved? Is the closure and delisting valid? Note that the article has since been re-nominated for GA status by another editor. Nigel Ish ( talk) 20:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
As part of the WikiCup that is going on, I am looking at GANs posted by fellow competitors in the Cup and I want to be sure I don't have a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict. I am a prolific professional wrestling editor and as such, I interact with other regular editors of PW articles, both in cooperation and disagreement over various articles. Over the years I have intentionally stayed away from doing GA reviews on pw articles in general for this very reason. I was hoping that experienced GA reviewers thoughts on the matter? Looking at articles, if I've done anything beyond "maintenance edits" on an article I would never do a GA review, but if I have not actually done any detailed work on an article I would actually like to review them, I think I have enough experience with wrestling and writing Good or Featured content that I could judge articles appropriately, but I don't want this to come off as inappropriate in any way. MPJ-DK ( talk) 00:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
On April 2, 2018, I nominated the 190th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line) article to be a good article. I received some feedback on the talkpage. Today, Mgasparin, who only has 67 edits, and only started editing on December 28, took up the nomination and passed it without any feedback whatsoever. While I clearly believe this article is of Good Article-material, it is unreasonable to assume that this article is perfect, and therefore, this review is unacceptable. I hope I can receive help with this issue, and hopefully a proper review. Thanks.-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 16:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I've just run into the same situation with Talk:Washington State Convention Center/GA1, which was promoted by Berrely without any comments. I'd like a second opinion, as I'm not comfortable with this kind of rubber-stamping for an article that long. Sounder Bruce 16:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I tried to nominate Bajadasaurus and placed the template on the talk page as described, but the bot is not listing it at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. What can I do? -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 19:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The reviewer of my nomination Tian Feng (magazine) has stopped editing over a month ago. I would be much obliged if somebody took it from here. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I have opened an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#RFC about assigning classes to demoted Featured articles that may concern editors of this project. AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I came across this 3-paragraph stub with no talk page assessments and note that it has a GA icon on it. How did that happen? Yoninah ( talk) 23:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone, the GAN review for Olallie Butte has not received any comments since February 11. The reviewer, Wilhelmina Will, has not edited since February 13, so I was hoping someone else could step in to revive/restart the review. Thanks, ceran thor 17:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure we've discussed "In particular, the GA criteria do not require compliance with several major guidelines, including Wikipedia:Notability" before. However, I've just deleted Manny Parra's perfect game, which passed GAN on 16 January, because the arguments at the AfD gave a clear consensus to delete, though several appreciated deleting a GA because of lack of notability would be controversial.
This seems counter-productive. What's the point of spending a load of time improving an article to GA status, then time waiting for and doing the review, if it can be deleted? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
but it is a good articleobjections, but a good closer will ignore those. AIRcorn (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Aravindante Athidhikal was promoted to GA by
User:Lovelyismyname, a new editor whose first edits were to the GA review. Briefly looking through the article, it is clearly not at a GA level. There are grammatical errors and unsourced statements throughout (the filming section is almost entirely unsourced). Lovelyismyname has now started started a
GA review for promoted
Gokul Suresh to GA, despite the {{
Advert}} template in the article. Both the GA reviews that Lovelyismyname has done were nominated by the same editor
User:AhamBrahmasmi. Seems very suspicious to me.
Bennv3771 (
talk)
06:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I recently created and nominated the article King of the Universe, part of a series of articles I created and expanded on ancient Mesopotamian royal titles. The GA review by User:BMO4744 happened over a timespan of about seven hours during which I was not online. I have no doubt that there are many improvements that might have to be made before the article is truly at GA status, as is usual, but I do feel like the whole thing was a bit strange.
The main reasons given for not passing the article was its recent creation, a lack of citations, the fact that there was only one editor (me), some grammatical errors, that the topic wasn't fully covered and that it was currently a "start"-class. As far as I know the age and number of editors usually doesn't matter, especially given that this is a sort of obscure topic? The article is fully cited so I didn't see how this was an issue and surely concerns about grammar and whether some information was missing could have been adressed during the review if the reviewer would just have notified me. That the article was a "start" class also weirded me out as a reason since I have had articles go directly from "start" to GA in the past, especially if they were nominated soon after being created (which was the case here) or significantly expanded. I am also a bit baffled about there being zero correspondence with me here. Ichthyovenator ( talk) 15:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I just put my reply. If you are still disatisfied. I will leave and let someone else reassess the article. BMO4744 ( talk) 15:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manneras well as
A reviewer may put the review "on hold" for about seven days to allow you time to fix any issues that may arise. Although it's normally an issue that the nominator did not respond in adequate time I'm gonna go as far to say that the reviewer that the issue this time is that the reviewer did not give adequate time for the nominator to respond. The general practice is to place the article on hold for seven days and if no attempts to fix the issue are done then it can be failed. In "Step 3: Reviewing the article" it reads
Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review.again there was no time allowed for an attempt to bring it to standard. More or less in my opinion you could say that the article was quick failed. Per the review completed (and a quick look over the page myself) there were no copyright violations, no cleanup banners, and it was stable. The only other possible quick fail tag would be
It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteriabut again per the issues raised by the reviewer this does not seem to be a reasonable quick fail. The instructions then say
In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer. For most reviews, the nominator is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed. Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review, again this was not done. Looking more into the review the reviewer said
decently illustrated but the article could need with more picturesand
the article could really do with more illustration. The Good Article Criteria says
The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirementwhich leads me to believe that the reviewer did not fully read the criteria. I'd also like to point out that the reviewer did not follow the instructions for failing properly ( I fixed it here) which again makes me think the reviewer did not read the instructions. There are other issues the reviewer raised such as the article being a start class. There is a list of what cannot be a good article...
Disambiguation pages and stubs... says nothing about start class articles. Further on the reviewer mentions multiple times that only one person has contributed to the article even going as far to state
This also damages the review because their is only the scope of 1 editor for the article, this shouldn't matter as long as the article is neutral. It appears to me that the two biggest issues here are 1) There was not adequate time given to the reviewer and that 2) The reviewer appears to be applying some of their own criteria to the review which should not be done. The reviewer also seems to be having issues with GA related topics all over Wikipedia: ( removing GA reassessment tag, another incorrectly closed GA, and again) I could go on picking apart all the things wrong with this review as well as the reviewer but I'd be here all day. My advice to Ichthyovenator, the GA Instructions read
If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately, feel free to do that there's nothing stopping you. And my advice to BMO4744 in the future, read the instructions more carefully, don't apply your own criteria, allow time for the reviewer to fix the issues, maybe look into some of the helpful essays here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Editors might wish to participate in this discussion about what good prose in sports articles (with a focus on baseball articles) looks like. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I found an article that I think is a good article but has never had a review. I've never edited the page and I don't have access to any of the books it refers to. When I look at the instructions it seems to imply that as nominator I would be expected to be able to write the whole article. Most of the article is written by an editor I've seen in many talk pages and suspect to be a tireless contributor in good standing, i.e. I'm willing to assume it is accurate. I am more than willing to copy edit what is already there and discuss improvements with a reviewer. Should I go ahead and nominate it and just work with what we've got? I'll go ahead and ping that editor @ BD2412: in case they want to contribute to the request. ~^\\\. r T G'{~ 20:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination.It seems like you've done that here instead if BD2412 is the primary editor, and they think it meets (or is close to meeting) the GA criteria. The expectation is not so much that you could write the entire article, but that you could find sources and fix prose and fill any holes that the reviewer finds. You would be able to consult with other editors like BD2412 who may have access to sources that you don't. I don't know whether FAC is as flexible as GAN for allowing editors who haven't worked on the article to submit articles there. On the other hand, if you've had to do some work getting it through GAN, that may help you to sustain an FAC submission. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the GA bot isn't acknowledging the creation of Talk:Fanny (band)/GA1? I added the review manually, but the bot reverted it on its next run. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I've nominated Marjorie Paxson and the notice is showing up fine at Talk:Marjorie Paxson but hasn't shown up at Good_article_nominations#Magazines_and_print_journalism. What have I done wrong? It's been several hours. Thanks for any help! -- valereee ( talk) 17:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The user H9v9n9 has picked up his own GA nomination for review. Someone delete the review page because this is obviously against the rules.— N Ø 07:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
How do I increase the number of reviews I have done next to my name if it seems that I can't do it manually? I recently reviewed 50000 Quaoar, but when I went to nominate Soyuz flight VS22, "(Reviews: 1)" didn't show up next to my name as I had anticipated it would. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 20:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I recently saw that Indian Administrative Service went without a GA review completed in best part of a year, so I contacted the nominator at Talk:Indian Administrative Service/GA1 to see if they were still happy to go ahead with the review, which they were. I then started Talk:Indian Administrative Service/GA2, and placed on hold a month ago, however their last post was the day that they responded to me. I'm not sure who the best wikiproject would be to instigate the changes I have mentioned, but I am against closing the GA without a single response. Any ideas? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I have come across Border Roads Engineering Services. It was created by a new account and then passed by another new account with a similarly formatted username. The review consists of "very good" ( Talk:Border Roads Engineering Services/GA1) and most of the accounts contributions are to the article in question. The article itself is extremely promotional and far from Good standard. Will request a WP:SPI, but dropping a note here to give Strider3690 and Shubh2545 a chance to explain and to get some consensus on whether to delete the review or some other course of action. AIRcorn (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This has been brought up various times in the past (including by me), but the discussion always stalls. But looking again at the "Biology and medicine" section, the grouping of articles seems completely preposterous. Within that section, we have Nurse practitioner, but also Unionopterus (an instinct arthropod). What on earth do these two subjects have in common? All other sections are much more uniform in content. The problem which is always brought up is that it is hard to draw the line when it comes to anatomy (and that the bots might get confused by a new section). Also, because some organisms cause disease. But there must be a way to divide organisms and anatomy from purely medical subjects. Have one called "organisms and anatomy", and another called "health and medicine" or something? Any thoughts? FunkMonk ( talk) 20:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
topic=biology and medicine
should probably be updated too. There are probably other things that need to be done that I have forgotten.
AIRcorn
(talk)
11:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
About a year ago I requested a list of Good Articles that had mismatches between the {{ Good article}} template on the main page and the Category:Wikipedia good articles on the talk page. It also included a list of articles that did not match up with Wikipedia:Good articles/all. The first list contained thousands of mismatches. [10] It took a year but we cleaned them all up, mostly through the efforts of DepressedPer and other volunteers. I have now requested a bot to update the page, kindly provided by GreenC, and after a year we have another 300 or so mismatches. I would like to add a link to this page from one of the pages here. I could make a new Tab and add it to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Tab header, link it from the main WP:GA or from this talk page. I suppose it depends on how much visibility editors think this should have. AIRcorn (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The GA reviewer of this article, Squeamish Ossifrage, made his last edit on 9 March 2019. I dunno if he is still active, but I hope anyone else will continue the GAR in his stead. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Kind regards!, I am here to not waste time of editors and reviewers and just ask if the article of former President of Kiribati Anote Tong is in good shape for a candidature. Thanks! -- LLcentury ( talk) 14:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Having gone through a few troubles with reviews as of late, mostly because of inexperienced editors that don't fully understand the rules of MOS and other site policies, I believe that WP:GAI should include a clear set of instructions for nominators who would want to request a second opinion. As it stands, it's unclear if the second opinion instructions on the page apply to nominators. Sounder Bruce 00:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Think there's been an error done in good faith here; [11] -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 22:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Instructions#Archiving nom discussions by default, regarding a proposal to archive GAN nominations. Ergo Sum 21:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
As I have changed my username, the bot is stating that I have only done the one review when in fact I have done 12 now. So can this be fixed please. HawkAussie ( talk) 01:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From an FA/GA/PR point of view, this is a complementary system to provide review of existing content by external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications. It also acts as a route for high-quality new articles from people who would not have otherwise contributed to a wikimedia project.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Both my GAN articles, Edward Thomas Daniell and Julian of Norwich are listed as malformed - can I have some help knowing what I have to do about it as I don't really know what the matter is. Amitchell125 15:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors, my tally of 56 GA reviews appears to be incorrect. According to my calculations, I did 35 reviews, not 56. Thanks for the compliment, though, I suppose. Can somebody fix this?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Bangladesh was nominated by a now-blocked user, is the best way to remove the GAN template from the Bangladesh talk page? Kees08 (Talk) 06:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
...I don't see the answer to this question. dannymusiceditor oops 18:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Luna 2 is a GA nominee listed under the Biology and Medicine category. The article is about a spacecraft and would be better categorised under Physics and Astronomy so that those most interested in this subject would be more likely to spot it. What's the best way to get it moved? @ Coffeeandcrumbs: Also informing nominator. PeaBrainC ( talk) 15:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Could an admin plz close Talk:Honestly/Honestly (Encore)/GA1 and Talk:Monster/Monster (Reborn)/GA1. The editor who grabbed them hasn't edited WP since May 20 and his/her last edit was starting those reviews. The nominator, Cartoon network freak would like them closed so another editor could pick them up. Cartoon network freak would also like to close his GA review of War All the Time (Thursday album), as they picked it up on April 18 and told me they don't have enough time to review it as of lately, and they don't want to fail it. If an admin could close these that would be great. Thanks. – zmbro ( talk) 22:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed that sections like the Video games section has their nominations struck out. What is up with that? GamerPro64 03:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello -- I'm contemplating dipping my toe for the first time into GA reviewing but am concerned that the nominated article on which my eye has fallen looks like an obvious fail. I know I can apply very high standards – I've seen few FAs I couldn't nitpick over – so would it be possible to partner with an experienced reviewer to check I'm not being too picky? Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what the protocol would be in this case, but the article Ziyad ibn Abih which I nominated recently was failed without a review by Nightbag10, who started here last month and has made less than 500 edits, barely half of which were contributions to articles. He incorrectly noted that the article “only had one source”, which is not the case at all, and failed the nomination without actually reviewing the article, allowing me the opportunity to address his concern or even notifying me. I addressed this at the “review” page. Should I renominate the article, just delete the review page as if one was never started or something else? — Al Ameer ( talk) 00:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: NightBag10 made a number of reviews, both under this name and under their previous name, Ammar Elbehery (the name change was on June 21, a couple of weeks after their first edit). Most of them were pretty quick passes, or superficial in other ways:
They also had five active nominations. The four that were not being reviewed have just been removed by HawkAussie, since NightBag10 has posted their retirement; the fifth, Tutankhamun, is being reviewed, and HawkAussie has posted about the retirement to the review page. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I "retired" because of this review, I've made multiple mistakes whilst editing Wikipedia, because I am still new and only have one month of experience. I wanted to take a quick break from Wikipedia and rethink how I will continue doing this (because I LOVE editing Wikipedia!). I want to say sorry to Al Ameer son, my decision was too quick and I should have asked you before failing the review. I am still new to the GA system, so I don't really know how it works. I now offer another review of the article, only this time it will be thorough and complete, looking at every source and every sentence. I don't expect you to accept my offer (and TBH, if I were you, I wouldn't either), and completely understand it if you say no. Thanks for understanding, sorry for the hassle. NightBag10 ( talk) 04:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Venezuelan refugee crisis was promoted July 7 2019 - how long before bot adds the symbol? Just want to make sure I didn't forget to do something. Atsme Talk 📧 15:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there a way to add a co-nominator to the GAN template? I believe there's one, as I've seen this done before, but cannot recall where. If someone could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
It has become quite difficult to load the nominations page. Perhaps some splitting needs to be done? D.Zero ( Talk · Contribs) 02:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have added a proposal on WP:VPR to add accessibility as a requirement for attaining GA and FA status. Please take a look and give your input. Thank you.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 09:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I have a question about the 2c criterium. When verifying that it is satisfied, is it enough to make a spot-check of the claims in the article or does one need to check every single claim against sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Why does the article’s page history show Tux Racer on review 21 times? Trillfendi ( talk) 00:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey all!
I made {{ GANList3}} and would like feedback on its viability to help cut down on the GAN backlog.
Cheers, – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know the best place to bring this up, but would anyone be opposed to having Legobot stop transcluding GA reviews onto article talk pages? I just had to remove one from Talk:Seth Rollins because it was breaking stuff (see the history for what it looked like), and I've run into it occasionally elsewhere too. Lee Vilenski fixed the subpage and put the transclusion back, but these still shouldn't be here. There's already a link to the review in a banner at the top which interested parties can see, and transcluding makes problems hard to find when they exist, and it also messes with how the talk page sections are presented. This really isn't an appropriate use of transclusion. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 16:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed ad nauseum before, but what would be required to split the Sports and Recreation topic on the nomination page to match the sub-topics found on Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation? Obviously User:Legobot would need to know the new subcategories and someone would need to manually update the current list under Sports and Recreation. Legoktm, is updating the bot something you are able and/or willing to do if I were to assist with the manual edits? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Football · Baseball · Basketball · Cricket · Hockey · Pro wrestling · Recreation · Multi-sport event · Other sports; it would make the most sense for the subtopics to match between GAN and GA for obvious reasons. Legotkm was not interested in doing any further development or in pursuing bugfixes, just in doing whatever might be necessary to bring it back should the bot stop running—they took over the bot when the previous owner abruptly left Wikipedia, but it's never been a development priority. Various people have expressed interest in writing a new bot or taking over the existing one, and there have been discussions of functionality and issues and improvements, but nothing has yet come of it. So, absent a new bot owner/writer, I don't see how the split can happen at this time. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Any ideas why User:Legobot keeps updating this review for Until Dawn repeatedly? diff Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- clicked the link as I always have done. I think it was a mobile edit (which is very common for me), but I was surprised it opened a blank page and not the usual GA template. Not to worry. I'll report it if I see it again. Thanks for your help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
The backlog of GAN's continue to grow and I thought of a way to counter the year long waits some people are waiting for. Similar to DYK, a Quid pro quo requirement could be used in order for a review to begin. This basically means that if you want an article for review, you need to review another one. Legobot can tag the article as QPQ on the nomination page once the user does so. Here are some rules:
This is just a thought to counter the backlog, but I am interested in hearing your opinions. AmericanAir88( talk) 15:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm offering commitment-free, royalty-free GAN reviews. Just pop by my talkpage and let's talk. The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
So for Talk:Our Lady of Vladimir/GA1, Johnbod had the concern that the article title would necessitate a redirect to the article. I cited WP:GANOT, but that's an essay. There's now a requested move, so now it's really unclear to me how this may factor into the GA Criteria (does that make the Article unstable?) – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I saw two articles listed as Miscellaneous. Yoga as exercise and Iyengar Yoga, which should both come under "sports and recreation". However, I had to type specifically "Sports and recreation" to get this to work, "recreation" was not enough to populate into the correct queue.
Is this something that happens with items after having already been substituted? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Fellow Wikipedians!! I was thinking of becoming a reviewer. Is there anything I need to do before I make a start. I've read the review instructions. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 16:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so we can politely ping someone before taking a nomination, but should we get some kind of (very brief) process in place for nominations which are likely to be no longer needed? E.g.
This would perhaps formalise the issue and enable us to start removing some of the nominations which clearly don't belong in the backlog because their nominators have retired or simply aren't interested any longer. The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 16:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Since the amount of time between a nomination and eventual review can be a year or more, we should be more flexible if someone doesn't respond within seven days of the message, especially if the nomination has been waiting a long time. If we allow a quickfail for this reason, I think we should also allow a grace period—I'd like to suggest it be at least a month—where the nominator can return and ask on this page for the nomination to be restored with no loss of seniority. (I also like Lee Vilenski's suggestion that the appropriate WikiProjects be notified prior to quickfail, much as we do up front when there is a Good Article reassessment.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue which may affect this project. Thank you. :)
——
SerialNumber
54129
16:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
In the spirit of BOLDness I have gone ahead and created Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/September 2019. While I would be happy to be the coordinator I thought there might be others better suited and so I have left that blank. Also blank is our goal for the drive. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Whoever's doing the organizing should grab more people to help with verifying the reviews. From my experience in 2007, it can lead to burn-out really fast if you don't have enough helpers. OhanaUnited Talk page 04:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
""Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews. This is not to say that such short reviews are not worthwhile, it is merely to say that they will not be recognised in this competition.". As the organization of this drive happened a bit last minute, the two submitted reviews will count but similar such reviews going forward will not. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, is this going ahead? If so, it presumably started 90 minutes ago, unless you want to postpone. I don't see that the drive page has been updated aside from three folks having added their names under Participants—things like coordinator(s), goals, extra credit for older nominations, etc., are still not specified. If the drive is on, I can probably dig up the old notice we used to put near the top of the GAN page, modified appropriately, in the hopes of attracting more reviewers, since the drive hasn't yet been advertised at all beyond this talk page. Please let me know. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: and @ Lee Vilenski: Thank you so much for starting this drive. I've been always wanting and advocating for one. It is great to see it finally appear. If this one goes well, maybe a drive could be held every few months. If you need help with anything drive related, just ask. Also Barkeep, good luck on your RFA. You'll do great. I recently went through it and it admittedly gets quite stressful, so take all the time you need. AmericanAir88( talk) 23:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
This article has been nominated for just under five months. I've just taken a look at it, and in my opinion, it is a list, and so should go down the Featured list route (not that I think it is of sufficient quality as things stand), rather than Good article. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Harrias talk 12:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
See this diff. Legobot gave me one (correct) notification of the start of a review for Vojtěch Jarník (review is at Talk:Vojtěch Jarník/GA1) and a second (incorrect) notification of a failed review for "Vojt?ch Jarník". Maybe the "ě" character confused the bot? — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I started work on a film article, which I have recently placed as a GAN. But a couple days ago, I had asked another editor, because they are also interested in film and seemed experienced, to review it. I realized today that I don't know if this is allowed or not because the GA process is potentially a long wait and that really seems like I'd be cutting in line. Is this frowned upon, and should I just wait? I don't want to do anything that breaks the rules. - NowIsntItTime( chats)( doings) 03:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there a GA WikiProject newsletter? I'm excited to see that there's a backlog drive going on, but was only made aware of it through a passing mention on my talk page. If one exists, would someone point me to the signup list, and if not would anyone be interested in starting a semi-regular newsletter? Wug· a·po·des 17:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Have just picked up the GAR for the above. The nominator would prefer that it be listed in the Geography and places section, rather than as an Art and architecture nomination. Can I just make this amendment manually, by just moving it, or is there a better approach? Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 08:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk kindly passed the article Mandate for Palestine here [15], just over 24 hours ago. legobot doesn't seem to have done anything since - is anyone aware of a problem? Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:GAN/I, I must "Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review". I'm a member of the GOCE, and I copy edited 2019 Veldhoven Open around a month ago. Does this count as "significant contributions to the article"? Courtesy pinging @ Lee Vilenski, but anyone else should feel free to add a third opinion. Bobbychan193 ( talk) 07:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
This article has deteriorated considerably since No Great Shaker started tinkering with it earlier this year. The lead in particular is much worse. He now has a notice on his user page saying a family crisis has greatly reduced his ability to edit. User:Amitchell125, the "reviewer", has now done a considerable amount of editing (some of it also very mistaken), can no longer be considered independent, and should step down, and the nomination closed. Johnbod ( talk) 17:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This article has improved considerably since No Great Shaker (NGS) began cleaning up the appalling mess created by the incompetent and arrogant Johnbod. The lead in particular is a significant improvement. While NGS now has a notice on his user page that a family crisis has greatly reduced his ability to edit, he still looks in when he can and remains keen to assist User:Amitchell125, who is doing an excellent job as an independent reviewer. The review should continue and NGS will be happy to address all questions raised by the reviewer in due course. Perhaps an administrator should be asked to consider the issue of copyright violation by Johnbod. No Great Shaker ( talk) 21:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I'm excited about the backlog drive and wanted to offer monetary rewards for a couple tasks, they're over at the reward board. $10 US for reviews (limit 20), and a quid pro quo offer if someone reviews my article Afghanistan. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 15:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
What are our options for dealing with a nom that is constructed entirely on offline sources that are not readily available? I can try and get some of the content through ILL (taking a few weeks) but even with good library access nothing is accessible, so I don’t really have a way to evaluate the sources and check for WP:V/plagiarism/etc issues for GAN criteria. The nom in question ( Gabriel Báthory) has been languishing for a long time anyhow (although I wouldn't immediately pass it regardless of the sourcing.) Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
( ←) Check offline sources? I was asking him to provide journal articles (it was a hard-sciences topic). Plus I was shouted down at that time right here in this forum by several GAN reviewers. Finally, brown may be a poor choice for a toothbrush color, but it's an even worse choice for toothpaste. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk)
Hello. I just noticed that World War II casualties of the Soviet Union was nominated by an editor who has just been indefinitely blocked. This is the first time I've come across this. What would happen to this nomination? Would it be instantly failed, or have a new nominator take over? -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, any ideas on what the rules are around re-reviewing GA noms? I just got a request at User talk:Lee Vilenski/Archives/2019/October#Kenny_Omega – GA to review the Kenny Omega article, which I opened, and closed as the nominator didn't get back to me in a justified time. The article has been changed, and does look like quite a bit of the critique I gave the first time around has been checked.
I'm quite happy to re-review the nom, but is this suitable? Should I pass this on to a different reviewer? Thanks for your help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if Co-nominators are given a GA once they are passed. For Talk:Derek Kraus, the nomination was originally worked on by the initial nominator but later completed by a co-nominator. Does the co-nominator get the GA as well? Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 18:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I remember in the summer where I looked at the backlog number and realized that reviews could take months if not years. I proposed an idea as did others, to bring together the GA reviewers to help reduce the backlog. This idea became a reality and we did it. We reviewed almost 200 articles and helped each other out through analysis. Instead of a competition, we banded together to help reduce a backlog. As Good Article reviewers, we will strive to continue this trend and maybe in 6 months, we will come back together.
Great job everyone. Thank you to @ Lee Vilenski: and @ Barkeep49:.
AmericanAir88( talk) 23:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I was wondering if the copyvio tool was considered a reliable guide for determining criterion 2d. I ask this because an article that I have done a lot of work on was delisted from GA recently, while I was not actively editing on Wikipedia, and the reasoning given was widespread plagiarism in the article. I have run the copyvio tool on the article and it returned "Violation Unlikely", with the closest matching source being used for a short direct quote. If the tool says there is no copyvio or plagiarism issue, is that enough to challenge the delisting and try get the article promoted again? I wanted to ask here first because I have a tricky history with the editor that got the article delisted in the first place and I don't want to get into any unnecessary confrontations. Any insight on this situation would be appreciated! Thanks, adamstom97 ( talk) 09:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski, Lingzhi2, and Harrias: Thanks for responding to my question. Evidently I am not allowed to re-nominate the article regardless if the tool can't pick up any copyvio, so I guess that's that. - adamstom97 ( talk) 18:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment no longer functioning ???-- Moxy 🍁 16:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I know that we are short on reviewers to clear the backlog, but I am alarmed by the number of recent nominations that have been rushed through to approval by editors with little to no experience with the process or Wikipedia in general. Examples like Talk:Aaron Swartz/GA2 (passed within an hour with no real comment by a user with under 30 edits) make me think we should have a minimum edit count for those who wish to review a GAN. Perhaps we should set it at 500 or 1,000, similar to those for WP:NPR. Sounder Bruce 04:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently trying to deal with Talk:The Life of Pablo/GA1, where Thatoneweirdwikier, a reviewer with 28 edits under their belt opened a review on a 45K prose character article ten minutes after requesting a potential mentor's help for their first review (which says it was to be of a completely different article, oddly enough). The only thing they had a problem with was the lack of source citations in the article's lead, and when the people there explained that this wasn't a problem, the article passed. I took a look and discovered some basic issues in terms of prose and MOS:LEADLENGTH, and following up on those have uncovered more. The problem is clearly that this hasn't been given an adequate review, yet unless the reviewer reopens the review and does get mentor to aid in it, or possibly even a second reviewer, we have an article listed as a GA that doesn't meet the criteria. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Could we possibly set up a Good Article School, similar to WP:NPP/S, and have the mentors as trainers as well? That way, if we were to set up a minimum edit value for reviewing GAs, we’d have 2 options: 1. We could say “To review a GAN, you must have 500 edits OR have graduated from the GA School.” OR 2. We could make it extremely similar to WP:NPP/S by saying “You must have 500 edits to join the GA School and begin reviewing GANs.” Just a suggestion. Thatoneweirdwikier ( talk) 08:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the GA status of Washington State Convention Center as there was never a proper review.....just a new editor on their 12 edit with a fly by statement without any proper evaluation done. See no need to go through review as the original promotion was non valid. I have relisted the page for a proper review. -- Moxy 🍁 23:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Washington State Convention Center/GA1
I posted this message on the Legobot talk page, but figure it may get an answer here instead:
I just noticed that Yakov Dzhugashvili, which passed GA a few weeks ago, has not had the bot updated the article page. Is there any way to rectify this? Kaiser matias ( talk) 16:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
GA}}
template with unsupported parameters (status= and note= as well as subtopic= instead of topic=)
[16]. I changed the template per
WP:GAI but I don't know whether the bot will notice it. If not, just add the GA icon manually to the article. Regards
So
Why
17:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Just had a talk page message saying an article was placed on hold, but the article in question has been on hold for a long time at this point. (At [[User talk:Lee Vilenski#Your GA nomination of Marharyta Fjafilawa). The user hasn't edited the page, but it also updated the info on the GAN list. Is this a bug, or is this something I'm overlooking? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This article was nominated by User:Yerevantsi in March 2019, but the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page hasn't been amended to reflect the fact that it has been reviewed by User:Cosmia Nebula in June. It seems as if the review hasn't started, according to the talk page. Looking at the review page, it looks as if the review has been completed and assessed as a GA, but the article has not been passed. Can this be sorted out? Amitchell125 ( talk) 09:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi
Addison's disease has been listed as a GAN. Immediately following nomination a review was started by the nominator (presumably in error). Could this be rectified? Thanks, PeaBrainC ( talk) 13:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed that Talk:Goodbye (Spice Girls song)/GA1 hasn't been updated since 7 September 2019. Is it safe to close this review as the user has long past their deadline for completing it? -- Kyle Peake ( talk) 16:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I noticed in passing that Battle of Karbala was promoted a while ago, but that the talk page - Talk:Battle of Karbala/GA1 hasn't been archived. Just thought that I would flag it up. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia editors. In June, I nominated New Albion for status as a wp:GA. To date, no review has been initiated. Circumstances are necessitating that I leave my current country in early January and not return until very late March, and during that time, I will be so occupied that I will be unable to attend to any editing tasks should a review commence. Additionally, I will be in rural areas with uncertain internet which further complicates my attention to Wikipedia. So, I am wondering how I should proceed with the nomination considering these personal matters. I very much desire to hear from any who may advise me regarding the article nomination and review considering this situation. Hu Nhu ( talk) 04:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
In the vein of something that TRM did, I've made a page where users can request for me to review their GAN. I will aim to review everything that is requested, with the hope of reducing the backlog and because I enjoy being part of article improvement. With this in mind, I'd also like to say that the requests page is primarily targeted at two kinds of GAN: those that have been unreviewed for >6 months, and those that the nominator thinks I will find particularly interesting (see the list of reviews I've done for inspiration there) and/or for some reason wants my view on. I've also put up a little sidebox on my talkpage linking to the requests page for when this gets archived :) Okay, that's all. Kingsif ( talk) 03:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The reviewer, Happypillsjr, is considering failing this article as a "copyright violation", even though the other site pretty clearly takes from Wikipedia ( comparison). While I appreciate Happy's efforts, I think this might benefit from having another reviewer looking at it, either via a second opinion or a new nomination. epicgenius ( talk) 03:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering when the next backlog drive would be held. The current outstanding nominations is almost back to where the September 2019 Backlog Drive started out with (592 now in comparison to 626 then). From what I'm seeing, the oldest unreviewed ones are from February 2019. It would be nice to cut down this backlog to at least late summer / early fall 2019. While I know the numbers will expand again and there's nothing really to prevent the amount to going extremely high, it'd be good to not have the backlog expand to a year (February 2020). Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 00:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
( ←) The only way to actually solve the problem is almost certainly unpalatable: you'd have to require people to maintain a certain (reasonable) ratio of nommed to critted. Even further, you might need to require new critters to undergo a mentorship for at least one or possibly two crits before they can nom. After that, the way to retain critters would be barnstars and collegiality, make people feel a part of the GA culture. But the main thrust of that is, as I said, almost certainly unpalatable. Short of that – keep the backlog drives, grin and bear the shortcomings mentioned by several above.... As for "how do you require volunteers to do anything?", the only way would be for all experienced reviewers to agree not to review anyone unless they at least initially go through all of the above. Make a ubox to that effect. Etc etc. But then some might complain and call us GA-tyrants or whatever... But if you attach the social engineering aspect (collegiality, barnstars, more, be creative) the tyranny is transformed from a liability into an asset: "Yeah, I'm one of the few, the proud..." etc. But. Almost certainly unpalatable. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
subst:GAN}}
template. Then you have failed GAs and demoted GAs to consider.
Category:Wikipedia good articles,
Category:Delisted good articles and
Category:Former good article nominees should cover it and comes in at about 40 000 articles. I am not sure if that includes the Good Articles that are now Featured though.
AIRcorn
(talk)
08:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi all,
Is there any complications on articles being under Pending changes? I've done Talk:Simona Halep/GA1, which is under the anti-vandalism tool. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The nominator has done a lot of work on Penn's Creek massacre, but the article is still based mostly on primary and dated sources—especially #The captives. Per WP:PRIMARY, we should be cautious about basing large sections of the article on primary sources. Also, it's quite difficult to estimate the reliability of older secondary sources (by "old" I mean "old enough to be PD"). Are these reasonable concerns to have or am I going past the GA criteria here? If I weren't the reviewer, I could go back and rework based on newer sources, but then I would become involved. (Fiamh is an alternative account of mine.) b uidh e 07:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Between a split request on the talk page and a reviewer that has asked for a second opinion, I don't think this will be going anywhere in the near future. Is there a way to temporarily pause this nomination, or do I have to withdraw it and resubmit it again later? epicgenius ( talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for an unregistered editor to review this article? This editor has no other contributions. epicgenius ( talk) 15:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I just reviewed the third GAN of California State University, Dominguez Hills - nominated back in February 2019, it was the article's third nom since the end of 2016. And it is nowhere near GA-quality. I'm about to sweep through and remove all the copyvio, and although that's a major problem it is not its only one. Is there any way to dissuade people from nominating this specific article again until it's definitely improved? Kingsif ( talk) 23:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: Can this be unreviewed and put back in the GA queue? It's a little late, but I've only just noticed that—since we last discussed this review—the nominator has been blocked as a sock of User:DeepNikita. G4 is no longer available for the page, but I'm not particularly happy about a sock giving me credit for anything, to be honest. —— SN 54129 00:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, any thoughts on this review? Per BlueMoonset's thoughts I'm bringing ths here for wider comment.
Personally I think it should go back in the pile (per bullet point 1), possibley even with a new date (which would probably ensure another longish wait at WP:GAN, as would be its due). Although the kindness of a new reviewer (per bullet point 2) would speed things along without that (and I acknowledge the good will that exists in these parts that it could happen!), it still seems to smack a little of receiving a favor from a sock (even if tangentially—you know, "this was reviewed by a sock so we better acknowledge it as soon as possible"), when we should (only IMHO of course) be doing the oposite (receiving nothing bat basd fath).
Any thoughts? Thanks in advance all. Cheers, —— SN 54129 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a long section about a new reviewer and some problematic reviews at WT:GA#New reviewer that editors who frequent this page may not have seen—I certainly didn't until a few hours ago, though the reviews started back on January 2. I am about to revert one of the reviews that was clearly inadequate ( Talk:3rd Congress of the Indonesian Democratic Party/GA1; it certainly fails the "Well written" criteria), and will look for a new reviewer for that nomination; it will retain its original seniority in any event. BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the proper way to fix it? Thanks. Cinadon 36 18:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
In case not everyone was aware of it, recently the prose criteria was expanded
[17] to include
understandable to an appropriately broad audience
(see
Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Understandability criterion for discussion). I have been working through the
Good article cleanup listing and there were four articles tagged with "too technical". I tried to fix three and put the fourth up for community reassessment
here. I know community GARs are poorly attended, but would appreciate editors here taking some time to put some input in as it is a relatively new change in the criteria and I would like to get a feel for the community stance on what is too technical. So far there are two other articles on that list that I feel probably fail this new criteria (
HDMI and
Hidden Markov model). I feel this is probably going to impact a lot of mathematics and technology articles and as someone who deals a lot with GARs I would appreciate some comments at a practicable level.
AIRcorn
(talk)
07:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
penrose tiling is an example of a set of geometric shapes (" tiling") with unique characteristics. Whilst Penrose tiling does not show translational symmetry it can show reflectional and rotational symmetry. The tiling was named after...or similar.
Joe Bloggs is a false 9 who sometimes plays as a left wing back.For example. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
This summary sentence is considerably less technical than the section it summarizes, but I still would not expect it to be comfortable reading for anyone without a mathematics degree. [...] it is not and likely never will be readable by the innumerate. Should such articles be forbidden from ever becoming Good Articles? Should it be a condition of becoming Good Article that they be lobotomized so that they can be read by any adult?If it's never going to be readable to most people, it should not be a GA, yet you think it's fine that even the simplest part of an article requires a specific degree to be understood. Most people will never have a math degree, but you deem that 'simplifying' an article to that level is suitably accessible (it's not). That is literally what you wrote, no assumptions necessary. Also, using hyperbolic language like "lobotomized" to try and make the mere concept sound ridiculous isn't going to win the argument for you. (My original comment was also asking semi-rhetorical questions, no straw or misrepresentation as far as I can interpret.) Kingsif ( talk) 23:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
It's a difficult balance to strike. It's unlikely that the average reader will go looking for the article on Dehn invariant, so the article doesn't necessarily have to be written for them. IMO GA articles just have to be as clear as possible to the widest audience possible without sacrificing comprehensiveness or accuracy. Also, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and isn't really intended as a teaching tool for any audience. DYK is a different beast because that is explicitly targeted to a general audience. Many technical articles are unsuited for DYK for that reason (and others). b uidh e 22:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I started a discussion about changing a link in the criteria at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Scientific citation guidelines a week ago. It has got no comments yet so thought I would draw attention to it here. AIRcorn (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I've posted here asking if we'd be interested in consolidating GA-related talk pages. Thoughts would be welcome. Ajpolino ( talk) 18:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Some GANs prominently feature tables, such as concert tours. MOS:ACCESS, which addresses tables in MOS:DTAB and the how-to guide, appears to fall outside of the GA MOS criteria (lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation). However, access for the impaired seems to be a more fundamental concern. If brought up during a review, shouldn't there be an attempt to accommodate it? — Ojorojo ( talk) 18:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The way I review GANs is to give a load of good advice, all based in FAC and more, and that includes ACCESS among other things. If the nominators refuse to implement those recommendations which aren't strictly GA criteria, that's their call, and until the GA criteria are changes, there's nothing that can be done. It's quite simple. The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 17:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Improving how article assessments are presented to readers.
Sdkb (
talk)
22:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The user who nominated Addison's Disease for GA status has been indefinitely blocked. Would it be appropriate to remove the GAN candidate tag from the article's talk page, since User:Dino245 obviously isn't going to be able to respond to review comments? Hog Farm ( talk) 15:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday, Breakjan created their account at 19:31, and after two edits at 19:32, opened Talk:Jewel Changi Airport/GA1 at 19:40 and passed it at 19:46. They then opened Talk:Singaporeans/GA1 at 20:43 with the message "Great work!", passed it at 20:44, and then reverted the passage at 22:20 and updated the message on the review to "Great work on the article!" at 22:21, which was a confusing pair of virtually simultaneous actions.
I took a look at the articles, and noticed that both of them had a number of issues that needed to be addressed before they could meet the GA criteria. (These were not comprehensive reviews, but enough to know there were problems that should have been caught by a reviewer.) At 22:56, I posted to their talk page, noting that I had reverted their Jewel Changi Airport passage and was happy that they had self-reverted their Singaporeans passage because of the noted issues.
Today, in their sole edit, Breakjan reinstated their passage of Singaporeans, which I have subsequently reverted due to the problems I noted earlier (which I discovered later also include some overly close paraphrasing). I also made a second post to their talk page, pointing out while there's plenty of areas where they can participate, it's clear they aren't ready to tackle GA reviews, and I asked that they not continue with the two they've started. I'm posting here to let the GAN community know what I've done, and ask whether there's a preference between simply closing the reviews and putting the nominations back in the pool of unreviewed noms with no loss of seniority or requesting a second opinion on the current reviews in the hopes that whoever gives the opinion will be willing to take on the role of reviewer (with no guarantee that they will be). Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC) (Adding accidentally omitted "no" before "loss" at 19:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC))
The review at Talk:Julius Nyerere/GA1 is not listed properly at WP:GAN. The review status and the reviewer's username do not appear. What should be done? Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 12:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems like the same editor who started the GAN for this article has picked it up for review? It is an unregistered user so it could be possible that it is more than one person from the same IP address. The GAN instructions also mention the following, (The nomination may be reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator.), and I have put a part of the text in bold for emphasis. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I know we have an issue with articles that have previously been failed being read as failed by legobot, even if they are promoted... I just failed Crito, but it was then listed as passing! This is a much worse result, has anyone seen this before? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm encountering a problem on Elham Valley Railway, everything is good like neutrality, clear language then I meet Verifiability... the official Wikipedia page says that the book are a reliable source but what do I do when the article is full of books citations (that links the page), like I can't verify the article because I need to buy those books first to see if is written in the book. And in article there are few "free" sources that I can click and check it from there by just reading the website without buying anything. How do I proceed here? Editoneer ( talk) 09:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I gave up the article as the article was searching for a second opinion'er, anyways thank you for the advice I forworded your message there. Editoneer ( talk) 18:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
There's currently over 80 entries in "Sports and recreation". Could we split it into subsections?
I, for example, am very interested in motorsport but didn't know the first thing about curling.
If there were subsections, the backlog would appear smaller and it would be easier for potential reviewers to find articles of interest. -- kingboyk ( talk) 07:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering if this constitutes a valid good article review, or if this needs to be sent back to the queue. This doesn't seem to check the article against specific criteria.
I am asking because the reviewer, Analog Horror appears to have performed some slightly-more-detailed reviews (such as Talk:Sabine Lake/GA1) but passed these without raising any issues, which statistically is very rare for a GA candidate. I'm also asking because I want to claim Talk:W New York Union Square/GA1 for the WikiCup. epicgenius ( talk) 18:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I didn't finish it because I was busy. I finished it up right now. Analog Horror, ( Speak) 18:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
The person reviewing my article has gone AWOL during the process and hasn't edited at all since 24 February. Should I ask for a second opinion or is there some other procedure in place for cases like those?-- Catlemur ( talk) 13:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys. It was brought up at the recent RfA that my reviews may be a little too harsh/in depth. Specifically Talk:Baltimore Skipjacks/GA1 was brought up. Just for clarity, can I get some sort of consensus of if I should make my reviews more/less lenient? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey, everyone. On BlueMoonset's talk page, I asked that in light of this matter at the Katherine Johnson article if it's best for the introductions of Wikipedia:Good article nominations and Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions to state the "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." aspect? I ask because I think it will help editors to not overlook it. With Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, such advice is right there in the introduction.
BlueMoonset suggested that I bring the matter here for discussion. Thoughts? No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 23:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi GA folks! I've been editing a bunch of help and WP pages recently, and it occurs to me that there's not really any process for recognizing strong pages in that area the same way there is for articles. So, I was wondering, would you see it as useful to have such a process? And if so, would it make sense for it to be nested within or an offshoot of the GA project? Sdkb ( talk) 01:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Greetings I would like to pull off my offer to review Bangladesh, It been fun to debunk my stereotypes in my head but reviewing a page in prose makes me tired and delaying it for weeks won't be the solution. I wanted to undo when I signed up for this but I don't know how... so... I will need to wait for someone to take my place? Any help is appreciated. Editoneer ( talk) 20:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The WP:GAN page now has 715 or 719 nominations on it, the most ever, depending on whether you believe the reports page or the GAN page itself. Sometime around when it passed 700 (the previous record was 689, broken on March 26), it began exceeding the maximum size of template-based page with transcluded templates on it, once they are expanded, so the last several at the bottom of the page are not transcluding, including the last of the listed nominations, each of which uses a GANentry template, plus a GAReview template for each nomination being reviewed, another 88 templates to add to the total.
This is going to get increasingly serious, with the Warfare nominations increasingly failing to transclude, and then the Video games, etc. Even if the bot were magically to be fixed or replaced, it couldn't deal with the basic problem that the page is too long. Each topic list, with all its subtopics, also has its own separate page which will not have the transclusion problem, so a stop-gap could be to add a link to that individual page in the header for each topic section. (For example, the History topic is at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/History.)
DYK ran into this overlong page problem some years back, and split the original Nominations page into Nominations and Approved pages. That only solved things for a while, and eventually the Approved page itself got too long, at which point we had to increase the number of sets we sent to the main page each day from one to two until the Approved page got short enough that the issue stopped occurring, at least for a while.
If GAN brings down the backlog, then the problem goes away. It might temporarily get worse while the number of nominations being reviewed increases, but as the overall number of nominations drops, so will the untranscluded nominations.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. If anyone has a suggestion for dealing with this in the short term and/or the long term, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I'm thinking about starting up another backlog cleanup drive for the next few months (i.e. 3 to 6 months) or so. Any thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 05:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Started here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/April–May 2020. Details can be tweaked, but I think we just need to get cracking on it. Harrias talk 19:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Over the last 30 or so hours I've started three reviews, but the counter (i.e., the parenthetical part of (Reviews: 41) Usernameunique
) has not updated; it should be up to 44. Is this an issue, or does it just take some time to update? --
Usernameunique (
talk)
01:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Willesden Jewish Cemetery - I really like this and it's been waiting a while for a review. I'd be pleased to pick it up but I have an immediate concern around whether it's actually an article, or really a list. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists tells me that "Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain some lists". To me, Willesden is closer to a list, something like, "List of notable people buried in Willesden Jewish Cemetery", than a prose article. That said, I don't think we have a Good List process. I'd appreciate advice on this point before I begin the GAR. I've pinged Headhitter so that they're aware of the query. KJP1 ( talk) 07:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Abbot of
or Bishop of
for "List of" not being necessary in page name.
——
SN
54129
11:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 - Yep, it's going quite well. I see you're offline at the moment, but if you get a connection, I'd appreciate it if you could review the amendments and see if you're happy. In the interim, I shall certainly join the lovefest over at Loveday but you're doing quite well without further assistance! KJP1 ( talk) 09:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
How can I request to remove a Ga Review? Beatleswillneverdie ( talk) 15:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello!
I've recently did a review for a song by Miike Snow called " The Heart of Me". However, the nominator is semi-retired and his last edits were around January 2020. I didn't noticed that on his page, as I chose the article, not the nominator. I've put the review on hold, if someone wants to fix the article I would very much appreciate, it should take no a great amount of your time.
Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 17:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
May I ask, where should I go to get my reviewer stats merged since I was renamed some time ago? Noah Talk 15:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I volunteered to conduct a GA review of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, but I have decided to withdraw. I have notified the nominator, who provided several pointed criticisms of the first two paragraphs of the review I had started. (That's pretty much as far as I got before I decided to withdraw.) Given the nominator's close involvement with the article, I will defer to him/her/them when it comes to finding someone else to conduct a review. (The GA instructions include this: "If you are in a situation where you absolutely cannot continue to review the article, please contact the nominator. Consider helping them find a new reviewer. If necessary, leave a note on the GA nominations talk page.")
And, yes, the next time I volunteer to conduct a GA review I will write my entire review in plain text and then publish the review when I am done. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I got this message: "Reverted inappropriate GAN nomination; user is not a signifiant contributor to the article"
What do I do? Do I just try nominating it again? How do I prevent this from happening? Factfanatic1 ( talk) 09:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have asked for a second opinion on this review because I don't believe the reviewer is cut out to review this. Their comments are bizarre and they cannot articulate themself properly. This is frustrating for me because I feel like they have wasted my time and now I don't know what to do next? Should they just fail the review and then I renominate in hope a more capable editor can do the review? @ BlueMoonset: Cool Marc 08:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi on
Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates the written out entry for the GAProgress template is missing the copyvio
parameter. I tried to edit it in but I couldn't and the talkpage redirects to here.
Mujinga (
talk)
10:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I created the page last night, and was intending to start reviewing National Pacification Army today. However, the nominator left a message on my talk saying that they are "on break from Wikipedia indefinitely and I will most likely not be participating in the GA Review for this reason". Is it worth conducting a review, or should I just fail the article? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:04, 16 April 2020 (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. |
Hi there, I have noticed several articles that were nominated in July or August of last year that still haven't gotten a review. I know it can be a lot of work to review an article, but waiting 8-9 months for a good article review is way too long. Can we get some kind of campaign going to help these articles get reviewed? I've started reviewing three articles after I just nominated three of my own for GA. Any help or suggestions would be great. Maybe we could award some barnstars for the people who have done certain amounts of reviews as has been done in the past. Basilisk4u ( talk) 23:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
A potential solution is to allow users to do a partial review of the article, such as allowed by the FAC and FLC processes. I would go through and do image reviews on a few articles (particularly music articles, which tend to have the highest backlog), but that means I have to commit to review the entire article. Others might be comfortable just doing a prose review. Not sure if we should move to a coordinator based approach for closing, or if we should just have one person in charge of verifying all the criteria were reviewed and closing it. Kees08 (Talk) 01:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Has anybody done any analysis of the articles to see if there are patterns that can help us find targeted approaches to managing the backlog? Absent actual data, my impression (which is probably wrong) is that we get a large volume of certain kinds of "boilerplate" articles (and, I hasten to add, I don't mean that in the belitteling or dismissiv sense; just as shorthand for relatively short, relatively fixed structure, using a large proportion of the same sources, and whose titles can be generated from a list, and as a result can and do show up here in relatively large volumes) on things like roads, a specific country's participation in a specific year's olympics (to repeat the example used above), and so forth. Iff it's correct that we have such areas that generate a high volume of nominations, it might be possible to focus on those areas specifically to lessen the impact on the overall backlog. It might be possible to shunt those areas to a separate backlog queue; to recruit steady reviewers by coopting a relevant WikiProject (which might conceivably revitalize relevant WikiProjects as a bonus); or employing some kind of coordinator role to manage that queue specifically.
Or—and I'm not sure I would support this—what if nominations that fail to garner a review in a specific amount of time were archived (without prejudice)? What effects would that have? It's possible it might actually lead to a healthier (more sustainable process) with less frustration for both nominators and reviewers. Those nominators whose articles fail to get reviewed will not be pleased, of course, but it is actually possible that getting that nom archived will feel less frustrating than having it languish for months in limbo. If the time for a GAC is predictable (will take 3-6 weeks: pass, fail, or archive), it is possible this would, overall, be felt to be better than living in limbo for the better part of a year.
"Encourage people to review more" simply does not work without systemic changes. Any backlog reduction drive will not work because it is effectively a one-time fix for a systemic problem.
If we're to do anything about this problem we need to think outside the box, and any actual solution will have to involve some kind of systemic component or a change to the process. -- Xover ( talk) 04:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I was curious so looked at the editors with multiple nominations at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report#Nominators with multiple nominations ( this version in case the bot updates it). I compared the number of reviews they have done (from User:GA bot/Stats version) to how many nominations they have made. Besides human errors with my counting there are other limitations.
The GA bot stats record the number of times a user has started a new page with "/GA". In the early days subpages were not made so editors who have been around a while will not have reviews recorded if they just passed them on the articles talk page. It also does not differentiate between Good Article reviews and individual Good Article Reassessments as they both use the "/GA" form. It does not take into account reviews completed by someone else once the article has been started, second opinions or other contributions to reviews by editors that did not start them. The difference may be quite stark, for example one editor I looked at had a difference of about 20% from what they had recorded as their Good Article reviews on their user page and what the bot had.
For the number of nominations I used the editors own recorded number plus the current nominations they had. Most had userboxs or some other means of counting their Good Articles displayed on their user page. Those that didn't I looked through there contribution history to try and reach a number. Level of accuracy depended on the user counts being up-to-date and recorded correctly. Again it is hard to differentiate between co-noms and contributors to Good Articles who did not nominate. Also it most likely doesn't take into account nominations that fail or were later delisted. There may be other issues I haven't thought of too.
I won't name names unless we decide whether, given the limitations, this is useful and what (if anything) we should do about it. Some general numbers though. Of the 43 editors with multiple nominations:
These look bad at face value, and in some ways are, but I chose editors with multiple nominations as they are more likely to be editors overwhelming the system. I think this confirms that having multiple nominations in itself is not a problem. However, there are definitely some editors out there who are not pulling their weight when it comes to reviews. To my mind the problem are the nine editors with 20 or more nominations who have only reviewed 10% of their nomination number. Again I stress there are possibly errors in this and these editors likely contribute to the encyclopaedia in other ways. I don't think we want to upset our content creators too much as they are vital for the encyclopaedia and many already feel unfairly targeted. Even still there is one editor in that list that has claimed over 100 Good Articles on their talk page on and I can find no evidence of a single review. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Different point, I was wondering if most GANs have to wait a long time, or just a few. I snagged data from the Reports page, and used advanced data analysis (Excel) to create a histogram for GAN age. I fuzzed date for below 30 days since it was not on there, I knew the quantity but not exact number, so it is off by five or so.
It looks like most (> 50%) of GANs wait 60 days or less. About 88% are reviewed by 3.5 months or so. With that, maybe we should focus on analyzing the ones that are waiting greater than 3.5 months. Same people, same topics, length of articles, lots of photos, first time nominators, people that review very little, all might contribute. Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Data: File:History of GAN Age Over Time.png
Sparked by the information above I have collected information about GAs that were nominated in 2017 and haven't been reviewed. The information listed is based on hypothesis listed above for why articles might sit. I am doing this by hand but if there are additions that can reasonably be collected I will do so. It's important to note that this information is existing in a vacuum - we need to compare articles that have sat with articles that have been reviewed. My thought on that is that the comparison should be made to the next article nominated in that subcategory but that's harder to collect and so I haven't attempted to do so. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I was looking at this article about a legal case and realized that most of the citations are to the court's report of the case; not exactly a primary source for the facts of the case but close, and literally the primary source for the case's holding (which is ultimately what the case is about). There must be specific guidelines about how WP:NOR applies to legal cases, but I admit I'm having trouble finding them - anyone here have any pointers/suggestions? Thanks in advance... — Luis ( talk) 22:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Greetings. I have been busy reviewing Talk:Tornerò (Mihai Trăistariu song)/GA1 and came across a WP:SYNTH violation where the article says "Critics gave positive reviews, praised this and that" which is clearly "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The editor refuses to remove the claim and pinged another editor who says this is allowed according to the essay WP:RECEPTION. The editor has now gone on a rant and asked me to close the review saying he has done this for 80+ GAs which I find quite worrying if 80+ of his GA articles contain WP:SYNTH. I was hoping someone could look into this or give some feedback before I close the review. Cool Marc 11:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi - earlier today I passed Gog the Mild's Zoë Porphyrogenita to GA, however, the GA icon didn't trigger and the GAN Notice hasn't appeared on his Talk page. I was going to manually add it but wanted to check and ensure I hadn't done anything incorrectly first? Chetsford ( talk) 21:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The Cricket nominator has accidentally started the review themselves. What's the technical way of fixing this? Would love to know how to do this as it's now the second time I've seen this happen. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
A review of at Talk:Clydesdale Motor Truck Company/GA1 was started on 2nd May, but the editor appears to have abandoned it. On 31st May they wrote this essay apparently retiring from Wikipedia. Spinning Spark 21:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Would anyone be willing to take over as the reviewer on the GA review for Jack Kirby? The reviewer did post a review, and although the review went stale for about a month, Tenebrae and Hiding pitched in and it looks like they addressed all of the reviewer's concerns. I pinged the reviewer, and left a request on their talk page, but they have not responded. BOZ ( talk) 02:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I just started reviewing Cloverfield, and didn't realise until after I had started my review that this was actually the third time the page has been nominated and reviewed as the previous attempts are not listed in the article's history at the talk page. I had a look back at the previous attempts by navigating to Talk:Cloverfield/GA1 and Talk:Cloverfield/GA2, and was surprised to find that the latter had been deleted due to the nominator apparently trying to review the page themselves. Should my new review continue at Talk:Cloverfield/GA3 (where it was automatically created) or should it be counted as the second review of the article? If the the latter, would I need admin help to move the page given a page once existed for the second review before it was deleted? - adamstom97 ( talk) 07:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: I have failed this review, which means a third GAN is possible in the future. I just thought I would mention that since the current Talk:Cloverfield/GA3 redirects to Talk:Cloverfield/GA2 which I'm guessing may cause some issues when someone tries to create a new review for the article in the future. - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason that some articles are ignored for months, whilst newer ones are reviewed with in a day or two in the same category? Sorry if this comes across as a bit of a whinge, but I just want to make sure i've not made a common or obvious error. Have I nominated Arthur Frederick Bettinson to the wrong section? its an historical biography about a person who was of hugely influential figure in the boxing world, so I nominated the article to the Sports and Recreation category.
It's pretty comprehensive, but it's by no means a weighty tome that would take huge amounts of painstaking research to verify. There are however, a lot of sources that originate from the the subscription website British Newspaper Archive, I can see that putting potential reviewers off, so i have placed a note explaining that i'd give the reviewer access to the website.
Any tips or suggestions would be appreciated. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc ( talk) 23:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow GA reviewers,
I have noticed that a ton of reviews have been abandoned for months with either the editors ignoring it or inactivity. I have failed the reviews where no action was taken on either the review page or article in months. Failing criteria was checked by user contributions and if both Nom. and Reviewer have gone a month without editing, its a fail. I have pinged nominators and reviewers of these abandoned reviews. I feel that these are holding up the growing backlog, leaving some article that have been nominator months ago to stay indefinitely. I try to focus my reviews on backlogged requests in topics I feel comfortable with reading extensively (such as Transport).
I propose a cutoff date for the Reviews. If a review is not worked on or NOT ON HOLD within a Month, the users should get pinged. If they do not respond within Three Days, an automatic fail will be applied to the review. I feel with a cutoff date, reviewers and nominators will be more encouraged to respond. Things come up in life and I get that some have to be away from reviewing for a bit to solve their life situations. If something comes up they should put the review on HOLD and notify the reviewer, not abandon the review.
Thank you everyone. We can tame this backlog! AmericanAir88 ( talk) 15:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello all, About five months ago, on 5 March, Ichthyovenator and I nominated Western Roman Empire for Good Article. Previously on 22 February I had reviewed the article myself (at Talk:Western Roman Empire/GA1) and found it lacking in several areas, and offered to drop the review and involve myself in improving the article. Ichthyovenator agreed and we (although he pulled most of the weight) worked on the article extensively, before nominating it on 5 March. It was recently picked up by JohnWickTwo, (at Talk:Western Roman Empire/GA2) who's initial commentary seemed only to list three ways the article was unlike Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire. I responded to his points (as Ichthyovenator had also done before me), and asked him why he was not using the six Good Article criteria, informing him also that I had never seen things reviewed comparatively to its related subjects. After this, he changed his points into six criteria, although these again did not relate to the Six Good Article criteria. I then posted the six Good Article Criteria in their entirety, requesting (although I will admit I did not actually explicitly request such) he restructure the review around them. 43 minutes later he closed the review saying it needed to be edited by the WP:GOCE, and needed to be raised to B class by an impartial editor. Earlier we had discussed the point of it currently being rated B class, and I had pointed out it was only C because no one had re-assessed it, and that of the three Wikiprojects claiming it, only one had a B-class checklist, which was not filled in, and that I had seen articles make the jump from Stub to GA, so the current assessment was immaterial. I will shamelessly admit to doing research; and noticed that JohnWickTwo had similar behavior at Talk:Jared Kushner/GA1, much to the confusion of Emir of Wikipedia, who had nominated it. I then reached out to my partner Ichthyovenator and asked if he thought it worthwhile to pursue community discussion, which he agreed to. In the meantime, I have re-nominated the article, with a regrettably passive-aggressive edit summary. As a result of this affair, I would like to ask the GAN community to review the here-listed actions. Thank you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Yet more than the high-handed and arbitrary review itself, I am now also very much concerned by the reviewer's behaviour here after the concerns with the review were raised. The reviewer's responses here essentially ignore most of the concernes raised and even tries to dodge direct questions. They clutch at the straw that they had provided one single actionable issue (an overlong sentence), but obfuscate the fact that it was provided 5 days into the review, but only 5 hours before closing the review as failed. They also repeatedly bring up one of the co-nominators' "extended wikibreak"—which is a characterization of being offline for 7 days (judging by their edit history), that just happened to coincide with the start of the review, that is at best disingenuous, and at worst raises questions about the reviewer's good faith—as if there is a requirement that both co-noms be available.
In short, they exhibit no sign that they have understood why their review was problematic; they double down on the very positions that were problematic in the review; and they engage in obfuscation and dissimulation to such an extent that it brings their good faith into question. In consequence of this, I question whether this editor should participate in the GA process at all. -- Xover ( talk) 09:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
So I will join the chorus who say that this review isn't in-line with the reviews I've done or read (and at this point I've read a lot of them). However I'd prefer to look forward and encouarage JohnWickTwo to take heed of the several other reviewers who have raised questions about this review and think about finding a GA mentor. We can always use more good people reviewing and he's clearly are interested - in fact one of the underlying issues in this seems to be the frustration at the wait time that articles need to go through to be reviewed. Doing what we can (which includes more reviewers as a best sort of solution) feels productive for the encyclopedia. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Could a coordinator (nomenclat.?) have a look at this, please? I think it probably needs to be reviewed and withdrawn. The GA reviewer was a seven-week-old account at the time of the review, and the review itself consists of an unnecessary discussion about mirror sites. In fact, the review itself consists of the reviewer making two comments, neither of them related to the topic at hand or the GA criteria itself. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 12:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. They were false positives, but-uh, well... y'know... related. Mr rnddude ( talk) 13:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone, sorry for the late response, I've been off for a bit. While I recognize your concern, my opinions are generally those of Aircorn's. I felt that the article met the GA criteria, and ticked the boxes as needed. I ran the article through (I'd say) enough processes to determine that it met the requirements for the green circle. I don't believe my age (as noted by Serial and SoWhy) should be "suspicious" , as the instructions for reviewing state:
"To review an article you must:
These are the only criteria mentioned by the instructions. If the comment about the tenure refers to sockpuppetry, I encourage you to take your concerns to the relevant noticeboards. Also, if I have unintentionally overlooked something, I would point you to the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and while the rules should generally be followed, they should be followed to the spirit of the law. I have attempted, in reviewing articles for GA criteria, to follow the criteria as best as possible. If there's still concerns, please start a re-assessment. Thank you for your time, EggRoll97 ( talk | contribs) 08:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
At times during the last interglacial period (130,000–70,000 BC) Europe had a climate warmer than today's, and early humans may have made their way to Scotland, with the possible discovery of pre-Ice Age axes on Orkney and mainland Scotland. I haven't a foggy what that sentence is supposed to mean (I have an idea of what it means, but that's a butchered sentence). There's a second example of the same problem in a later paragraph in the same section:
The settlers introduced chambered cairn tombs from around 3500 BC, as at Maeshowe,[14] and from about 3000 BC the many standing stones and circles such as those at Stenness on the mainland of Orkney, which date from about 3100 BC, of four stones, the tallest of which is 16 feet (5 m) in height. Very long sentence, fusing several statements together, and not making a clear point. This should be a minimum of two or three separate sentences. A more experienced reviewer would also probably determine that the article should be halved in size, as is suggested by this editing guideline. I'm agreeing with both SN and BlueMoonset. With sentences like these, the article is certainly not, yet, ready to be declared a GA. Mr rnddude ( talk) 16:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I will say that this false accusation of plagiarism is worrying and not what we would expect from GA reviewers, considering that plagiarism can eventually result in serious consequences in real life and on Wikipedia. -- Rs chen 7754 03:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've been trying to tackle our oldest articles in the queue and came across Dual systems model. Editor User:Stash85 nominated this in November 2017 and has not been active ever since. He/she was part of a college course where students write articles with their professor/peers. The article is decent as it stands, but not quite there for GA status just yet. What is the standard procedure in this situation? Remove from the queue? Review and wait 7 days before pass/fail?
I left a comment in the article's talkpage to see if any page watchers would reach out, but I think it's highly unlikely anyone will because this was a new article back in September 2017. I also reached out to the editor in his/her talkpage in hopes of hearing back from him or anyone else. Course instructor User:Benkarney has not been very active in Wikipedia, either. Any direction will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! MX ( ✉ • ✎) 20:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
I am writing this to address concern for a nominator (@ Happypillsjr:) who does not put in effort for GA status. This users GA record is shocking as the user has a history of nominating far from ready articles. The user also sometimes starts reviews on their own.
The main reason is addressing this user is the fact that they nominate articles that they have never edited. All of the articles that were nominated by this user, including one I am reviewing right now (BMT Canarsie Line), have never been touched by the nominator. If the review somehow passes with the other articles, this user is taking the credit for work other editors have done. (See my review of BMT Canarsie Line to elaborate more on that).
The one article this user got passed was a very weak review. IPhone 6 was the article and it seems the reviewer did all the work as Happypillsjr never edited the article to fix the issues, the reviewer did.. Happypills needs to be taught how to properly nominate and to put effort into the articles they nominate. This user has received warnings from admins regarding the nominations but the user does not seem to learn the lesson. The history this user has is terrible and needs to be addressed further. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 15:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I have just posted a note to Happypillsjr's talk page requesting that they not make any further GANs. They made a number in 2015 and 2016, and then would open reviews for them, which got to be quite problematic after a while. I made two or three posts to their talk page explaining what the issues were, to no avail. Ultimately, an admin gave them (as noted in Mr rnddude's link) a short block after a final warning, which stopped the problem for a couple of years. It seems clear that they have no idea of what makes a GA, just what articles they think should become one for whatever reason, hence the out-of-process and not properly considered nominations. I also reverted their sole remaining nomination because (as always) they had not consulted with the article's significant contributors, despite having made zero edits prior to nominating. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Sports and recreation has been the largest queue for a while now, with anywhere from 50-60 nominations. Would it be possible to split this topic into sub-topics, similar to most of the other topics? Off the top of my head, I would think the following sub-topics could work: Biographies, Professional sports and rec and Amateur sports and rec, but I would obviously be open to other sup-topics. Just curious, as it could make it a little easier for Sports and Rec reviewers to differentiate and reviews noms. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
This review got started in June and the editor seems to have left the project. How would I go about restarting it? -- Coemgenus ( talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a newer Good article reviewer (only have started 2 reviews so far). A question I have is about close paraphrasing. I have been rereading Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#When_is_close_paraphrasing_permitted? various times and would like some clarification. How many words of a source is classed as close paraphrasing when it is used in a Wikipedia article?
I am currently reviewing Talk:Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino/GA1 and I have mentioned multiple times a part where I believe something is closely paraphrased. The issue is, I believe that although in some cases there are only a few words closely paraphrased, there is not a limited amount of ways to phrase the sentence.
Should I be saying that something is closely paraphrased when it's only a few words and not have a limited ways of stating? Or should I be mainly focusing on ones where a large amount of words are paraphrased and appear in the same order? Thanks. -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 19:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Proposal: make subjects actively in the news ineligible for GANs and FACs for a RFC that is of interest to this project. AIRcorn (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Today, Bold and Brash ( talk · contribs) reviewed Talk:Floyd Bennett Field/GA1 and left the very cursory comment "I'd recommend this article for good article status based on the properly sourced references, organised and well-written information, and informative and useful photographs provided within the article's contents." However, the review didn't address any of the good article criteria. Since this user is relatively new (only 300 edits since January), I think they might not know about the criteria, and the article might need a second pair of eyes. Would a more experienced editor be willing to guide them through the review process? Thanks. epicgenius ( talk) 23:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Earlier this year there was a bot request to replace Legobot's handling of Good Article Nominations. I have started working on an implementation that would address some of the concerns raised in that thread. After some discussion with barkeep49, I have come to understand that there might be other features that the community would like to see added. I have created User:Kadane/GANBot to track development, and to facilitate discussion about the new bot. Please feel free to leave comments/feature requests on the talk page. I would very much appreciate your feedback! Kadane ( talk) 02:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I see that there are co-nominators for some GA-nominees, but I don't see how to add that information. I am trying to list myself as a co-nominator for Samuel May Williams. Also, the article is misassigned to Politics and Government, though Samuel May Williams is deceased. I tried to move it to the World History subcategory, but this was reversed. Please advise, Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 18:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
note=
parameter to leave a comment, which an include your co-nom status. Similarly, if you believe it to be in the wrong category, change the subtopic=
parameter and the bot will recategorize the nomination. Regards
So
Why
19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
In regards to the discussion above, I regularly see nominations which are technically in a wrong category but for which the category is still reasonable (e.g. example above about a deceased politician). Except in special circumstances (e.g. someone putting something in Miscellaneous for which there is an appropriate category) my feeling has been to leave the nomination where it was placed. So in the above example I would not have changed it if I had noticed it. Now obviously a pertinent fact there is that a co-nom wishes to change the category but I wanted to throw open a discussion about "fixing" "wrong" categories. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#"Factually accurate"
czar
22:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The other day I reviewed the article Goosebumps (film) for GA, and failed it. I left the usual helpful info and saved the review page ( Talk:Goosebumps (film)/GA1), but noticed a while later that the usual things (notifying the nominator, incrementing my review count) did not take place, and eventually the nomination was just removed from the GAN list during a bot maintenance run. I assume that the issue is with how I carried out my review somehow, and was hoping that someone here would both know what it is that I did wrong and whether it can be fixed or not. - adamstom97 ( talk) 00:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure if anyone cares much about this, certainly it is not something which over-troubles me, but the mechanism for tallying reviews carried out may have a bug. I started assessing GANs in March (2018) and while I have been busy, I seriously doubt that I have carried out 97 GAN assessments in the last eight months.
As I said, this does not especially concern me, but I flag it up here in case it a symptom of something more important. Gog the Mild ( talk) 10:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
There are currently 11 reviews open by user Iazyges that are hanging "on hold" since August 24, and one extra since July 22. The user either forgot about them or doesn't care anymore. Is there something that someone could do abot this situation? Cléééston ( talk) 15:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm planning to; I've been busy recently and I'll get around to it as soon as I can.Past experience would indicate that Iazyges does eventually get back to reviews, but it can take several weeks. Perhaps they would agree to open only a couple of reviews at a time in future so if they do get busy in real life, only one or two are left hanging. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm offering a free GAN review service. Just leave me a note on my talk page. GANs older than three months will receive priority. Nothing is expected in return other than courtesy. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been searching through the GA rules and can't seem to find anything addressing whether a single nominator can have more than one GAN pending at the same time. Is this allowed? Ergo Sum 20:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Tplaza64 started reviewing the article Ant-Man and the Wasp that I nominated for GA, but they have not contributed to Wikipedia in the almost two weeks since then. Additionally, Favre1fan93 and I are also concerned that they are not experienced enough to assess the article properly given they only began contributing this January and have made a total of 15 edits (including starting this GA review). My personal preference here is we be allowed to open the article up again for another editor to review it. Does anyone watching know what should be done in this situation? - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97, Favre1fan93, and Barkeep49: I have started a new review for this article, but only now saw this. I only started contributing in September, but I believe that I am experienced enough to be conducting this review (ironic COI noted). However, if anyone disagrees, or would like to help with the review/comment on it, please do. The relevant page is Talk:Ant-Man and the Wasp/GA1 -- DannyS712 ( talk) 09:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It's GA reviewer, DJ-Joker16 seems to have disappeared without a trace, and the review has been languishing for months with no progress. Someone may do something about this. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The review at Talk:Social media addiction/GA1 doesn't appear to have considered any of the GA criteria and the history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social media addiction is, um, interesting. So I don't think the article appears to have received a fair GA review. On the other hand, it has an active merge tag. And although the merge tag is by the same editor who made the bad review, the bad AfD, and the bad AfD self-closure, it nevertheless appears to have some merits, and links to another article on a very closely related topic which appears significantly more complete (but also not in shape for GA). So what to do? I'd suggest re-opening but I'm not convinced that a re-opened nomination would likely to be successful. Apologize to the nominator and move on? Formally admonish the reviewer? — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, it seems like the reviewer at Talk:Don't Tell Me (Madonna song)/GA1 has disappeared so the review is stuck even after addressing all the comments. Is it possible for anyone else to just check and decide upon it? — IB [ Poke ] 09:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated a GAN for the first time since changing my username, and note that my "Reviews" count appears to have been reset to zero. I can only assume this is due to the name change. My review count should be 128, though I recall the count was always inaccurate and used to say I have done considerably more than this. Is there any chance my review count can be updated to reflect what I've done? I'm not too fussed about making it exactly accurate, just raising it somewhat above zero would be appreciated, though I'm not exactly going to lose any sleep if it can't be done. Oh and while I've got people's attention if anyone wants to trade reviews just start reviewing my nomination and tell me which one you'd like done in return. Cheers. Damien Linnane ( talk) 13:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that an IP User, 213.97.52.171, nominated the article Olanzapine for GA. I talked with the principle author of the article who said it was not them, so if a review ever were to be started, I don't think anyone would claim the article. Should I go ahead and fail it or is there some other process or is someone else willing to claim this article? User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 20:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi! It appears that User:TerribleTy2727 failed Obadiah Short after 4 days as an editor. I put the article up for nomination, but didn't hear from the reviewer at all, and so was unable to respond before it was failed. The GA criteria don't seem to have been referred to much during the review process. Should I just re-nominate the article without advising User:TerribleTy2727? Hel-hama 19:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Just a ping. (This concerns the "Today's featured article" section of the Main Page ... but just about everything that shows up there is a Good Article, so feedback from GAN people would be relevant, welcome and appreciated.) - Dank ( push to talk) 14:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
These three articles, about features on Mars, are currently nominated under the category Earth sciences. Shouldn't this be under Physics and astronomy instead? ~ KN2731 { t · c} 04:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a minor point, but it's always stood out to me. Despite the fact that some of the good article topics begin with a vowel, (e.g., "Agriculture, food and drink" and "Art and architecture"), the preceding indefinite article on the talk page for each nominee is always "a"; Ansel Adams, for example, is described as "Ansel Adams is currently a Art and architecture good article nominee." Is there a way to fix this? By my count, the affected categories are Agriculture, food and drink; Art and architecture; Albums; Earth sciences; Education; and Economics and business. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 23:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Any explanation for this bot notification of a GA review of one of my nominations, with the wrong status and broken article title, immediately following the correct notification? — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This is up next on the list of oldest nominations, but I'm a bit hesitant to review as it was nominated by an anonymous user [8] with minimal numbers of edits and none recently. Given that there are some obvious issues with the article that would mean I wouldn't pass it outright, anyone have any thoughts on just removing this nomination until an active editor nominates it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I put this forward on 27 July last year, could someone review it thanks. Govvy ( talk) 14:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello all. I nominated the above article for the GAN process and it was selected for review a few months ago but it seems the reviewer in question has taken a break from editing. I had pretty much completed all suggested work on the article and was only awaiting a reply on a question I had asked. I am unsure how to handle the rest of this process. What is the standard procedure for a situation like this? Thanks in advance to any who assist. Carbrera ( talk) 00:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC).
I recently have removed two articles ( 25 and Rihanna) nominated by User:Trillfendi who did not contribute to the articles at all, and I see nowhere the user discussed with the primary contributors of the articles, per WP:GANI. — IB [ Poke ] 13:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Please note Talk:Erich Hartmann, where the article was nominated for GAR and delisted by the same editor. The instructions state that discussion should be closed by an uninvolved editor when a conclusion has been reached - can the nominator of an article for re-assessment be suitably uninvolved? Is the closure and delisting valid? Note that the article has since been re-nominated for GA status by another editor. Nigel Ish ( talk) 20:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
As part of the WikiCup that is going on, I am looking at GANs posted by fellow competitors in the Cup and I want to be sure I don't have a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict. I am a prolific professional wrestling editor and as such, I interact with other regular editors of PW articles, both in cooperation and disagreement over various articles. Over the years I have intentionally stayed away from doing GA reviews on pw articles in general for this very reason. I was hoping that experienced GA reviewers thoughts on the matter? Looking at articles, if I've done anything beyond "maintenance edits" on an article I would never do a GA review, but if I have not actually done any detailed work on an article I would actually like to review them, I think I have enough experience with wrestling and writing Good or Featured content that I could judge articles appropriately, but I don't want this to come off as inappropriate in any way. MPJ-DK ( talk) 00:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
On April 2, 2018, I nominated the 190th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line) article to be a good article. I received some feedback on the talkpage. Today, Mgasparin, who only has 67 edits, and only started editing on December 28, took up the nomination and passed it without any feedback whatsoever. While I clearly believe this article is of Good Article-material, it is unreasonable to assume that this article is perfect, and therefore, this review is unacceptable. I hope I can receive help with this issue, and hopefully a proper review. Thanks.-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 16:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I've just run into the same situation with Talk:Washington State Convention Center/GA1, which was promoted by Berrely without any comments. I'd like a second opinion, as I'm not comfortable with this kind of rubber-stamping for an article that long. Sounder Bruce 16:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I tried to nominate Bajadasaurus and placed the template on the talk page as described, but the bot is not listing it at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. What can I do? -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 19:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The reviewer of my nomination Tian Feng (magazine) has stopped editing over a month ago. I would be much obliged if somebody took it from here. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I have opened an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#RFC about assigning classes to demoted Featured articles that may concern editors of this project. AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I came across this 3-paragraph stub with no talk page assessments and note that it has a GA icon on it. How did that happen? Yoninah ( talk) 23:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone, the GAN review for Olallie Butte has not received any comments since February 11. The reviewer, Wilhelmina Will, has not edited since February 13, so I was hoping someone else could step in to revive/restart the review. Thanks, ceran thor 17:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure we've discussed "In particular, the GA criteria do not require compliance with several major guidelines, including Wikipedia:Notability" before. However, I've just deleted Manny Parra's perfect game, which passed GAN on 16 January, because the arguments at the AfD gave a clear consensus to delete, though several appreciated deleting a GA because of lack of notability would be controversial.
This seems counter-productive. What's the point of spending a load of time improving an article to GA status, then time waiting for and doing the review, if it can be deleted? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
but it is a good articleobjections, but a good closer will ignore those. AIRcorn (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Aravindante Athidhikal was promoted to GA by
User:Lovelyismyname, a new editor whose first edits were to the GA review. Briefly looking through the article, it is clearly not at a GA level. There are grammatical errors and unsourced statements throughout (the filming section is almost entirely unsourced). Lovelyismyname has now started started a
GA review for promoted
Gokul Suresh to GA, despite the {{
Advert}} template in the article. Both the GA reviews that Lovelyismyname has done were nominated by the same editor
User:AhamBrahmasmi. Seems very suspicious to me.
Bennv3771 (
talk)
06:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I recently created and nominated the article King of the Universe, part of a series of articles I created and expanded on ancient Mesopotamian royal titles. The GA review by User:BMO4744 happened over a timespan of about seven hours during which I was not online. I have no doubt that there are many improvements that might have to be made before the article is truly at GA status, as is usual, but I do feel like the whole thing was a bit strange.
The main reasons given for not passing the article was its recent creation, a lack of citations, the fact that there was only one editor (me), some grammatical errors, that the topic wasn't fully covered and that it was currently a "start"-class. As far as I know the age and number of editors usually doesn't matter, especially given that this is a sort of obscure topic? The article is fully cited so I didn't see how this was an issue and surely concerns about grammar and whether some information was missing could have been adressed during the review if the reviewer would just have notified me. That the article was a "start" class also weirded me out as a reason since I have had articles go directly from "start" to GA in the past, especially if they were nominated soon after being created (which was the case here) or significantly expanded. I am also a bit baffled about there being zero correspondence with me here. Ichthyovenator ( talk) 15:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I just put my reply. If you are still disatisfied. I will leave and let someone else reassess the article. BMO4744 ( talk) 15:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manneras well as
A reviewer may put the review "on hold" for about seven days to allow you time to fix any issues that may arise. Although it's normally an issue that the nominator did not respond in adequate time I'm gonna go as far to say that the reviewer that the issue this time is that the reviewer did not give adequate time for the nominator to respond. The general practice is to place the article on hold for seven days and if no attempts to fix the issue are done then it can be failed. In "Step 3: Reviewing the article" it reads
Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review.again there was no time allowed for an attempt to bring it to standard. More or less in my opinion you could say that the article was quick failed. Per the review completed (and a quick look over the page myself) there were no copyright violations, no cleanup banners, and it was stable. The only other possible quick fail tag would be
It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteriabut again per the issues raised by the reviewer this does not seem to be a reasonable quick fail. The instructions then say
In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer. For most reviews, the nominator is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed. Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review, again this was not done. Looking more into the review the reviewer said
decently illustrated but the article could need with more picturesand
the article could really do with more illustration. The Good Article Criteria says
The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirementwhich leads me to believe that the reviewer did not fully read the criteria. I'd also like to point out that the reviewer did not follow the instructions for failing properly ( I fixed it here) which again makes me think the reviewer did not read the instructions. There are other issues the reviewer raised such as the article being a start class. There is a list of what cannot be a good article...
Disambiguation pages and stubs... says nothing about start class articles. Further on the reviewer mentions multiple times that only one person has contributed to the article even going as far to state
This also damages the review because their is only the scope of 1 editor for the article, this shouldn't matter as long as the article is neutral. It appears to me that the two biggest issues here are 1) There was not adequate time given to the reviewer and that 2) The reviewer appears to be applying some of their own criteria to the review which should not be done. The reviewer also seems to be having issues with GA related topics all over Wikipedia: ( removing GA reassessment tag, another incorrectly closed GA, and again) I could go on picking apart all the things wrong with this review as well as the reviewer but I'd be here all day. My advice to Ichthyovenator, the GA Instructions read
If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately, feel free to do that there's nothing stopping you. And my advice to BMO4744 in the future, read the instructions more carefully, don't apply your own criteria, allow time for the reviewer to fix the issues, maybe look into some of the helpful essays here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Editors might wish to participate in this discussion about what good prose in sports articles (with a focus on baseball articles) looks like. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I found an article that I think is a good article but has never had a review. I've never edited the page and I don't have access to any of the books it refers to. When I look at the instructions it seems to imply that as nominator I would be expected to be able to write the whole article. Most of the article is written by an editor I've seen in many talk pages and suspect to be a tireless contributor in good standing, i.e. I'm willing to assume it is accurate. I am more than willing to copy edit what is already there and discuss improvements with a reviewer. Should I go ahead and nominate it and just work with what we've got? I'll go ahead and ping that editor @ BD2412: in case they want to contribute to the request. ~^\\\. r T G'{~ 20:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination.It seems like you've done that here instead if BD2412 is the primary editor, and they think it meets (or is close to meeting) the GA criteria. The expectation is not so much that you could write the entire article, but that you could find sources and fix prose and fill any holes that the reviewer finds. You would be able to consult with other editors like BD2412 who may have access to sources that you don't. I don't know whether FAC is as flexible as GAN for allowing editors who haven't worked on the article to submit articles there. On the other hand, if you've had to do some work getting it through GAN, that may help you to sustain an FAC submission. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the GA bot isn't acknowledging the creation of Talk:Fanny (band)/GA1? I added the review manually, but the bot reverted it on its next run. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I've nominated Marjorie Paxson and the notice is showing up fine at Talk:Marjorie Paxson but hasn't shown up at Good_article_nominations#Magazines_and_print_journalism. What have I done wrong? It's been several hours. Thanks for any help! -- valereee ( talk) 17:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The user H9v9n9 has picked up his own GA nomination for review. Someone delete the review page because this is obviously against the rules.— N Ø 07:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
How do I increase the number of reviews I have done next to my name if it seems that I can't do it manually? I recently reviewed 50000 Quaoar, but when I went to nominate Soyuz flight VS22, "(Reviews: 1)" didn't show up next to my name as I had anticipated it would. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 20:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I recently saw that Indian Administrative Service went without a GA review completed in best part of a year, so I contacted the nominator at Talk:Indian Administrative Service/GA1 to see if they were still happy to go ahead with the review, which they were. I then started Talk:Indian Administrative Service/GA2, and placed on hold a month ago, however their last post was the day that they responded to me. I'm not sure who the best wikiproject would be to instigate the changes I have mentioned, but I am against closing the GA without a single response. Any ideas? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I have come across Border Roads Engineering Services. It was created by a new account and then passed by another new account with a similarly formatted username. The review consists of "very good" ( Talk:Border Roads Engineering Services/GA1) and most of the accounts contributions are to the article in question. The article itself is extremely promotional and far from Good standard. Will request a WP:SPI, but dropping a note here to give Strider3690 and Shubh2545 a chance to explain and to get some consensus on whether to delete the review or some other course of action. AIRcorn (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This has been brought up various times in the past (including by me), but the discussion always stalls. But looking again at the "Biology and medicine" section, the grouping of articles seems completely preposterous. Within that section, we have Nurse practitioner, but also Unionopterus (an instinct arthropod). What on earth do these two subjects have in common? All other sections are much more uniform in content. The problem which is always brought up is that it is hard to draw the line when it comes to anatomy (and that the bots might get confused by a new section). Also, because some organisms cause disease. But there must be a way to divide organisms and anatomy from purely medical subjects. Have one called "organisms and anatomy", and another called "health and medicine" or something? Any thoughts? FunkMonk ( talk) 20:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
topic=biology and medicine
should probably be updated too. There are probably other things that need to be done that I have forgotten.
AIRcorn
(talk)
11:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
About a year ago I requested a list of Good Articles that had mismatches between the {{ Good article}} template on the main page and the Category:Wikipedia good articles on the talk page. It also included a list of articles that did not match up with Wikipedia:Good articles/all. The first list contained thousands of mismatches. [10] It took a year but we cleaned them all up, mostly through the efforts of DepressedPer and other volunteers. I have now requested a bot to update the page, kindly provided by GreenC, and after a year we have another 300 or so mismatches. I would like to add a link to this page from one of the pages here. I could make a new Tab and add it to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Tab header, link it from the main WP:GA or from this talk page. I suppose it depends on how much visibility editors think this should have. AIRcorn (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The GA reviewer of this article, Squeamish Ossifrage, made his last edit on 9 March 2019. I dunno if he is still active, but I hope anyone else will continue the GAR in his stead. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Kind regards!, I am here to not waste time of editors and reviewers and just ask if the article of former President of Kiribati Anote Tong is in good shape for a candidature. Thanks! -- LLcentury ( talk) 14:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Having gone through a few troubles with reviews as of late, mostly because of inexperienced editors that don't fully understand the rules of MOS and other site policies, I believe that WP:GAI should include a clear set of instructions for nominators who would want to request a second opinion. As it stands, it's unclear if the second opinion instructions on the page apply to nominators. Sounder Bruce 00:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Think there's been an error done in good faith here; [11] -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 22:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Instructions#Archiving nom discussions by default, regarding a proposal to archive GAN nominations. Ergo Sum 21:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
As I have changed my username, the bot is stating that I have only done the one review when in fact I have done 12 now. So can this be fixed please. HawkAussie ( talk) 01:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From an FA/GA/PR point of view, this is a complementary system to provide review of existing content by external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications. It also acts as a route for high-quality new articles from people who would not have otherwise contributed to a wikimedia project.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Both my GAN articles, Edward Thomas Daniell and Julian of Norwich are listed as malformed - can I have some help knowing what I have to do about it as I don't really know what the matter is. Amitchell125 15:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors, my tally of 56 GA reviews appears to be incorrect. According to my calculations, I did 35 reviews, not 56. Thanks for the compliment, though, I suppose. Can somebody fix this?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Bangladesh was nominated by a now-blocked user, is the best way to remove the GAN template from the Bangladesh talk page? Kees08 (Talk) 06:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
...I don't see the answer to this question. dannymusiceditor oops 18:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Luna 2 is a GA nominee listed under the Biology and Medicine category. The article is about a spacecraft and would be better categorised under Physics and Astronomy so that those most interested in this subject would be more likely to spot it. What's the best way to get it moved? @ Coffeeandcrumbs: Also informing nominator. PeaBrainC ( talk) 15:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Could an admin plz close Talk:Honestly/Honestly (Encore)/GA1 and Talk:Monster/Monster (Reborn)/GA1. The editor who grabbed them hasn't edited WP since May 20 and his/her last edit was starting those reviews. The nominator, Cartoon network freak would like them closed so another editor could pick them up. Cartoon network freak would also like to close his GA review of War All the Time (Thursday album), as they picked it up on April 18 and told me they don't have enough time to review it as of lately, and they don't want to fail it. If an admin could close these that would be great. Thanks. – zmbro ( talk) 22:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed that sections like the Video games section has their nominations struck out. What is up with that? GamerPro64 03:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello -- I'm contemplating dipping my toe for the first time into GA reviewing but am concerned that the nominated article on which my eye has fallen looks like an obvious fail. I know I can apply very high standards – I've seen few FAs I couldn't nitpick over – so would it be possible to partner with an experienced reviewer to check I'm not being too picky? Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what the protocol would be in this case, but the article Ziyad ibn Abih which I nominated recently was failed without a review by Nightbag10, who started here last month and has made less than 500 edits, barely half of which were contributions to articles. He incorrectly noted that the article “only had one source”, which is not the case at all, and failed the nomination without actually reviewing the article, allowing me the opportunity to address his concern or even notifying me. I addressed this at the “review” page. Should I renominate the article, just delete the review page as if one was never started or something else? — Al Ameer ( talk) 00:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: NightBag10 made a number of reviews, both under this name and under their previous name, Ammar Elbehery (the name change was on June 21, a couple of weeks after their first edit). Most of them were pretty quick passes, or superficial in other ways:
They also had five active nominations. The four that were not being reviewed have just been removed by HawkAussie, since NightBag10 has posted their retirement; the fifth, Tutankhamun, is being reviewed, and HawkAussie has posted about the retirement to the review page. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I "retired" because of this review, I've made multiple mistakes whilst editing Wikipedia, because I am still new and only have one month of experience. I wanted to take a quick break from Wikipedia and rethink how I will continue doing this (because I LOVE editing Wikipedia!). I want to say sorry to Al Ameer son, my decision was too quick and I should have asked you before failing the review. I am still new to the GA system, so I don't really know how it works. I now offer another review of the article, only this time it will be thorough and complete, looking at every source and every sentence. I don't expect you to accept my offer (and TBH, if I were you, I wouldn't either), and completely understand it if you say no. Thanks for understanding, sorry for the hassle. NightBag10 ( talk) 04:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Venezuelan refugee crisis was promoted July 7 2019 - how long before bot adds the symbol? Just want to make sure I didn't forget to do something. Atsme Talk 📧 15:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there a way to add a co-nominator to the GAN template? I believe there's one, as I've seen this done before, but cannot recall where. If someone could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
It has become quite difficult to load the nominations page. Perhaps some splitting needs to be done? D.Zero ( Talk · Contribs) 02:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have added a proposal on WP:VPR to add accessibility as a requirement for attaining GA and FA status. Please take a look and give your input. Thank you.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 09:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I have a question about the 2c criterium. When verifying that it is satisfied, is it enough to make a spot-check of the claims in the article or does one need to check every single claim against sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Why does the article’s page history show Tux Racer on review 21 times? Trillfendi ( talk) 00:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey all!
I made {{ GANList3}} and would like feedback on its viability to help cut down on the GAN backlog.
Cheers, – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know the best place to bring this up, but would anyone be opposed to having Legobot stop transcluding GA reviews onto article talk pages? I just had to remove one from Talk:Seth Rollins because it was breaking stuff (see the history for what it looked like), and I've run into it occasionally elsewhere too. Lee Vilenski fixed the subpage and put the transclusion back, but these still shouldn't be here. There's already a link to the review in a banner at the top which interested parties can see, and transcluding makes problems hard to find when they exist, and it also messes with how the talk page sections are presented. This really isn't an appropriate use of transclusion. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 16:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed ad nauseum before, but what would be required to split the Sports and Recreation topic on the nomination page to match the sub-topics found on Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation? Obviously User:Legobot would need to know the new subcategories and someone would need to manually update the current list under Sports and Recreation. Legoktm, is updating the bot something you are able and/or willing to do if I were to assist with the manual edits? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Football · Baseball · Basketball · Cricket · Hockey · Pro wrestling · Recreation · Multi-sport event · Other sports; it would make the most sense for the subtopics to match between GAN and GA for obvious reasons. Legotkm was not interested in doing any further development or in pursuing bugfixes, just in doing whatever might be necessary to bring it back should the bot stop running—they took over the bot when the previous owner abruptly left Wikipedia, but it's never been a development priority. Various people have expressed interest in writing a new bot or taking over the existing one, and there have been discussions of functionality and issues and improvements, but nothing has yet come of it. So, absent a new bot owner/writer, I don't see how the split can happen at this time. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Any ideas why User:Legobot keeps updating this review for Until Dawn repeatedly? diff Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- clicked the link as I always have done. I think it was a mobile edit (which is very common for me), but I was surprised it opened a blank page and not the usual GA template. Not to worry. I'll report it if I see it again. Thanks for your help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
The backlog of GAN's continue to grow and I thought of a way to counter the year long waits some people are waiting for. Similar to DYK, a Quid pro quo requirement could be used in order for a review to begin. This basically means that if you want an article for review, you need to review another one. Legobot can tag the article as QPQ on the nomination page once the user does so. Here are some rules:
This is just a thought to counter the backlog, but I am interested in hearing your opinions. AmericanAir88( talk) 15:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm offering commitment-free, royalty-free GAN reviews. Just pop by my talkpage and let's talk. The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
So for Talk:Our Lady of Vladimir/GA1, Johnbod had the concern that the article title would necessitate a redirect to the article. I cited WP:GANOT, but that's an essay. There's now a requested move, so now it's really unclear to me how this may factor into the GA Criteria (does that make the Article unstable?) – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I saw two articles listed as Miscellaneous. Yoga as exercise and Iyengar Yoga, which should both come under "sports and recreation". However, I had to type specifically "Sports and recreation" to get this to work, "recreation" was not enough to populate into the correct queue.
Is this something that happens with items after having already been substituted? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Fellow Wikipedians!! I was thinking of becoming a reviewer. Is there anything I need to do before I make a start. I've read the review instructions. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 16:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so we can politely ping someone before taking a nomination, but should we get some kind of (very brief) process in place for nominations which are likely to be no longer needed? E.g.
This would perhaps formalise the issue and enable us to start removing some of the nominations which clearly don't belong in the backlog because their nominators have retired or simply aren't interested any longer. The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 16:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Since the amount of time between a nomination and eventual review can be a year or more, we should be more flexible if someone doesn't respond within seven days of the message, especially if the nomination has been waiting a long time. If we allow a quickfail for this reason, I think we should also allow a grace period—I'd like to suggest it be at least a month—where the nominator can return and ask on this page for the nomination to be restored with no loss of seniority. (I also like Lee Vilenski's suggestion that the appropriate WikiProjects be notified prior to quickfail, much as we do up front when there is a Good Article reassessment.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue which may affect this project. Thank you. :)
——
SerialNumber
54129
16:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
In the spirit of BOLDness I have gone ahead and created Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/September 2019. While I would be happy to be the coordinator I thought there might be others better suited and so I have left that blank. Also blank is our goal for the drive. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Whoever's doing the organizing should grab more people to help with verifying the reviews. From my experience in 2007, it can lead to burn-out really fast if you don't have enough helpers. OhanaUnited Talk page 04:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
""Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews. This is not to say that such short reviews are not worthwhile, it is merely to say that they will not be recognised in this competition.". As the organization of this drive happened a bit last minute, the two submitted reviews will count but similar such reviews going forward will not. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, is this going ahead? If so, it presumably started 90 minutes ago, unless you want to postpone. I don't see that the drive page has been updated aside from three folks having added their names under Participants—things like coordinator(s), goals, extra credit for older nominations, etc., are still not specified. If the drive is on, I can probably dig up the old notice we used to put near the top of the GAN page, modified appropriately, in the hopes of attracting more reviewers, since the drive hasn't yet been advertised at all beyond this talk page. Please let me know. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: and @ Lee Vilenski: Thank you so much for starting this drive. I've been always wanting and advocating for one. It is great to see it finally appear. If this one goes well, maybe a drive could be held every few months. If you need help with anything drive related, just ask. Also Barkeep, good luck on your RFA. You'll do great. I recently went through it and it admittedly gets quite stressful, so take all the time you need. AmericanAir88( talk) 23:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
This article has been nominated for just under five months. I've just taken a look at it, and in my opinion, it is a list, and so should go down the Featured list route (not that I think it is of sufficient quality as things stand), rather than Good article. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Harrias talk 12:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
See this diff. Legobot gave me one (correct) notification of the start of a review for Vojtěch Jarník (review is at Talk:Vojtěch Jarník/GA1) and a second (incorrect) notification of a failed review for "Vojt?ch Jarník". Maybe the "ě" character confused the bot? — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I started work on a film article, which I have recently placed as a GAN. But a couple days ago, I had asked another editor, because they are also interested in film and seemed experienced, to review it. I realized today that I don't know if this is allowed or not because the GA process is potentially a long wait and that really seems like I'd be cutting in line. Is this frowned upon, and should I just wait? I don't want to do anything that breaks the rules. - NowIsntItTime( chats)( doings) 03:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there a GA WikiProject newsletter? I'm excited to see that there's a backlog drive going on, but was only made aware of it through a passing mention on my talk page. If one exists, would someone point me to the signup list, and if not would anyone be interested in starting a semi-regular newsletter? Wug· a·po·des 17:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Have just picked up the GAR for the above. The nominator would prefer that it be listed in the Geography and places section, rather than as an Art and architecture nomination. Can I just make this amendment manually, by just moving it, or is there a better approach? Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 08:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk kindly passed the article Mandate for Palestine here [15], just over 24 hours ago. legobot doesn't seem to have done anything since - is anyone aware of a problem? Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:GAN/I, I must "Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review". I'm a member of the GOCE, and I copy edited 2019 Veldhoven Open around a month ago. Does this count as "significant contributions to the article"? Courtesy pinging @ Lee Vilenski, but anyone else should feel free to add a third opinion. Bobbychan193 ( talk) 07:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
This article has deteriorated considerably since No Great Shaker started tinkering with it earlier this year. The lead in particular is much worse. He now has a notice on his user page saying a family crisis has greatly reduced his ability to edit. User:Amitchell125, the "reviewer", has now done a considerable amount of editing (some of it also very mistaken), can no longer be considered independent, and should step down, and the nomination closed. Johnbod ( talk) 17:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This article has improved considerably since No Great Shaker (NGS) began cleaning up the appalling mess created by the incompetent and arrogant Johnbod. The lead in particular is a significant improvement. While NGS now has a notice on his user page that a family crisis has greatly reduced his ability to edit, he still looks in when he can and remains keen to assist User:Amitchell125, who is doing an excellent job as an independent reviewer. The review should continue and NGS will be happy to address all questions raised by the reviewer in due course. Perhaps an administrator should be asked to consider the issue of copyright violation by Johnbod. No Great Shaker ( talk) 21:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I'm excited about the backlog drive and wanted to offer monetary rewards for a couple tasks, they're over at the reward board. $10 US for reviews (limit 20), and a quid pro quo offer if someone reviews my article Afghanistan. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 15:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
What are our options for dealing with a nom that is constructed entirely on offline sources that are not readily available? I can try and get some of the content through ILL (taking a few weeks) but even with good library access nothing is accessible, so I don’t really have a way to evaluate the sources and check for WP:V/plagiarism/etc issues for GAN criteria. The nom in question ( Gabriel Báthory) has been languishing for a long time anyhow (although I wouldn't immediately pass it regardless of the sourcing.) Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
( ←) Check offline sources? I was asking him to provide journal articles (it was a hard-sciences topic). Plus I was shouted down at that time right here in this forum by several GAN reviewers. Finally, brown may be a poor choice for a toothbrush color, but it's an even worse choice for toothpaste. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk)
Hello. I just noticed that World War II casualties of the Soviet Union was nominated by an editor who has just been indefinitely blocked. This is the first time I've come across this. What would happen to this nomination? Would it be instantly failed, or have a new nominator take over? -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, any ideas on what the rules are around re-reviewing GA noms? I just got a request at User talk:Lee Vilenski/Archives/2019/October#Kenny_Omega – GA to review the Kenny Omega article, which I opened, and closed as the nominator didn't get back to me in a justified time. The article has been changed, and does look like quite a bit of the critique I gave the first time around has been checked.
I'm quite happy to re-review the nom, but is this suitable? Should I pass this on to a different reviewer? Thanks for your help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if Co-nominators are given a GA once they are passed. For Talk:Derek Kraus, the nomination was originally worked on by the initial nominator but later completed by a co-nominator. Does the co-nominator get the GA as well? Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 18:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I remember in the summer where I looked at the backlog number and realized that reviews could take months if not years. I proposed an idea as did others, to bring together the GA reviewers to help reduce the backlog. This idea became a reality and we did it. We reviewed almost 200 articles and helped each other out through analysis. Instead of a competition, we banded together to help reduce a backlog. As Good Article reviewers, we will strive to continue this trend and maybe in 6 months, we will come back together.
Great job everyone. Thank you to @ Lee Vilenski: and @ Barkeep49:.
AmericanAir88( talk) 23:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I was wondering if the copyvio tool was considered a reliable guide for determining criterion 2d. I ask this because an article that I have done a lot of work on was delisted from GA recently, while I was not actively editing on Wikipedia, and the reasoning given was widespread plagiarism in the article. I have run the copyvio tool on the article and it returned "Violation Unlikely", with the closest matching source being used for a short direct quote. If the tool says there is no copyvio or plagiarism issue, is that enough to challenge the delisting and try get the article promoted again? I wanted to ask here first because I have a tricky history with the editor that got the article delisted in the first place and I don't want to get into any unnecessary confrontations. Any insight on this situation would be appreciated! Thanks, adamstom97 ( talk) 09:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski, Lingzhi2, and Harrias: Thanks for responding to my question. Evidently I am not allowed to re-nominate the article regardless if the tool can't pick up any copyvio, so I guess that's that. - adamstom97 ( talk) 18:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment no longer functioning ???-- Moxy 🍁 16:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I know that we are short on reviewers to clear the backlog, but I am alarmed by the number of recent nominations that have been rushed through to approval by editors with little to no experience with the process or Wikipedia in general. Examples like Talk:Aaron Swartz/GA2 (passed within an hour with no real comment by a user with under 30 edits) make me think we should have a minimum edit count for those who wish to review a GAN. Perhaps we should set it at 500 or 1,000, similar to those for WP:NPR. Sounder Bruce 04:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently trying to deal with Talk:The Life of Pablo/GA1, where Thatoneweirdwikier, a reviewer with 28 edits under their belt opened a review on a 45K prose character article ten minutes after requesting a potential mentor's help for their first review (which says it was to be of a completely different article, oddly enough). The only thing they had a problem with was the lack of source citations in the article's lead, and when the people there explained that this wasn't a problem, the article passed. I took a look and discovered some basic issues in terms of prose and MOS:LEADLENGTH, and following up on those have uncovered more. The problem is clearly that this hasn't been given an adequate review, yet unless the reviewer reopens the review and does get mentor to aid in it, or possibly even a second reviewer, we have an article listed as a GA that doesn't meet the criteria. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Could we possibly set up a Good Article School, similar to WP:NPP/S, and have the mentors as trainers as well? That way, if we were to set up a minimum edit value for reviewing GAs, we’d have 2 options: 1. We could say “To review a GAN, you must have 500 edits OR have graduated from the GA School.” OR 2. We could make it extremely similar to WP:NPP/S by saying “You must have 500 edits to join the GA School and begin reviewing GANs.” Just a suggestion. Thatoneweirdwikier ( talk) 08:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the GA status of Washington State Convention Center as there was never a proper review.....just a new editor on their 12 edit with a fly by statement without any proper evaluation done. See no need to go through review as the original promotion was non valid. I have relisted the page for a proper review. -- Moxy 🍁 23:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Washington State Convention Center/GA1
I posted this message on the Legobot talk page, but figure it may get an answer here instead:
I just noticed that Yakov Dzhugashvili, which passed GA a few weeks ago, has not had the bot updated the article page. Is there any way to rectify this? Kaiser matias ( talk) 16:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
GA}}
template with unsupported parameters (status= and note= as well as subtopic= instead of topic=)
[16]. I changed the template per
WP:GAI but I don't know whether the bot will notice it. If not, just add the GA icon manually to the article. Regards
So
Why
17:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Just had a talk page message saying an article was placed on hold, but the article in question has been on hold for a long time at this point. (At [[User talk:Lee Vilenski#Your GA nomination of Marharyta Fjafilawa). The user hasn't edited the page, but it also updated the info on the GAN list. Is this a bug, or is this something I'm overlooking? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This article was nominated by User:Yerevantsi in March 2019, but the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page hasn't been amended to reflect the fact that it has been reviewed by User:Cosmia Nebula in June. It seems as if the review hasn't started, according to the talk page. Looking at the review page, it looks as if the review has been completed and assessed as a GA, but the article has not been passed. Can this be sorted out? Amitchell125 ( talk) 09:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi
Addison's disease has been listed as a GAN. Immediately following nomination a review was started by the nominator (presumably in error). Could this be rectified? Thanks, PeaBrainC ( talk) 13:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed that Talk:Goodbye (Spice Girls song)/GA1 hasn't been updated since 7 September 2019. Is it safe to close this review as the user has long past their deadline for completing it? -- Kyle Peake ( talk) 16:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I noticed in passing that Battle of Karbala was promoted a while ago, but that the talk page - Talk:Battle of Karbala/GA1 hasn't been archived. Just thought that I would flag it up. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia editors. In June, I nominated New Albion for status as a wp:GA. To date, no review has been initiated. Circumstances are necessitating that I leave my current country in early January and not return until very late March, and during that time, I will be so occupied that I will be unable to attend to any editing tasks should a review commence. Additionally, I will be in rural areas with uncertain internet which further complicates my attention to Wikipedia. So, I am wondering how I should proceed with the nomination considering these personal matters. I very much desire to hear from any who may advise me regarding the article nomination and review considering this situation. Hu Nhu ( talk) 04:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
In the vein of something that TRM did, I've made a page where users can request for me to review their GAN. I will aim to review everything that is requested, with the hope of reducing the backlog and because I enjoy being part of article improvement. With this in mind, I'd also like to say that the requests page is primarily targeted at two kinds of GAN: those that have been unreviewed for >6 months, and those that the nominator thinks I will find particularly interesting (see the list of reviews I've done for inspiration there) and/or for some reason wants my view on. I've also put up a little sidebox on my talkpage linking to the requests page for when this gets archived :) Okay, that's all. Kingsif ( talk) 03:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The reviewer, Happypillsjr, is considering failing this article as a "copyright violation", even though the other site pretty clearly takes from Wikipedia ( comparison). While I appreciate Happy's efforts, I think this might benefit from having another reviewer looking at it, either via a second opinion or a new nomination. epicgenius ( talk) 03:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering when the next backlog drive would be held. The current outstanding nominations is almost back to where the September 2019 Backlog Drive started out with (592 now in comparison to 626 then). From what I'm seeing, the oldest unreviewed ones are from February 2019. It would be nice to cut down this backlog to at least late summer / early fall 2019. While I know the numbers will expand again and there's nothing really to prevent the amount to going extremely high, it'd be good to not have the backlog expand to a year (February 2020). Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 00:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
( ←) The only way to actually solve the problem is almost certainly unpalatable: you'd have to require people to maintain a certain (reasonable) ratio of nommed to critted. Even further, you might need to require new critters to undergo a mentorship for at least one or possibly two crits before they can nom. After that, the way to retain critters would be barnstars and collegiality, make people feel a part of the GA culture. But the main thrust of that is, as I said, almost certainly unpalatable. Short of that – keep the backlog drives, grin and bear the shortcomings mentioned by several above.... As for "how do you require volunteers to do anything?", the only way would be for all experienced reviewers to agree not to review anyone unless they at least initially go through all of the above. Make a ubox to that effect. Etc etc. But then some might complain and call us GA-tyrants or whatever... But if you attach the social engineering aspect (collegiality, barnstars, more, be creative) the tyranny is transformed from a liability into an asset: "Yeah, I'm one of the few, the proud..." etc. But. Almost certainly unpalatable. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
subst:GAN}}
template. Then you have failed GAs and demoted GAs to consider.
Category:Wikipedia good articles,
Category:Delisted good articles and
Category:Former good article nominees should cover it and comes in at about 40 000 articles. I am not sure if that includes the Good Articles that are now Featured though.
AIRcorn
(talk)
08:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi all,
Is there any complications on articles being under Pending changes? I've done Talk:Simona Halep/GA1, which is under the anti-vandalism tool. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The nominator has done a lot of work on Penn's Creek massacre, but the article is still based mostly on primary and dated sources—especially #The captives. Per WP:PRIMARY, we should be cautious about basing large sections of the article on primary sources. Also, it's quite difficult to estimate the reliability of older secondary sources (by "old" I mean "old enough to be PD"). Are these reasonable concerns to have or am I going past the GA criteria here? If I weren't the reviewer, I could go back and rework based on newer sources, but then I would become involved. (Fiamh is an alternative account of mine.) b uidh e 07:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Between a split request on the talk page and a reviewer that has asked for a second opinion, I don't think this will be going anywhere in the near future. Is there a way to temporarily pause this nomination, or do I have to withdraw it and resubmit it again later? epicgenius ( talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for an unregistered editor to review this article? This editor has no other contributions. epicgenius ( talk) 15:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I just reviewed the third GAN of California State University, Dominguez Hills - nominated back in February 2019, it was the article's third nom since the end of 2016. And it is nowhere near GA-quality. I'm about to sweep through and remove all the copyvio, and although that's a major problem it is not its only one. Is there any way to dissuade people from nominating this specific article again until it's definitely improved? Kingsif ( talk) 23:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: Can this be unreviewed and put back in the GA queue? It's a little late, but I've only just noticed that—since we last discussed this review—the nominator has been blocked as a sock of User:DeepNikita. G4 is no longer available for the page, but I'm not particularly happy about a sock giving me credit for anything, to be honest. —— SN 54129 00:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, any thoughts on this review? Per BlueMoonset's thoughts I'm bringing ths here for wider comment.
Personally I think it should go back in the pile (per bullet point 1), possibley even with a new date (which would probably ensure another longish wait at WP:GAN, as would be its due). Although the kindness of a new reviewer (per bullet point 2) would speed things along without that (and I acknowledge the good will that exists in these parts that it could happen!), it still seems to smack a little of receiving a favor from a sock (even if tangentially—you know, "this was reviewed by a sock so we better acknowledge it as soon as possible"), when we should (only IMHO of course) be doing the oposite (receiving nothing bat basd fath).
Any thoughts? Thanks in advance all. Cheers, —— SN 54129 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a long section about a new reviewer and some problematic reviews at WT:GA#New reviewer that editors who frequent this page may not have seen—I certainly didn't until a few hours ago, though the reviews started back on January 2. I am about to revert one of the reviews that was clearly inadequate ( Talk:3rd Congress of the Indonesian Democratic Party/GA1; it certainly fails the "Well written" criteria), and will look for a new reviewer for that nomination; it will retain its original seniority in any event. BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the proper way to fix it? Thanks. Cinadon 36 18:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
In case not everyone was aware of it, recently the prose criteria was expanded
[17] to include
understandable to an appropriately broad audience
(see
Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Understandability criterion for discussion). I have been working through the
Good article cleanup listing and there were four articles tagged with "too technical". I tried to fix three and put the fourth up for community reassessment
here. I know community GARs are poorly attended, but would appreciate editors here taking some time to put some input in as it is a relatively new change in the criteria and I would like to get a feel for the community stance on what is too technical. So far there are two other articles on that list that I feel probably fail this new criteria (
HDMI and
Hidden Markov model). I feel this is probably going to impact a lot of mathematics and technology articles and as someone who deals a lot with GARs I would appreciate some comments at a practicable level.
AIRcorn
(talk)
07:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
penrose tiling is an example of a set of geometric shapes (" tiling") with unique characteristics. Whilst Penrose tiling does not show translational symmetry it can show reflectional and rotational symmetry. The tiling was named after...or similar.
Joe Bloggs is a false 9 who sometimes plays as a left wing back.For example. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
This summary sentence is considerably less technical than the section it summarizes, but I still would not expect it to be comfortable reading for anyone without a mathematics degree. [...] it is not and likely never will be readable by the innumerate. Should such articles be forbidden from ever becoming Good Articles? Should it be a condition of becoming Good Article that they be lobotomized so that they can be read by any adult?If it's never going to be readable to most people, it should not be a GA, yet you think it's fine that even the simplest part of an article requires a specific degree to be understood. Most people will never have a math degree, but you deem that 'simplifying' an article to that level is suitably accessible (it's not). That is literally what you wrote, no assumptions necessary. Also, using hyperbolic language like "lobotomized" to try and make the mere concept sound ridiculous isn't going to win the argument for you. (My original comment was also asking semi-rhetorical questions, no straw or misrepresentation as far as I can interpret.) Kingsif ( talk) 23:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
It's a difficult balance to strike. It's unlikely that the average reader will go looking for the article on Dehn invariant, so the article doesn't necessarily have to be written for them. IMO GA articles just have to be as clear as possible to the widest audience possible without sacrificing comprehensiveness or accuracy. Also, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and isn't really intended as a teaching tool for any audience. DYK is a different beast because that is explicitly targeted to a general audience. Many technical articles are unsuited for DYK for that reason (and others). b uidh e 22:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I started a discussion about changing a link in the criteria at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Scientific citation guidelines a week ago. It has got no comments yet so thought I would draw attention to it here. AIRcorn (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I've posted here asking if we'd be interested in consolidating GA-related talk pages. Thoughts would be welcome. Ajpolino ( talk) 18:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Some GANs prominently feature tables, such as concert tours. MOS:ACCESS, which addresses tables in MOS:DTAB and the how-to guide, appears to fall outside of the GA MOS criteria (lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation). However, access for the impaired seems to be a more fundamental concern. If brought up during a review, shouldn't there be an attempt to accommodate it? — Ojorojo ( talk) 18:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The way I review GANs is to give a load of good advice, all based in FAC and more, and that includes ACCESS among other things. If the nominators refuse to implement those recommendations which aren't strictly GA criteria, that's their call, and until the GA criteria are changes, there's nothing that can be done. It's quite simple. The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 17:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Improving how article assessments are presented to readers.
Sdkb (
talk)
22:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The user who nominated Addison's Disease for GA status has been indefinitely blocked. Would it be appropriate to remove the GAN candidate tag from the article's talk page, since User:Dino245 obviously isn't going to be able to respond to review comments? Hog Farm ( talk) 15:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday, Breakjan created their account at 19:31, and after two edits at 19:32, opened Talk:Jewel Changi Airport/GA1 at 19:40 and passed it at 19:46. They then opened Talk:Singaporeans/GA1 at 20:43 with the message "Great work!", passed it at 20:44, and then reverted the passage at 22:20 and updated the message on the review to "Great work on the article!" at 22:21, which was a confusing pair of virtually simultaneous actions.
I took a look at the articles, and noticed that both of them had a number of issues that needed to be addressed before they could meet the GA criteria. (These were not comprehensive reviews, but enough to know there were problems that should have been caught by a reviewer.) At 22:56, I posted to their talk page, noting that I had reverted their Jewel Changi Airport passage and was happy that they had self-reverted their Singaporeans passage because of the noted issues.
Today, in their sole edit, Breakjan reinstated their passage of Singaporeans, which I have subsequently reverted due to the problems I noted earlier (which I discovered later also include some overly close paraphrasing). I also made a second post to their talk page, pointing out while there's plenty of areas where they can participate, it's clear they aren't ready to tackle GA reviews, and I asked that they not continue with the two they've started. I'm posting here to let the GAN community know what I've done, and ask whether there's a preference between simply closing the reviews and putting the nominations back in the pool of unreviewed noms with no loss of seniority or requesting a second opinion on the current reviews in the hopes that whoever gives the opinion will be willing to take on the role of reviewer (with no guarantee that they will be). Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC) (Adding accidentally omitted "no" before "loss" at 19:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC))
The review at Talk:Julius Nyerere/GA1 is not listed properly at WP:GAN. The review status and the reviewer's username do not appear. What should be done? Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 12:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems like the same editor who started the GAN for this article has picked it up for review? It is an unregistered user so it could be possible that it is more than one person from the same IP address. The GAN instructions also mention the following, (The nomination may be reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator.), and I have put a part of the text in bold for emphasis. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I know we have an issue with articles that have previously been failed being read as failed by legobot, even if they are promoted... I just failed Crito, but it was then listed as passing! This is a much worse result, has anyone seen this before? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm encountering a problem on Elham Valley Railway, everything is good like neutrality, clear language then I meet Verifiability... the official Wikipedia page says that the book are a reliable source but what do I do when the article is full of books citations (that links the page), like I can't verify the article because I need to buy those books first to see if is written in the book. And in article there are few "free" sources that I can click and check it from there by just reading the website without buying anything. How do I proceed here? Editoneer ( talk) 09:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I gave up the article as the article was searching for a second opinion'er, anyways thank you for the advice I forworded your message there. Editoneer ( talk) 18:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
There's currently over 80 entries in "Sports and recreation". Could we split it into subsections?
I, for example, am very interested in motorsport but didn't know the first thing about curling.
If there were subsections, the backlog would appear smaller and it would be easier for potential reviewers to find articles of interest. -- kingboyk ( talk) 07:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering if this constitutes a valid good article review, or if this needs to be sent back to the queue. This doesn't seem to check the article against specific criteria.
I am asking because the reviewer, Analog Horror appears to have performed some slightly-more-detailed reviews (such as Talk:Sabine Lake/GA1) but passed these without raising any issues, which statistically is very rare for a GA candidate. I'm also asking because I want to claim Talk:W New York Union Square/GA1 for the WikiCup. epicgenius ( talk) 18:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I didn't finish it because I was busy. I finished it up right now. Analog Horror, ( Speak) 18:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
The person reviewing my article has gone AWOL during the process and hasn't edited at all since 24 February. Should I ask for a second opinion or is there some other procedure in place for cases like those?-- Catlemur ( talk) 13:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys. It was brought up at the recent RfA that my reviews may be a little too harsh/in depth. Specifically Talk:Baltimore Skipjacks/GA1 was brought up. Just for clarity, can I get some sort of consensus of if I should make my reviews more/less lenient? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey, everyone. On BlueMoonset's talk page, I asked that in light of this matter at the Katherine Johnson article if it's best for the introductions of Wikipedia:Good article nominations and Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions to state the "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." aspect? I ask because I think it will help editors to not overlook it. With Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, such advice is right there in the introduction.
BlueMoonset suggested that I bring the matter here for discussion. Thoughts? No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 23:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi GA folks! I've been editing a bunch of help and WP pages recently, and it occurs to me that there's not really any process for recognizing strong pages in that area the same way there is for articles. So, I was wondering, would you see it as useful to have such a process? And if so, would it make sense for it to be nested within or an offshoot of the GA project? Sdkb ( talk) 01:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Greetings I would like to pull off my offer to review Bangladesh, It been fun to debunk my stereotypes in my head but reviewing a page in prose makes me tired and delaying it for weeks won't be the solution. I wanted to undo when I signed up for this but I don't know how... so... I will need to wait for someone to take my place? Any help is appreciated. Editoneer ( talk) 20:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The WP:GAN page now has 715 or 719 nominations on it, the most ever, depending on whether you believe the reports page or the GAN page itself. Sometime around when it passed 700 (the previous record was 689, broken on March 26), it began exceeding the maximum size of template-based page with transcluded templates on it, once they are expanded, so the last several at the bottom of the page are not transcluding, including the last of the listed nominations, each of which uses a GANentry template, plus a GAReview template for each nomination being reviewed, another 88 templates to add to the total.
This is going to get increasingly serious, with the Warfare nominations increasingly failing to transclude, and then the Video games, etc. Even if the bot were magically to be fixed or replaced, it couldn't deal with the basic problem that the page is too long. Each topic list, with all its subtopics, also has its own separate page which will not have the transclusion problem, so a stop-gap could be to add a link to that individual page in the header for each topic section. (For example, the History topic is at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/History.)
DYK ran into this overlong page problem some years back, and split the original Nominations page into Nominations and Approved pages. That only solved things for a while, and eventually the Approved page itself got too long, at which point we had to increase the number of sets we sent to the main page each day from one to two until the Approved page got short enough that the issue stopped occurring, at least for a while.
If GAN brings down the backlog, then the problem goes away. It might temporarily get worse while the number of nominations being reviewed increases, but as the overall number of nominations drops, so will the untranscluded nominations.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. If anyone has a suggestion for dealing with this in the short term and/or the long term, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I'm thinking about starting up another backlog cleanup drive for the next few months (i.e. 3 to 6 months) or so. Any thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 05:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Started here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/April–May 2020. Details can be tweaked, but I think we just need to get cracking on it. Harrias talk 19:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Over the last 30 or so hours I've started three reviews, but the counter (i.e., the parenthetical part of (Reviews: 41) Usernameunique
) has not updated; it should be up to 44. Is this an issue, or does it just take some time to update? --
Usernameunique (
talk)
01:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Willesden Jewish Cemetery - I really like this and it's been waiting a while for a review. I'd be pleased to pick it up but I have an immediate concern around whether it's actually an article, or really a list. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists tells me that "Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain some lists". To me, Willesden is closer to a list, something like, "List of notable people buried in Willesden Jewish Cemetery", than a prose article. That said, I don't think we have a Good List process. I'd appreciate advice on this point before I begin the GAR. I've pinged Headhitter so that they're aware of the query. KJP1 ( talk) 07:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Abbot of
or Bishop of
for "List of" not being necessary in page name.
——
SN
54129
11:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 - Yep, it's going quite well. I see you're offline at the moment, but if you get a connection, I'd appreciate it if you could review the amendments and see if you're happy. In the interim, I shall certainly join the lovefest over at Loveday but you're doing quite well without further assistance! KJP1 ( talk) 09:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
How can I request to remove a Ga Review? Beatleswillneverdie ( talk) 15:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello!
I've recently did a review for a song by Miike Snow called " The Heart of Me". However, the nominator is semi-retired and his last edits were around January 2020. I didn't noticed that on his page, as I chose the article, not the nominator. I've put the review on hold, if someone wants to fix the article I would very much appreciate, it should take no a great amount of your time.
Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 17:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
May I ask, where should I go to get my reviewer stats merged since I was renamed some time ago? Noah Talk 15:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I volunteered to conduct a GA review of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, but I have decided to withdraw. I have notified the nominator, who provided several pointed criticisms of the first two paragraphs of the review I had started. (That's pretty much as far as I got before I decided to withdraw.) Given the nominator's close involvement with the article, I will defer to him/her/them when it comes to finding someone else to conduct a review. (The GA instructions include this: "If you are in a situation where you absolutely cannot continue to review the article, please contact the nominator. Consider helping them find a new reviewer. If necessary, leave a note on the GA nominations talk page.")
And, yes, the next time I volunteer to conduct a GA review I will write my entire review in plain text and then publish the review when I am done. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I got this message: "Reverted inappropriate GAN nomination; user is not a signifiant contributor to the article"
What do I do? Do I just try nominating it again? How do I prevent this from happening? Factfanatic1 ( talk) 09:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have asked for a second opinion on this review because I don't believe the reviewer is cut out to review this. Their comments are bizarre and they cannot articulate themself properly. This is frustrating for me because I feel like they have wasted my time and now I don't know what to do next? Should they just fail the review and then I renominate in hope a more capable editor can do the review? @ BlueMoonset: Cool Marc 08:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi on
Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates the written out entry for the GAProgress template is missing the copyvio
parameter. I tried to edit it in but I couldn't and the talkpage redirects to here.
Mujinga (
talk)
10:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I created the page last night, and was intending to start reviewing National Pacification Army today. However, the nominator left a message on my talk saying that they are "on break from Wikipedia indefinitely and I will most likely not be participating in the GA Review for this reason". Is it worth conducting a review, or should I just fail the article? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)