![]() | 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. |
I've been considering reviewing some GAN's for a while, but I would like some comments about this article I'm considering reviewing
Did I miss anything (or make any errors) for this? Username 6892 18:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Pinging involved users: @ Dyveldi and Chiswick Chap:. The reviewer at Talk:Troll (Middle-earth)/GA1 was very involved at a recent AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll (Middle-earth)) and would as thus be disqualified from reviewing the article. I was also involved with the AfD, so I'm not posting this at the review page because I'm also not an eligible reviewer for this article. Would someone mind popping over there and picking up the review? Hog Farm ( talk) 03:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? (I don't think so) Username 6892 16:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Given the ongoing backlog drive, I thought I'd post an extended list of the oldest unreviewed nominations. This includes all pre-November 2019 nominations (41 total). If anyone is inclined to review any of them, please feel free to strike them from the list. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 01:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This is convenient to have here, but I thought it would be worthwhile to let people know that they can also get similar information on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report page. While it doesn't give nomination dates, the Oldest nominations section at top shows the oldest ten unreviewed nominations, and in the Exception report, the Old nominations section shows all the nominations at least 30 days old (the ones without icons are the ones waiting for reviewers), along with how many days it's been since the nomination was made. People can go to that page at any time; from this page, just click on the "Report" tab at the far right of the top tabs. The page is updated daily at 01:00 UTC. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
As 39 of the 41 pre-November 2019 nominations have now been claimed(!), I thought I'd update the list to include all unreviewed 2019 nominations. The list comprises 39 nominations. As BlueMoonset has pointed out, a more detailed list of nominations is found under the Report tab. This list is intended as a temporary subset of that list to aid anyone who wishes to help cull the list of old nominations during the backlog drive. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 23:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
A comment pointing to an individual reassessment of Joe Biden was posted at the reassessment talk page. I looked through it and was not happy with how it was conducted so have now opened Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joe Biden/1. The individual reassessment attracted a lot of editors not really familiar with the good article process so it would be nice if some regulars were willing to venture over there and make sure the comments align with the GA criteria. it also begs a deeper question on how the stability criteria applies to delisting articles that we should probably address a bit more formally at some point. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Does this section give undue weight to the history of the square (and not the station itself)? Username 6892 15:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi reviewers, would anyone be able to:
Thanks, Kingsif ( talk) 22:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Users may find this monthly graph at User:Eddie891/GAGraph of interest. Comments are welcome, I think there's something off around October '09... Eddie891 Talk Work 01:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Though I wouldn't particularly want to call-out a user, many past discussions, most recently here, suggests that the pattern of poor nominations and reviews by Happypillsjr needs to be further (perhaps more formally) addressed. An attempt at mentoring by myself at the end of 2019 and start of 2020 didn't help much, and various requests for the user to slow down or stop have shown that they will wait about 2 weeks before going again.
In this open setting, I would like to invite @ Happypillsjr: to tell us all what they think 1. the GA process is for, and 2. what the GA criteria are and mean. Then, it may be helpful if other users could discuss these responses, and what the best way forward may be. Another concern that has been noted in Happypillsjr's reviews is poor communication skills, which could suggest a command of English that is not good enough to assess GA's altogether, but which I bring up here in case it seems comments are being misunderstood. Kingsif ( talk) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Kew Gardens 613, Epicgenius, Kingsif, and Coolmarc: I am just aware of having a consultation of me of considering temporary restricted from GAN reviews and nominations. I know my presence from nominating and review articles is troubling to you guys. I know you guys heard about my history of nominating articles. I wanted to apologize about that. I was thought being confident reviewing these articles but I thought wrong. I tried so hard of editing these articles work with. So that again, I wanted to apologize.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 19:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
As is clear from the above, Happypillsjr has, over the past five years, nominated articles that invariably do not meet the criteria, done reviews that do not adequately address the criteria, and otherwise displayed an insufficient grasp of the GA process and how it should be applied. Given this, and because they have not been willing to stay away from GAN despite multiple requests after problematic edits, it is time to prevent further disruption.
The proposal is to indefinitely ban Happypillsjr from nominating any articles to be Good Articles, from reviewing any GA nomination, and from editing in the GA space, broadly construed; this includes all GA-related pages. The ban can be appealed in 12 months, and only at 12 month intervals thereafter, but there must be evidence of attained competence in improving article quality to GA levels for the ban to be lifted. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
"community process"is blocking an editor, which isn't under discussion. Any WikiProject can set rules for participation and refuse edits from an editor under that WikiProject. No one is imposing an IBAN or any such sitewide prohibition outside of GA upon the editor in question. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I have an unusual problem with my recent GAN (I am the main author of the article). All the issues raised but one have been addressed. The remaining issue concerns a discussion between several editors on whether a certain content issue is sufficiently summarized or not. The problem is that I have read the sources presented and I don't see what is missing, despite quotations being provided on talk. I feel the quoted parts are either properly summarized already or would be undue, some others agree with me, some, including the reviewer, disagree. Crucially, nobody else has attempted to edit the article to address it outside adding a POV tag, despite my repeated pings or requests for someone to try to propose a compromise version on talk or directly by editing the article (I certainly don't OWN it). The GA reviewer keeps asking me to address this issue and summarize the sources better, but I feel I am unable to do so without compromising my own view of what's UNDUE, what's worse, I can't even figure out what particular events/issues/people/organizaitons/etc. are being demanded to be included, as all I am hearing is 'read the cited quotes'. Which I read multiple times and I don't see what could be used to expand the article beyond going into what I think are unnecessary details. The reviewer said that I don't summarize the cited quotations better, they will fail the article. I am not new to GA (have written dozens), but I am at a loss with what to do, in the past I was always able to address any issues raised. I admit there is no consensus on talk whether I am right or not, but if nobody else whats to follow WP:SOFIXIT, and if the article is reasonably stable, what can be done? I think the demands made that I summarize the content which I think is either impossible (as all important issues are summarized already) or would compromise neutrality (UNDUE) are unfair, particularly as nobody else has actually clarified what needs to be added. (So to be clear, there is no edit warring on any content issue outside a POV tag being added or removed twice or so over the last week). If the article is failed (due to the unresolved POV issue), can it be renominated if the situation continues (if nobody is willing to actually spell out what sentences should be added to the article)? From that perspective, it looks like this: general objections are raised, impossible to address, but since there are objections, the article fails the stable/neutral. Wouldn't it be pure GAMING, looking for a reviewer who might agree with me on this issue? Which is why I wonder if we have some form of a GA 3O - would it be ok to ask someone to look at the dispute and try to mediate? Or should we just to to RfC or such? And what would this mean to the GA workflow? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
On this review, I finished it, asked for a second opinion, and after an opinion was given, the nom withdrew. Should I mark as failed? Username 6892 13:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned on Talk:Jedediah Sanger#GA nomination, I had looked to review the Jedediah Sanger article, but it needed some summarizing of information, with detail put into notes, and regrouping. I worked on the article a lot, changing it from this version to the current Jedediah Sanger version. I had said that I felt the most important to get it GA-review-ready - and have someone else do the GA review.
But, now, I am very familiar with the article. Is it ok for me to perform a GA review in this case?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there a tool whereby we can enter a user name and see a count of their GA nominations, and/or GA reviews? — Maile ( talk) 16:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Recently I've noticed a number of articles fail a nomination, and within hours be nominated anew. In at least one case, this has happened twice to the same article. Although there may occasionally be a good reason for this, it raises the concern that the issues that lead to failed nominations are not being adequately addressed before the articles are renominated. In the featured-article context, this is dealt with by requiring that "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it." The good-article instructions are not so specific, although they note that "If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately." And generally, they envision that seven days is an adequate time to respond to any issues raised in a review.
With that in mind, how would others feel about a requirement that a failed nomination wait seven days before it can be renominated? This would not be a perfect fix, of course, but it would at least ensure that there is some built-in time to digest the comments from the previous nomination and implement any improvements before renominating. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 17:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Raising essentially the same issue [...] to multiple [...] reviewers) and so it should be uncontroversial to revert a nomination if no significant edits have been made to an article since its last review was failed. Perhaps we could codify this formally somewhere. I'm quite concerned by the text:
If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately.A genuinely improper review (e.g. by a new editor who doesn't understand the GA criteria) should be deleted/reverted and the page should be relisted under its original nomination timestamp. A review that one disagrees with is still a review that needs to be addressed and resolved before renomination. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's a possible change to Step 5 (nom instructions): If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately,
but note that the article may be quick failed if the new reviewer agrees with the concerns brought up in the previous review.
I'm not sure how the reviewing instructions should be changed.
Username
6892 22:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC
At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately.
At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you may renominate the article after taking the reviewer's suggestions into account and waiting at least seven days; a renomination made earlier may be reverted, and a renomination that does not take adequate consideration of issues raised in the earlier review may be quick-failed. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, however, you may ask for additional input on the discussion page.(The bolded part is a link to this page).
If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately.part. Even if you don't think the review was adequate you should still take it into account, you just might decide that you don't need to make the suggested changes before renominating. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
We should add something along the lines of:
It's worth noting "considered" because some GA reviewers are shit and while they think they know what they're doing, they don't, so this wording allows leeway for new reviewers to take those kind of reviews with a pinch of salt while applying some level of diligence should a former review be of value. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, although this has only been around for a week, there seems to be strong consensus in favour of adding this bullet to the criteria. I note Josh's footnote suggestion too, which is a good idea. I suggest we give it another week and if consensus is still in favour then I'll add the new bullet and associated footnote. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since it may be relevant to this discussion, I note that I recently renominated Freud and Philosophy after a failed review because the review was unfair and incompetent (the reviewer made a series of rambling, peculiar comments during the review demonstrating total lack of understanding of the subject, claiming, among other things, that a properly cited statement in the article was uncited, which it clearly was not). No apologies for the renomination or for calling an incompetent review incompetent. Unfair and incompetent reviews happen. They are a serious problem and more people should point them out and criticize them when they occur. I see no reason for a seven day waiting period. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 22:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the article is so good that it belongs at WP:FAC rather than at WP:GAN. Indeed at FAC you'll multiple reviewers with varying interests and differing competencies, as opposed to GAN where you will usually find one generous volunteer prepared to devote their own unpaid time trying to do their best to help you out. Which clearly isn't working in this instance. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
As noted above, several good article reviews have not gone the way Freeknowledgecreator might have liked. Four articles by him on similar topics - Philosophical Essays on Freud, Sexual Desire (book), Sexual Preference (book), and The Homosexual Matrix - have been promoted in the last few years. Someone who has not previously involved with reviewing these articles may want to take a look at them. Josh Milburn ( talk) 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible for someone to close the #Comment discussion? The GA review has long since failed, there are suggestions by me and another user of how to improve the article - which can be used or not.
The conversation had gone quiet, I was so looking forward to it rolling off... but there are more complaints, without, I am afraid, a possible satisfactory resolution. And, I am guessing it's likely going to push out when the discussion can be archived. If possible, can someone close this discussion?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
A review for one of my noms got opened, but then passed without any comment. At all. ( Talk:Art of Francisco Narváez in the University City of Caracas). It's a recent nom so I don't mind if it just gets sent back instead of asking someone to do it, but I thought I'd inform everyone. @ BlueMoonset: to delete it or something. Kingsif ( talk) 15:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
without a proper review. I think that this damages the integrity of the project and is not fair to both content writers and reviewers who go through this necessarily lengthy process. So, @ BlueMoonset: you're saying that Martian-2008 should be reverted and the review page be placed for speedy deletion?-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 07:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This user needs to be closely monitored. I have tried to review the GA nominations of Talk:Everything I Wanted, Talk:Stressed Out but the editor keeps withdrawing and then renominating them. It appears to me they are trying to game the system in hope that a much less leniant reviewer will pass their underprepared articles. I wanted to let you know about this as this new editor appears to be nominating whatever song they like for GA only because they like the song and not because it meets GA criteria. The article Stressed Out, they only contributed 2% to on that article as well. Cool Marc ✉ 19:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: @ Kingsif: the user has just gone ahead and withdrawn Lovely (Billie Eilish and Khalid song) after I reviewed it and put it on hold. It has also came to light at Talk:Stressed Out/GA1 that Stressed Out was not the only article they nominated for GA without properly contributing to. Zmbro has pointed out that they had the same issue at Talk:The Man Who Sold the World/GA1. Cool Marc ✉ 21:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry I have been a nuisance to all of you, but Jesus fucking Christ. You guys have the audacity to speak about me behind my back. I am sick and tired of this! I want you all to stop threatening with Afds and saying that I need to be closley "monitored". It is not your job to babysit me. I am a fucking adult. My experience here has become total SHIT because of users like you. Now I know what my loved ones meant when they told me this website would be a complete waste of time. unsigned comment by DarklyShadows ( talk| contibs) 00:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I passed this article, which had previously failed, but the notifications about the article here and here at the nominee's page Markworthen show it as a fail.
Is there something that needs to be done on the Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States page?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Matthewishere0 Has misunderstood the GA process, and initiated the nom without properly carrying it out: what's the best thing to do here? Harrias talk 10:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia/GA1 and Talk:Rusyns/GA1. I am unsure what to say to them, so I'm posting it here. b uidh e 17:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The recently archived discussion
here brought about a general consensus to add a fifth quick-fail criterion: A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered.
(This wording combines the proposals of The Rambling Man and Bilorv. I changed "considers" to "determines" to avoid using the former word twice in the same sentence.)
The criteria are housed at WP:Good article criteria/GAC, and listed at WP:Good article criteria#Criteria. The former page is template protected, however, so a template editor will be needed to make the change. I imagine we have one here?
As a side note, there was not a consensus in favor of adding a seven-day waiting period before renominating an article following a failed review, but there was a consensus in favor of either removing or changing the line If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately
; I've thus changed it to If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, however, you may ask for additional input on
the discussion page.
(The bolded part is a link to this page)." --
Usernameunique (
talk)
04:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello!
I've recently did a review for a song by Alvvays called " Archie, Marry Me". Nevertheless, the nominator has since "vanished" and his last edits were regarding said article. I was not expecting that, however he was able to make most of the edits, I made several small ones to the prose and replaced unreliable sources. I've put the review on hold, if someone wants to fix the very last issue, it is regarding adding some sort of note to the infobox or even a collaps list, due to the numereous genres of the song. I would very much appreciate, it should take no a great amount of your time.
Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 19:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I just tried to pass Talk:Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill for GA, after a second review. The nominator User talk:Bneu2013 just got a message from Legobot that the nomination has failed. What did I do wrong and how do I fix it? Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I had one of my nominations, Warcraft (film) reviewed and passed but i don't really know if this should be considered legitimate or not. The reviewer, @ P,TO 19104: has only been a user for a day, and the review really didn't go into a lot of detail. Wondering if someone can assess this. Rusted AutoParts 00:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm working on an article on "creation narratives in Korean shamanism" here, with an eye to GA status.
The issue is that the topic is covered nearly entirely by Korean-language sources. There is a relatively large amount of Korean-language scholarship on Korean creation narratives, including a full-length monograph with extensive discussion with an appendix of all relevant primary sources along with extensive annotation (Kim H. 1994). By contrast, I've searched a fair bit, and virtually the only English-language scholarship directly on the topic appear to be:
So I'm currently planning on using Korean-language sources almost exclusively, since even the Religions chapter is effectively a tertiary source not in the least helpful to anyone with access to the actual Korean-language secondary sources and in some parts openly inaccurate.
Would this be a problem for the verifiability criteria?-- Karaeng Matoaya ( talk) 14:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, and hopefully all is well. Though the GA drive hasn't quite ended yet, it's safe to say that it has seen a fair bit of success and I'd like to congratulate all editors involved. The drive and good articles are profiled in this month's issue of The Signpost ( here). One of the sections rather briefly talks about ways to revitalize the project, something I'm sure we all have opinions on and I know has been discussed time and time again with little change. Coming off of such a successful drive, I think now is the time to have this discussion again. How can we keep the backlog from becoming too high? How can we ensure the continued quality of good articles?
Here are my thoughts:
I don't want to come off as presumptuous as I've not previously been involved in much GA-related discussions. I know that I'm not always right, and my ideas certainly aren't the best, but this is a discussion worth having. If these are the worst ideas you've ever heard, please say that. If you have other ideas please list them. Let's figure out what changes we can agree on to move this project forward and hopefully ensure its success in the future. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I asked at the Biography Wikiproject to no response, so would anyone here like to chime in on the Personal life section re. Talk:Laura Harrier/GA1? Thanks, Kingsif ( talk) 08:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I started a review template at Talk:Irene Dunne/GA1, but am having second thoughts about doing the review. How can I delete this template without affecting the nomination? Please advise. — Maile ( talk) 11:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The nominator of, and main contributor to, this article (Geography - Places) appears to be a blocked sock. Not sure a nomination could progress in such circumstances. A pity, as it looked rather good. KJP1 ( talk) 06:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This article was nominated for GA and has been reviewed (see comments here), but there has been no response by the nominator since it was put on hold on 13 June 2020. Can anyone help here to avoid the article being failed? if I know someone is willing to pick this up, I'm willing to allow more time for the work to be done. Amitchell125 ( talk) 08:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I've searched for the answer to this in the archives of this page and in pages relating to WP:COI but I'm not sure yet what the established practice is. I'm the Wikimedian In Residence for the Khalili Collections. In that capacity I've written about the history of kimono, including creating the article Khalili Collection of Kimono and improving other articles. This is part of work for which I've been paid. I'm proud of Khalili Collection of Kimono, think it deserves a higher than B rating and would be happy to get it reviewed by the community. The review process would involve me making changes to the article in response to requests for the reviewer, so it would require me to edit the article directly in non-trivial ways. I hope, and it would seem sensible, that the fact that the edits would be made in response to a neutral reviewers' comments, to bring the article to a high quality, would make these edits okay, although they are edits about an aspect of my employer. Since I couldn't find a precedent for this, I thought best to ask explicitly before proceeding. MartinPoulter ( talk) 10:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
One of my GANs ( Talk:2002 Football League First Division play-off Final/GA1) has been picked up by WikiEditor28582573 who has a total of 17 edits. I'm not wholly convinced I'll get the kind of review I'm looking for, but I'm happy to AGF. I think I'll need some assistance to restart the nomination in a couple of days time without it dropping to the bottom of the queue. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello again. I am reviewing Bat virome with no prior knowledge of the subject. According to the criteria in a good article "all inline citations are from reliable sources". By simply looking through the list I know from experience that the WHO and New York Times are reliable sources. But there is no way I could manually check all the scientific journals are reliable sources as there are so many. Any suggestions? Chidgk1 ( talk) 05:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, people. I wanted to know if there is any minimum size restriction in the God Article criteria. I have read what is written and know that stubs cannot be made a good article but what about article which are not stubs but at the same time not as long as most articles as well? (An example would be WDM-2G) Forgive me if this comes out as a normie question but I'm pretty new to the whole thing. (Have mostly done CVU stuff till now). Thanks, Field Marshal Aryan ( talk) 19:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I realise that good articles do not have to completely follow the manual of style, but even checking the sections they do have to follow would be time consuming to do completely by hand. So is there any automated style checker I could run against the article to at least do mechanical checking which does not rely on human judgement? Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks. What the view on paywalled sourced? I'm reviewing Mitsuharu Misawa and I think there is 160 references that are behind a paywall. How does that effect the review? Thanks. scope_creep Talk 16:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:Reviewing good articles already states, "If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means. Reviewers can confirm information from sources they cannot access at the resource exchange or request translations at Wikipedia:Translation." This seems reasonable to me. ( t · c) buidhe 04:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Only 40% are behind the paywall and unfortunately in Japan wrestling isn't seen as premier sport really, not on the same level as more traditional sports e.g. Sumo. So there is not a large number of folk commenting on it, writing books, newspapers/journals/e-papers or sports pages. I did a 4hour search one night, trying to flesh out the details of the man's life, but no luck. I suspect the paywall sources are supporting the whole arc of the article structure, while the remaining sources are match details and so on, that provide locations and times. scope_creep Talk 21:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The article is Mitsuharu Misawa. It is 220k, which is quite substantial for biographical article. scope_creep Talk 09:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Qibla/GA1 was done by a currently blocked sock puppet. While being a sock puppet does not necessarily mean an inability to do a proper review, it does cast doubts. What strikes me most: the whole review took just over an hour. Bit short, isn't it? -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 08:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
After a discussion with myself, Username6892 has opened a community reassessment for Chester station (Toronto), so feedback is welcome! Kingsif ( talk) 01:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, the last discussion fizzled out with little comment, but I think this is something that really needs discussed. The last backlog drive was very successful, but the number of unreviewed (and total) nominations just keeps rising. A-drive-whenever-there-gets-to-be-so-many-noms-the-page-breaks makes a decent stopgap solution, but something more permanent needs to be done. For one thing, the Good Articles WikiProject has very ad hoc leadership, so electing a handful of coordinators may be something work looking into (although it's not guaranteed to help with anything from an organizational perspective). I've seen several suggestions bandied around in the past, so I'll list the ones I can remember:
1: Rolling drives. Three of four one-month drives a year with a push on reviewing. The last drive seemed to peter out after one month, so one month is probably an ideal drive length. However, that drive was also done during the midst of the COVID lockdown, meaning editors had way more time to spend on the site. There was also the issue that during drives, a lot of the progress is driven by a handful of users. The Rambling Man had triple digit reviews, and me and several others had over 70 in the last drive. Honestly, I don't think a handful of users cranking out 70+ reviews in a short period of time is something we can count on.
2: A cap on how many nominations a user can have active at one time. Points were made that this has drawbacks, such as some nominations sitting for months without being reviewed. It isn't really fair to a user for them to have to wait for months to nominate an article they've worked up to status because nobody is picking up reviews for earlier articles. At times, the effect of this would also be limited, as prolific nominators also see their articles more likely to be reviewed sooner.
3: Some form of QPQ requirement. Honestly, my fear with this is that there's going to be an uptake in low-quality reviews, as people game the system to get a QPQ in. I've seen similar things happen with DYK QPQs, although it's not as widespread as it could be.
4: Enhanced quick-fail allowances. Make it easier to quick-fail articles. I don't really like this one, although maybe it's because I rarely quick-fail articles, unless it's a bad faith nomination. Quick failing often doesn't lead to greatly improved content, just frustrated new-ish users.
All of the suggestions I can think of have some amount of drawbacks. However, something needs to be done. Letting the backlog grow to unbearable numbers and then trying to fix it isn't going to work well in the long-term. There's always going to be a backlog, probably a substantial one at this page, but the best way to keep if from getting overwhelming is to try to find a solution that will do something to keep things at reasonable levels. Any ideas? Hog Farm Bacon 03:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Articles may go through WP:Peer Review or WikiProject internal peer reviews such as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review before being nominated here. In this case, ideally someone "fresh" would pick up the review here at GAN so that the article gets checked by as many people as possible. However, the pool of "fresh" reviewers that haven't had their say already at the Peer Review may be depleted; especially if the article is about a niche topic, it might have to wait in the "Nominations" page for quite a while. So here comes my question: If I did a review at Peer Review for an article, am I encouraged to pick up the review for the same article here at GAN as well? Or should I wait for two weeks to see if someone else is interested before picking it up? Or should I just stay away from it? Thanks. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 18:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I recently tagged the article on John Major for GA review under World history, but it isn't appearing on the list on this page. Is there something else I need to do other than tag the article as GA-review on its Talk page?? WisDom-UK ( talk) 13:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I've found a good article. It doesn't have an individual focused editor. I have not edited this article, and I am not knowledgeable enough about the article to discuss it in depth and do research, as the instructions here require of a nominator of good articles. And yet it is a good article that I am sure people would like to see promoted to featured article. The article is called Edmonia Lewis. I understand there is a major backlog at GA, but I am sure people want to see this kind of article fast tracked at present, the biography of a female, African American, Native American, fine artist, from the turn of the 20th century... full of lovely pictures, a significant text about the ladies life with some discussions of her notable works, a famous person from modern antiquity. It's a quietly good article of some genres Wikipedia is seeking to increase promotion. I'm not qualified to nominate it. It seems there was interest in nominating it long ago but that has not come to pass. I do not know how this article came to be on my watchlist. I think it was from being a Google Doodle in 2017, when it got almost a million extra views over the course of two days. Please send this article on its way to featured article: Edmonia Lewis, thank you o/ (apologies for all the text, I am practising talking to myself) ~ R. T. G 20:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I've quick-failed Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes/GA1 due to instability without reviewing the content, the article is just unstable from day-to-day, since it's a controversial ongoing event. Are there any objections to doing this? I personally don't like quick-fails, so doing this seems pretty radical to me. Hog Farm Bacon 00:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Should the albums sub-section of this topic list have the info that EPs are included added to its current overview: "This includes record albums, soundtracks, and video albums."? I say yes, since EPs are often submitted under the albums subtopic. -- Kyle Peake ( talk) 20:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious, is there a List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles, similar to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits? I'd love to know which editors have promoted the most articles. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
|action1result=
) whose value was "listed" then look at the discussion link connected with that (e.g. |action1link=
) and see what user started that discussion page. Would that work?
wbm1058 (
talk)
21:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
Article history}}
added by bot in the past? I don't see it on the talk page of
my most recent passed nom or the
one I've reviewed most recently. Picking a couple more recent GAs out of a hat (
1 and
2) they don't have that template either. Were folks adding it manually in the past? If that's desired, we could add it to
Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions...
Ajpolino (
talk)
22:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I think Lee's suggestion is the most foolproof, whenever a {{subst:GAN|subtopic=blah}}
was added to an article talk page, it can be safely assumed that was the nominator.
The Rambling Man (
Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)
07:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
|nominator=
can be parsed. So in
my random example
AustralianRupert gets credit for that one. So the algorithm is to search the talk page history for the most recent version with {{
GA nominee}} and credit the editor specified in |nominator=
? In this example, the nominator would be parsed from the edit of 22:41, 30 March 2012 which was the edit before
the edit that removed {{GA nominee}} (and replaced it with {{
ArticleHistory}}). –
wbm1058 (
talk)
11:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, which I don't recall seeing before. That's updated by Rick Bot per this April 2007 BRFA. That list is automatically generated from by-year summary lists, for example Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2024, which in turn is created by the same bot. The by-year summary lists are in turn derived from monthly lists such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2020 which are created by humans (shout-out to Ealdgyth and Ian Rose – thank you for your helpful behind-the-curtain work!). The monthly lists simply are lists of transclusions of individual nominations, e.g. {{ Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor/archive1}}.
Having recently worked at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I've seen that there are similar lists of transcluded reassessment nominations, the most recent is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 65. But I'm not so familiar with how the Wikipedia:Good article nominations process works so I suppose an analysis of that is in order here.
Noting that Rick Bot first gets the list of all articles which were accepted as featured articles and then cross-checks that against Category:Featured articles (or Wikipedia:Featured articles) and Category:Wikipedia former featured articles (or Wikipedia:Former featured articles). Thus the bot is able to show the former featured articles on its list (indicated by the hollowed-out star ☆). If I start from a list generated from Category:Good articles I won't be able to show the former good articles on the list. Thus maybe a more appropriate title would be Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by currently-accepted good article nominations.
I hear Psiĥedelisto's desire to include XTools Authorship in the analysis. For my initial implementation I won't be doing that. Besides not seeing a consensus for that I think this is also more difficult if there is no API for me to easily get that data from XTools, and the reliability of XTools in determining "authorship" may be questionable in some cases. What if it doesn't recognize cut-paste moves? Is it intelligent enough to recognize when content has been merged so as to credit the original authors rather than the editor performing the merge by copying the original authors' work while giving attribution to them in an edit summary and/or talk-page template?
This has bubbled up my to-do list so I should be focusing more on this task soon. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a
User:GA bot/Stats page that ranks GA reviewers by number of reviews they've done. I just read the Signpost WikiProject report
Revitalizing good articles (which somehow I overlooked when it came out just over a month ago) and hereby declare that a
GA.
I see a quote that links to that stats page: "
The main problem with GAN is that reviewing is
highly concentrated among a small number of users, while nominating is much more broad-based
". I see that
Legobot took over the task of maintaining that list
in September 2013.
WP:List of Wikipedians by good article reviews,
WP:Wikipedians by GA Reviews and
WP:WBGAR all link to the bot's stats page, as does {{
User Good Articles reviewed}}. I suppose if GA bot/Legobot maintained a corresponding list of nominators y'all wouldn't be asking for one here.
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles was an effort to combine nominators and reviewers into a single table, but that was manually updated and not so well maintained, hence
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles.
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 155#Number of GA reviews reports issues with the accuracy of Legobot's stats.
Looking at the GA process, HERE I see Legobot removing a nomination as "passed", though it appears to me that it was placed "on hold". Looking at the review page for that, Talk:Break My Heart (Dua Lipa song)/GA1 doesn't appear to be transcluded in any Good article archive ( what-links-here), though Article alerts is on the case. So there doesn't appear to be a way to get this from archives (monthly lists) the way the featured-articles bot does. (Yes I've seen the two appeals for an operator to take over Legobot Task 33 in the archives. I'm fine with taking over the PHP code; my issue is with the SQL database. I've had plenty of experience working with databases on mainframes back in the day, but I'm rusty. I don't think it worth my time to get back up to speed with that. I question why an off-wiki database is needed when the wiki is itself a big database. My inclination would be to replace the SQL stuff with having the bot store whatever data it needed on pages in its own userspace. Then others could see what was going on there which could be helpful in working out any processing kinks.) Talk:Break My Heart (Dua Lipa song)/GA1 was created by the reviewer, not the nominator. It's easy enough from looking at that to see who the reviewer is, but the nominator not so much. From looking at the page history, I can guess who the nominator was (actually that one's easy to guess) but I see the need for trawling through the talk page edits to be sure.
So I will proceed with the algorithm we came up with in mid-June, for the initial development. If that goes well, I'll consider adding a walk through Category:Delisted good articles as a possible enhancement that could either be added to the listed-articles list or used to make a second list. And if the processing turns out to be too intense to keep repeating every time the bot runs to update its report, my inclination would be for the bot to store a table of nominations in its userspace or on a project page to avoid the need to keep searching the talk history again and again to find them. – wbm1058 ( talk) 23:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I've made good progress coding this up. My initial trial run through the first 250 Good Article talk pages found the {{ GA nominee}} template in the page histories of all but six of them. There are at least three different problems causing these not to be found; I am just reporting one of them now. Template:GAC used to redirect to Template:GA nominee (presumably as an acronym for Good Article Candidate) before it was usurped to make a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC on 29 June 2008. A number of nominations may have transcluded this template during the 1 year, 11 months between its 19 July 2006 creation and the 29 June 2008 retargeting. For example, {{ GAC}} was used on Talk:22 Short Films About Springfield at 22:00, 19 October 2007. I can make my bot recognize this alias, but to mitigate potential confusion I intend to undo that usurpation that made the cross-namespace redirect. Alas this new usage was put in a template that was substituted many times so it will take about 1800 edits to bypass that redirect to {{ Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC}}. I've got AutoWikiBrowser set up to make these edits (see example test edit), but will wait a bit for any response here. – wbm1058 ( talk) 00:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
FYI: Found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 5 § Suggested recommended template name change – wbm1058 ( talk) 10:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Why not change {{ GA nominee}} officially to its alternative, {{ GAC}}, to match {{ fac}} Wouldn't even need to move Template:GA nominee, as there's already a redirect. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden talk 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. Homestarmy 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
My script now treats Template:GAnominee, Template:GAC and Template:GAN as aliases of {{ GA nominee}}. I found a few cases where editors failed to {{ subst:GAN}} (e.g. 20 March 2008 edit, 28 March 2008 edit and 13 May 2008 edit). These all predate this move:
My test run through the first 1,000 Good Article talk pages found one case where the talk history had been moved to an archive page. After I merged Talk:1+1 (song)/Archive 1 back into Talk:1+1 (song) (revisions up to 14:57, 20 April 2012) the script was able to find the nominator for that article. Hopefully if there aren't too many other talk archives like this, they can all be manually merged back in similar fashion to help the script find the nomination.
After making these adjustments the script found the GA nominee for all but three of the first 1,000 processed Good Article talk pages. These three date to the earliest days of the GA process, and give some interesting insight into its evolution. Looking at them in order, the first is
Great Comet of 1882 which is one of the small set of founding Good Articles. Wikipedia:Good articles was
created at 13:23, 11 October 2005 by
Worldtraveller, who last contributed on 3 March 2007. Their edit summary: created page, listed a few example articles that I think are good but nowhere near FA
. Their original instructions:
What makes a good article?A good article will share many characteristics with featured articles, and like featured content it should be well written, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. It should definitely be referenced, and wherever possible it should contain images to illustrate it. Good articles may not be as comprehensive as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.
How to list an article on 'good articles'
The process by which articles are designated as 'good' should be much simpler and quicker than that by which articles become featured. List candidate articles on Wikipedia:Good article candidates, where they will be reviewed, and if no-one raises any objections within 24 hours, they may be listed here. If you see an article listed here that you think is not good, you might consider being bold and removing it, leaving a note on its talk page to indicate why you think it is not good.
And, with that 11 October 2005 edit which gave birth to Good Articles Worldtraveller de facto nominated
Great Comet of 1882 to be a
founding Good Article.
At 18:02, 23 October 2005
Slambo placed the {{
GA}} template on
Talk:Great Comet of 1882, as the de facto reviewer.
At 07:36, 2 February 2008
GimmeBot placed {{
ArticleHistory}} on
Talk:Great Comet of 1882, declaring September 26, 2005 as the listing date as that was the
current version on 23 October 2005. Cool, smart bot!
Category:Good articles wasn't created until
29 May 2010.
Spider was
the first article to be nominated by another editor, hours after Good Articles was created. Perhaps after noticing that their instructions to list candidate articles on
Wikipedia:Good article candidates hadn't been followed, Worldtraveller quickly
changed the instructions (let's make it really simple
): "Simply add any articles here that match the criteria." An
edit at 10:53, 24 October 2005 gave shape to the GA criteria (bulleted list so it's easier for readers to see what's required). An
edit on 30 October 2005 added the text "It is probably best to avoid self-nominating articles as this can introduce bias."
The second of the three where the script didn't find the GA nominee is 1997 Pacific hurricane season. This was nominated at 20:19, 12 December 2005.
An edit at 04:53, 24 December 2005 added an "experimental self-nomination system": Wikipedia:Good articles/Self-nominations (now Wikipedia:Good article nominations) was created at 04:52, 24 December 2005.
The third of the three where the script didn't find the GA nominee is A215 road. This was nominated at 13:58, 30 May 2007.
Overall not bad that the bot is not finding nominators for just 0.3% of the first 1,000 Good Articles (3/1000). For now I'll focus on reporting the nominators that have been found while grouping the others into a "nominator undetermined" bucket. Might enhance the script to better handle the older cases later. – wbm1058 ( talk) 20:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Per a {{ policy-change-warning}} (that template was created on 11 March 2006):
Template:GAnominee was created
at 15:53, 19 March 2006 and
this 15:55, 19 March 2006 edit added the instruction to Add {{
GAcandidate}} to the nominated article's talk page.
in addition to List it below under "Nominations" using "{{
article|NAME OF ARTICLE}}". Sign your nomination using four tildes (~~~~).
When the instructions were split to the
Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines subpage
at 17:14, 30 September 2007 they still instructed to list the article at the bottom of the relevant section of
Wikipedia:Good article nominations, until
this 18:06, 18 September 2010 edit removed the need for manually listing there as a bot was implemented to do that.
For the few cases where my bot isn't finding {{ GA nominee}} in the article's talk history, I can have it look back through the Wikipedia:Good article nominations edit history from the 17:52, 18 September 2010 TRANSITION TO BOT FORMAT when {{ GANentry}} replaced {{ la}}. This should find a few where an editor posted a nomination to WP:Good article nominations but neglected to post {{ GA nominee}} to the article's talk, and also nominations that predated the creation of {{ GA nominee}}. – wbm1058 ( talk) 21:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
" it's not self-noms that we're discouraging, it's self-promotions" – Slambo, 20:37, 1 March 2006
I'm continuing to work on "data-cleaning" including doing history-merges that help my bot find the nominations. The bot couldn't find any nomination in the page history of Talk:Fraser Kershaw and this edit by Chapter35 (whose contributions imply a possible COI) explains why. – wbm1058 ( talk) 01:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
4,431 editors have nominated at least one Good Article. As of yesterday, when this report was generated, there are 32,118 Good Articles. The program found nominators for 32,008 of them (99.7%). The 110 articles for which the nominator wasn't found generally date to 2007 and earlier. Here are the top forty:
1 Sturmvogel 66 => 731 2 Parsecboy => 593 3 TonyTheTiger => 335 4 Hurricanehink => 296 5 Gen. Quon => 272 6 MWright96 => 258 7 Chiswick Chap => 247 8 Hawkeye7 => 247 9 Mitchazenia => 232 10 Miyagawa => 217 11 Sasata => 216 12 ChrisGualtieri => 206 13 Imzadi1979 => 193 14 Arsenikk => 191 15 The Rambling Man => 186 16 Cplakidas => 185 17 Dough4872 => 182 18 Magicpiano => 175 19 Epicgenius => 174 20 SounderBruce => 173 21 12george1 => 171 22 Courcelles => 154 23 Hunter Kahn => 152 24 Cyclonebiskit => 150 25 Encyclopædius => 138 26 Yellow Evan => 137 27 Carbrera => 136 28 Ritchie333 => 131 29 Cartoon network freak => 130 30 ThinkBlue => 128 31 Grapple X => 126 32 Bellhalla => 125 33 Rodw => 124 34 Ruby2010 => 123 35 Hchc2009 => 120 36 Jackyd101 => 120 37 ProtoDrake => 116 38 Another Believer => 112 39 Ealdgyth => 111 40 Ed! => 111
I'm thinking it would be good to create a subpage for each editor to list each of their nominations. – wbm1058 ( talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The GAN template lists a single nomination. If it's a co-nom, how do the bots handle the 2nd nominator as far as crediting both users for promoting it to GA (provided it passes the review}? Atsme Talk 📧 20:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
|note= USER is a co-nominator
to note a co-nom. See the formatting added
here and
here for currently open examples. There has been discussion about adding support for a co-nominator
dating back to at least 2014. The template does not otherwise support a second nominator, and AFAIK the bot does not recognize it, but both users obviously can take credit. A reviewer should manually use {{
GANotice}} to notify the noted co-nom about their nomination. Hopefully that makes sense Best,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
21:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)When you use the start review tab to create the framework of the review (basically the pre-loaded part), the section two heading is titled GA Review, which is not compliant with MOS:HEADING. See Talk:Japanese destroyer Shii/GA1 for an example. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the preloaded header produces a MOS error that at a number of reviewers would comment on in a GA review? Hog Farm Bacon 01:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello all. There are currently at least five open GANs that were nominated by (indefinitely) blocked users. CommanderWaterford has Wolfgang Diewerge, Kailash Satyarthi, and Cemetery of San Fernando, and ZarhanFastfire nominated Clifford Wiens, Daniel Cockburn, Donald Shebib, and You Are Here (2010 film). The most concerning fact is that ZFF is currently blocked for copyright violations. Suggestions on how to proceed? None of the articles appear to be quick-fails at a glance, but none are clearly up to our standards either. I'd propose leaving a note at relevant wikiprojects to see if anyone is willing to take on the nomination and if not, failing the nominations. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering if this needs a second opinion. The reviewer has relatively few edits in total, and passed the 1 Wall Street article as a GA immediately after leaving comments and making one edit to the article themselves. That in itself is not too concerning, though I would've expected that a few issues might have been brought up in an article of this size. What does concern me a bit is that the review doesn't explicitly mention the criteria, although the review seems to touch on everything in the GA criteria. I would appreciate any feedback on whether this review is all right. epicgenius ( talk) 16:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
the large majority of the citations originate from reputable sources, we'd expect all of the sources to be from reputable sources. Without giving a thorough read-through, I'd also imagine that there are small things within the article to fix. The editor seems to be a good-faith reviewer, so maybe just asking for a second opinion would help? they did seem to pretty substantially edit the lede, though I'm not convinced all the changes improved readability. I'd be happy to give a more detailed review, either informally on the talk page of the article or more formally through a GA process. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
the reviewer lays out how they feel it meets the criteria pretty clearly. However, if you think there are small things that need to be fixed, I'm fine with an informal review. epicgenius ( talk) 16:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I am currently reviewing a GAN that has a number of broken links in the references section. Should I expect the nominator to repair them? Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 18:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
One of my nominations, East Bengal Ultras failed for the 3rd time. I will be grateful if someone becomes my mentor and guides me to promote the article to GA. ❯❯❯ S A H A 08:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
User:The Ultimate Boss (previously known as DarklyShadows) promoted the Can't Tell Me Nothing song article to GA status without making any comments whatsoever and did the same for the IDGAF song article just 7 minutes later. I find this concerning because this user clearly has not given these articles a proper review while 6 of their own song articles are currently up for nomination. ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 09:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
ThedancingMOONpolice, The two editors had to wait almost a week for a review, so I took my time and thought both of them did great. And btw, there are a lot of editors that do the same thing. Why not snitch on them too? If you have a problem with me, just tell me. This has happened before, so if you want to get me I’m trouble go right ahead. This doesn’t affect me at all in real life. IDC. I’m going to ping Kyle Peake and LOVI33. The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 12:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, I have gotten rid of the of my GA articles that weren’t being reviewed. So thanks a lot ;). The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 12:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Pell's equation/GA1, Talk:Ideal polyhedron/GA1, Talk:Sylvester–Gallai theorem/GA1, all created within the span of less than an hour by HeartGlow30797 ( talk · contribs). The first was a nomination by someone else (although I have worked on the article in the past); the second two are nominations by me.
Do we have a review drive on, or something that would encourage new reviewers? Because the reviews also do say that they are HeartGlow30797's first reviews. We do need reviewers, and I want to encourage HeartGlow30797 and other would-be reviewers instead of biting them, but we need their reviews to be competent and non-bitey. Would it be possible for someone to take this reviewer in hand and guide them a little better in terms of what is expected in a review and how to make more specific requests to article editors that will guide them to actual improvements in articles? Or at least, can I get a disinterested opinion in these three reviews and what to do about the mess they've made of these three GA nominations? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
There's now three GAs of warships of the Confederate States of America, and they're in this section. It seems really odd to have them listed here, considering they were used in combat against the US. However, whether or not the CSA was a separate country is rather debatable, see Confederate States of America#International diplomacy for background. How should the listing of these GAs be handled? Hog Farm Bacon 16:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Warfare#Warships of Yugoslaviathen
Warfare#Warships of Confederate States of Americacould work, but if that proves controversial, maybe something like
Warfare#Otherper
Armies and military units#Other warships? Mujinga ( talk) 14:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
After reading an article in the Signpost that talked of the need for a new bot, I have set up this page (shortcut WP:GANSORT) that lists GA-nominated pages with no review in progress (page list is pulled from Category:Good_article_nominees_awaiting_review). Pages are sorted using ORES, and an excerpt is shown. Lemme know what you think about this. I have set up the bot to update the page everyday at 05:00 UTC.
Suggestions for any improvements are welcome. I see that legobot also includes the number of reviews by the nominators in its listing. If this information is useful, I could probably include that as well (but at the moment, I don't know where this information can be fetched from). SD0001 ( talk) 14:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, after really successful backlog drives in October last year, and May 2020 I would like to organise another backlog drive. We have just shot up over 500 nominations and whilst this is by no means as high as it has been we are now long enough removed for reviewers to recover from any fatigue they might have had from the last one. This also fits in really well with the final round of the wikicup. I propose:
Let me know your thoughts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, if this is going to run in September, it needs to be set up this weekend to start at the end of Monday. If October, then we have plenty of time. I'm happy to put the usual notice on the GAN page and to help set up the charts and table if you'd like—as this is running one month rather than two, we can go back to the simpler versions for the former. Please let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I've been planning on reviewing my first GA nom for a while now so count me in to. (Please feel free to let me know if I mess up as I've haven't reviewed any GA noms before). REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 14:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
How much can I copy-edit the article I'm reviewing? If the issues are minor its faster to fix them myself. VR talk 02:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The title Super Outbreak needs to have "Tornado" put in front. There's plenty of people who don't know the formal name of this disaster. My first search "Tornado outbreak May 27 2011" brought up the article for May 21-26, 2011 and I couldn't find the article for May 27.
This is worrisome because I'm very familiar with tornadoes and the science behind them. If I can't find it easily, then a large group of people won't find it at all.
So, I recommend that the title be amended to this: Tornado Super Outbreak May 27, 2011" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.203.185.185 ( talk) 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I would be surprised if review discussions weren't archived, but I'm having trouble finding any links to previous reviews of an article/articles that aren't listed on the current reviews board. BlackholeWA ( talk) 16:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I realize this is an ongoing issue (and not only at GAC), but I was hoping there is a better way, a timeline guide for potential reviewers. The difference between GA reviews and others such as DYK, is that whoever is allegedly doing a review, is the only one who can wrap it up. Right now, like a lot of nominators, I've been waiting since May for a review of Gloria Swanson. I did not anticipate a rapid response, as this is a hefty article to read through. Long story short - Gloria Swanson/GA1 was finally opened on August 19. And then ... absolutely nothing. I've recently posted an inquiry on the potential reviewer's talk page, and they are otherwise active, but no response.
As frustrating as that is, it's not a first for me or anyone else. It's just ... well ... rude. And unproductive. But probably in step with how Wikipedia works. There are assorted instances where a reviewer does their thing, and the nominator never responds. Or the reviewer never finishes the review, and doesn't respond to attempted contacts with them. Or any number of variations on those.
I don't suppose we could come up with a very basic guideline, that if an editor opens a GAC template and says they'll be the reviewer ... they have to at least actually begin the review within a given time period. And if they don't, the template can be cancelled out, or someone else can take over the review. — Maile ( talk) 22:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Remember: Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. Do not stop half way through and just leave it. Consider reviewing only one or two articles at a time and plan to wrap up your review in about seven days.As an admin, you can just delete the review page, notify the reviewer, and adjust the GA nominee template if a reviewer hasn't returned in a couple of weeks, even if they're active elsewhere. Most nominators just have to wait it out until the delay is painful, a month or (much) more, before they finally ask for help. And the laggard reviewers aren't always cooperative. BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset and The Rambling Man: I hope I did this correctly. The review started, but I decided I need another reviewer, and stated my reasons on the template. The reviewer is OK with this, but did not do a "Fail". I did the "Fail", to close the template, so I can start over. And I felt it was important to keep the history of what review was already there. — Maile ( talk) 13:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
This might be pertinent to the Legobot, which seems to be about a day and a half behind, and might continue as such for a few days: Village Pump: Toolforge problems? — Maile ( talk) 19:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Still no updates to GAN since 8 September. ( t · c) buidhe 07:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't Smile at Me was failed because of edit warring. I get it is immediately failed it that happens, but what if it was almost a month ago? Is it still possible for a quick fail? The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 01:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, it's my first time reviewing a nominee, and I seem to be close to done, could someone else check it out and tell me how I can improve and whatnot? Thanks! Talk:Network_synthesis/GA1 Dh.wp ( talk) 23:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The page Network synthesis seems to have been reviewed and passed for GA, and I removed the topicon from the page due to the review being unusually short (both in time and content) and for the nomination seemingly disappearing from the nominations page. My own attempts to locate when it was removed have came up short. I am hoping that those more familiar with the process could provide input on the article being removed from GA status until it the process is followed correctly. Thepenguin9 ( talk) 10:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Passing: This just meets my standards, but please split this article into different sections.PythonSwarm, this is completely unacceptable; articles have to be assessed against the agreed criteria and not your personal criteria. Assessments should be referencing those criteria and how the article fares against each. If editors have invested significant time and effort in developing articles they deserve better than a single throwaway line of review which frankly in this case doesn't make sense. I am struggling to understand why, when the two previous reviews you have conducted are both being discussed here, you think it is appropriate to conduct another in the same style without discussing the issues raised regarding the first two. I really urge you to step away from conducting GA assessments until such time as you can demonstrate a better understanding of how assessments should be conducted. Nthep ( talk) 12:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
allowing the pen to be quot pushed quot against the skin, apparently translating the quotation mark to the word "quot"). I'm not going to intervene because I'm not a GA reviewer, but I see that you've pinged Woody below and this has escalated to the administrator's noticeboard for discussion of a topic ban. GeneralNotability ( talk) 13:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Will someone please decide either that the GA status of network synthesis is going to stand, or else put it back in the queue for review, or else let it stand and send to FAR. The back and forth removing the topicon and putting it back is getting silly. Plus, removing the topicon does not actually stop it being a GA article. It is still listed. Spinning Spark 14:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I've deleted the Automatic Scorer review and the Network Synthesis review has been deleted by someone else after a request by PythonSwarm. I have reverted the GA notice on the talk pages and reinstated the nominations on the talk page and on the GAN page. Essentially back to the status quo before PythonSwarm commenced the reviews. Woody ( talk) 10:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I discovered that there are two articles which are currently still affected by current events but were nominated for Good Article status, although it may still not stable due to heavy edits and the content could change time by time. The article in question are Transmission of COVID-19 (due to COVID-19 pandemic still ongoing) and Joe Biden (due to upcoming US elections). Should the editor warn the nominator that it was too early to nominate due to potentially could have content changed rapidly as it's affected by current events and remove from nomination until the article status has become stable? WPSamson ( talk) 03:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I started the review of Gratian, but the bot have not updated the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that the article is being reviewed, and have not informed the nominator that the article is being reviewed. What did I wrong? Borsoka ( talk) 02:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add all review comments below this comment, and do not alter what is above.In particular, the "Review:" line has to end with the date, and be in the exact format that I've shown. No comments should be included in that section, nor should a review table. I've adjusted the review page, and the bot should take care of things the next time it runs (about ten minutes from now). If not, I'll keep working at it. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Paradise (nightclub) just passed its GA review, but Legobot just
removed the article from the nomination page as "maintenance" and did not add the GA icon to the article or the oldid to the talk page. How can this be fixed? Is it okay to manually add the GA icon?
Armadillo
pteryx
05:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Move good/featured article topicons next to article name. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
23:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
After reviewing Die güldne Sonne voll Freud und Wonne for Gerda Arendt and placing the article on hold for a week, it was heavily edited by someone else (without any discussion taking place). The article now appears quite different from the one I reviewed and now cannot yet be passed: both Gerda Arendt and I are unhappy about some of the changes made after the review was completed. I'm confused about the correct way forward here—do I have to add more comments for Gerda Arendt to address and risk this editor's interference again, or should I fail the article? Amitchell125 ( talk) 13:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Help us test our problematic statement detection system. We hope to deploy this to help editors.
We are developing an AI to automatically detect issues in articles related to: NPOV, CLARIFY and CITE. We need help evaluating how well the model is working. We are asking for a group of volunteers to evaluate a set of sentences that are flagged by the AI. The landing page for evaluations can be found here. This page has a small set of examples for each issue. We have included sub-pages that include more examples (e.g. More POV examples). If you want to help, please assess as many example statements as you can. The more assessments we get, the better we can judge our model and make improvements. A description of our research project is on meta. Sumit ( talk) 23:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb decided to edit the template to move the nominator/nomination information earlier in the display, in the interests of saving space. I had always thought of this information as equivalent to a sig, and easier to see who had nominated it and when.
When I reverted them, rather than going with WP:BRD, they reverted me. So now we can discuss this here, and (with my impending second reversion) keep the template display as it is until we have consensus here at GAN on how we'd prefer the display to look. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Good article nominations/Archive 24 is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at an unspecified date. To complete the template use: {{ GA nominee|~~~~~|nominator=~~~|page=1|status=|subtopic=}} Please use the
|
![]() | Good article nominations/Archive 24 is currently a
good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at an unspecified date. To complete the template use: {{
GA nominee|~~~~~|nominator=~~~|page=1|status=|subtopic=}}
Please use the
|
![]() | Good article nominations/Archive 24 is currently a Science good article nominee. Nominated by Headbomb { t · c · p · b} at 02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)
|
![]() | Good article nominations/Archive 24 is currently a Science
good article nominee. Nominated by
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} at
02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) |
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have a problem with Talk:1970 United States Senate election in New York/GA1. Nomader, who is the currently reviewer, hasn't said anything since September 9, and Nomader's last edit on the site was October 4. Nomader only had a problem with the MOS of one section so I am wondering if somebody could do the last step? Sorry if this is the wrong place I was told to go here by EpicGenius. Jon698 ( talk) 23:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
A new user indicated a willingness to review my GA nomination of Little Women (2019 film) on October 9. I'm pessimistic about them following through given that they have not been active since then. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to proceed? Thank you in advance! KyleJoan talk 05:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
What is the procedure if an article was a good article but now has deficiencies?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, it looks like a number of older GAs no longer meet the criteria. I know everyone's busy, and project involvement here is down, but it looks like some form of sweeps in necessary. I just had a recent GAR for an article that was in this state at the time of the GAR. The GAR thankfully attracted attention, and the issues have been very nicely resolved, but the fact that an article in that state has the GA banner reduces the value of GA. Also take To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants, which has many issues, and I am about to open a GAR on it. I'm worried that there are significant problems here with older promotions (and probably even some newer ones), and something likely needs to be done if the GA assessment is going to keep meaning something. Hog Farm Bacon 19:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Hog Farm, Kew Gardens 613, Eddie891, MrLinkinPark333, and Barkeep49: What say we create a task force specifically for GA reassessment, with a priority list of tasks? I'd also push for a (small) talkpage banner, so there's an automatic category set-up as new "potentially needs reassessment" articles come in. Kingsif ( talk) 21:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Here is a list of articles with cleanup tags and GA queries on talk page, left by me today. I also opened a couple of GA reassessments. Feel free to add. Possibly we should have a template like there is at WP:FAR. ( t · c) buidhe 21:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This article, Rajnath Singh, is currently a GA nom under the "Politics and government" section. The user who nominated it has been blocked indefinitely. Please can someone remove the article from the GA list. I am not sure as to what the correct procedure is. DTM ( talk) 13:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
What is to be done if the GA and A-class review of the same article has started parallelly? Borsoka ( talk) 05:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to say that I have regrettably withdrawn from reviewing Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse). The associated review and comments from editors are here. As layout is a requirement for GA, I referred to MOS:TV. Due to (my perceived) lack of clarity regarding MOS:TVPLOT for television crossover articles, a disagreement arose with the nominator, Favre1fan93. Second opinions were sought, and were mostly beneficial. I however felt personally attacked by the comments of Alex 21 for simply noting my original opinion (which had already changed given others' comments) and felt pressured into promoting. I thought I respected them as an editor due to their wonderful template contributions, but felt discouraged from continuing to review or even note any further disagreements due to their comments. They did not seem to have an understanding of the GA criteria or process either. There were also other comments by Aircorn which I don't think were addressed appropriately. Therefore, I felt any further of my comments would have been a waste of time. This was not a beneficial process to the nominator or myself. I hope someone with more knowledge of Arrowverse articles is able to review this article. Heartfox ( talk) 16:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I nominated European early modern human, and the review was started by Benson85, but I don't believe s/he actually meant to start the review, and I'm fairly certain they're unfamiliar with the MOS. Is there a way to close the review without having to fail and renominate it? User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 17:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The Ultimate Boss has been working productively on Billie Eilish and music-related topics lately, but after reviewing Where's My Mind Tour (where I noticed significant issues so didn't do as much due diligence as I normally would) I saw that the article had been failed for GA a week before, with a good list of constructive criticisms that the nominator got very angry at and didn't engage in. The Ultimate Boss was also quite angry at my review, I think. They nominated the page for deletion and, upon me reverting a PROD (it would need to go to AFD), instead immediately nominated it for GA a third time. I reverted this (invoking WP:IAR) and was reverted back. I then found that the underlying reason was the good topic candidacy of dont smile at me, which would be closer to passing were the article either deleted or passed for GA. The article appears notable to me but it's a long way from GA standard.
We've recently added a new
quickfail criterion, A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered
, which I would suggest that an independent reviewer invoke, but I also think it would be helpful if some other people could talk to the user. The Ultimate Boss told me You are not in the position to decide to get rid of my GA nominations. If it’s an admin, then that’s fine.
and ignored my subsequent talk page message but been editing since. The user could be quite young and it is worth bearing in mind that they have been making productive contributions in this area before now. —
Bilorv (
talk)
21:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I left a note on TheEpicGhosty's talk page but since then other somewhat-hurried/not-detailed Reviews have also come to light - see Talk:Systime Computers/GA2, Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/GA2, Talk:Jonathan Scott (television personality)/GA1, etc. Is there a procedure for assessing or rolling back these GA Reviews? For instance, I just don't see how it is possible to do a valid GA Review of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in less than 30 minutes. And they are starting these GA Reviews and then passing them to GA status without any input from other editors...like the people who helped write the article in the first place. I get that EpicGhosty seems new and seems to want to help but I am troubled by the sheer numbers of these very quick GA Reviews... I don't know where my concerns should be posted but this talk page seemed like one of the Wiki-places that could be appropriate for a discussion. Shearonink ( talk) 16:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I just moved the above discussion from WT:GAR to here, since this is where we discuss issues in the GAN process, including reviews; perhaps a consensus can be found on how to proceed. Pinging Shearonink, Berchanhimez, Aircorn, and TheEpicGhosty so they know where it has gone. TheEpicGhosty's only prior GA review was Talk:Alan Dershowitz/GA1 back in February, and it looked much the same as the new ones except that the final "pass" wasn't done on the article talk page; the review was taken over later that month, and as there were problems with the article that didn't get fixed, the nomination failed. Their first recent review was Talk:Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse)/GA2; after it passed, and a subsequent review was done at DYK, a copyvio was noted and fixed, which is troubling. I think it would be wise to have a second reviewer recheck the articles, if one can be found. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! The October 2020 backlog drive has concluded, thanks to all who participated. While not all reviews have been checked by the co-ordinators (we're working on it!), tentative credit has been given to 44 participants who completed a total of 358 reviews. We were able to bring the backlog down from 606 to 361 outstanding nominations, and from 552 to 285 unreviewed ones. That's a drop of 48.4%, and what I'd consider another success! Special congratulations to MWright96, who completed 56 reviews (the most), and thanks to BlueMoonset and Aircorn whose invaluable gnoming has helped keep the GAN process running (semi)-smoothly. If there are any suggestions on how to improve the drive, please don't hesitate to let me or anyone else know. Thanks again to everyone who participated, and until next time (maybe March?) -- Eddie891 Talk Work 20:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to review the GAN Yusuf Sayfa by Al Ameer son, but saw it had already begun by apparent junk edits [1] by an IP. Could it be reset so I can review it? FunkMonk ( talk) 22:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is one citation away from GA. Unfortunately, this nomination languished more than five and a half months, and in that time the editor has stopped being active on Wikipedia.
Can someone step up and provide the missing citation mentioned in Talk:Lights (musician)/GA2? I don't want to fail an article that is so close because of the slowness of the GA system as a whole. Raymie ( t • c) 07:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I was just on my way out, but I noticed that a brand new account, @ GANreviewer, just created and passed Talk:The National WWII Museum/GA1 with no prior edits - is there any guideline on experience needed before being able to conduct a good article review? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 17:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed that as well. That was a very odd occurrence. Was it a rogue bot or something?
StubCreatorAFC (
talk) 17:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC) strike sock comment
Dreamy Jazz
talk to me |
my contributions
21:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I just started my first GA review. I am afraid of making faux-pas. It looks to me as if the nominator does not know that I have started the review of the article George II of Greece nominated by him. A GA1 page was created when I clicked Start Review link, and I have written on this GA1 page to review it, but the nominator (who is not very experienced) does not reply on it. The nominator is however active editing the nominated page. I think I am not supposed to write on the nominator's talk page or to ping him/her/them. I expected that an automatic GANotice notification alerting the nominator would appear on his/her/their talk page, but I have looked there and can't see one. I may have done something wrong or omitted an important step. Please have a look — and please advise and correct me. Perhaps I should have approached GA first as a nominator, but as participants should do two reviews for each nomination, I thought I should do my duty before the pleasure. With many, many thanks Johannes Schade ( talk) 10:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I reviewed Talk:Sunderland A.F.C. supporters/GA1 and put it on hold a while ago. @ Maxim.il89: has been of Wikipedia for a while and is yet to respond on the review page. The article has been on hold for well over a month. What do I do? REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 20:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
"en dashes" and thingsare a part of the GA criteria. The first criterion is that the article must be well written, and it specifically mentions that this includes grammar and MOS compliance. Armadillo pteryx 21:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, a review with such brevity is always going to be regarded as dubious and certainly doesn't seem to be in the spirit of GA even if it meets the letter of the GA "law". I personally think I have a relatively high standard of GA review which incorporates substantial elements of MOS and look for elegant and compelling prose. The article in question here, Aparna Rao, is by no means a poor one, but in its current form I would be keeping it on hold. There are issues with poor grammar, poor citation placement, some odd linking, some missing detail (when was she given her singular award?), MOS fails (e.g. MOS:HYPHEN), repeated notes etc etc. While I wouldn't class any single one of these as a GAN fail, I would class the collective as needing attention and would highlight it and work with the author to resolve the issues. To reiterate: the original brief and undetailed review may "pass the bar" but the article certainly can use a lot of work. I'll leave it to others to determine if such (basic) failings are the kinds of things we want to encourage to be overlooked at GAN. The Rambling Man ( Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I just saw this section. I've seen in the past in issues of inexperienced reviewers, the GA review is essentially "reverted" and the article moved back to the top of the queue. Would this be a possible situation to consider here? I'd appreciate at least a bit of a more detailed review to get valuable feedback on the article (and I'm sure Мастер Шторм would be as well). I would also note that right cite has started another review on a page we've been working on: Talk:Stephen Fuchs/GA1 (will wait to see the depth of comments on that one). Sam-2727 ( talk) 02:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm very concerned that there doesn't appear to be much understanding of the need for high-quality sources, that articles should be structured around high-quality sources, due weight depending upon the quality of sources and the context they provide, and what it means to be encyclopedic. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
As Right cite, Cirt conducted and passed the following reviews. They should be re-examined and/or reopened, given the issues that followed the Aparna Rao nomination and their own socking. They opened three reviews on October 27, one of which (Ready Player One) received attention over a number of edits and the other two weren't looked at again until they were passed in the same 24-hour period that another group of three reviews were opened and passed, after which they quickfailed one:
Kingsif, I noticed you took over the Talk:Ready Player One (film)/GA1 review, which was the only one still ongoing. Might you be willing to take a look at any of these? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I was asked for an update of the list I published on 23 July 2020. With the caveat that I haven't upgraded my PHP program that generated the list, so the same inaccuracies remain, here is an updated and expanded list. I still have working on further enhancements to this on my to-do list. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - -
4,337 editors have nominated at least one Good Article. As of yesterday, when this report was generated, there are 32,857 Good Articles. The program found nominators for 32,746 of them (99.7%). The 111 articles for which the nominator wasn't found generally date to 2007 and earlier. Here are the top 121 (anyone with 50 or more GAs). The numbers after +=
are the running total of GAs produced by the top contributors.
1 Sturmvogel 66 => 777 += 777 2 Parsecboy => 608 += 1385 3 TonyTheTiger => 331 += 1716 4 Hurricanehink => 301 += 2017 5 Gen. Quon => 282 += 2299 6 Chiswick Chap => 270 += 2569 7 MWright96 => 263 += 2832 8 Hawkeye7 => 259 += 3091 9 Mitchazenia => 226 += 3317 10 Miyagawa => 219 += 3536 11 Sasata => 216 += 3752 12 ChrisGualtieri => 208 += 3960 13 Epicgenius => 208 += 4168 14 The Rambling Man => 197 += 4365 15 Imzadi1979 => 193 += 4558 16 Cplakidas => 191 += 4749 17 Arsenikk => 189 += 4938 18 Dough4872 => 184 += 5122 19 12george1 => 178 += 5300 20 Magicpiano => 175 += 5475 21 SounderBruce => 174 += 5649 22 Courcelles => 155 += 5804 23 Hunter Kahn => 150 += 5954 24 Cyclonebiskit => 148 += 6102 25 Carbrera => 144 += 6246 26 Encyclopædius => 143 += 6389 27 Ritchie333 => 141 += 6530 28 Yellow Evan => 139 += 6669 29 Cartoon network freak => 135 += 6804 30 Grapple X => 130 += 6934 31 ThinkBlue => 130 += 7064 32 ProtoDrake => 128 += 7192 33 Bellhalla => 126 += 7318 34 Rodw => 124 += 7442 35 Ruby2010 => 123 += 7565 36 Wizardman => 121 += 7686 37 Jackyd101 => 120 += 7806 38 Hchc2009 => 119 += 7925 39 Another Believer => 116 += 8041 40 Doug Coldwell => 112 += 8153 41 IndianBio => 112 += 8265 42 Ealdgyth => 110 += 8375 43 Ed! => 110 += 8485 44 Cirt => 109 += 8594 45 Yzx => 107 += 8701 46 Theleftorium => 105 += 8806 47 Nova Crystallis => 103 += 8909 48 Czar => 97 += 9006 49 Gerda Arendt => 97 += 9103 50 PresN => 97 += 9200 51 MPJ-DK => 95 += 9295 52 Tomobe03 => 95 += 9390 53 Piotrus => 94 += 9484 54 Jo-Jo Eumerus => 93 += 9577 55 Kew Gardens 613 => 92 += 9669 56 Cwmhiraeth => 91 += 9760 57 Igordebraga => 91 += 9851 58 Harrias => 90 += 9941 59 Thegreatdr => 90 += 10031 60 Calvin999 => 88 += 10119 61 Lee Vilenski => 88 += 10207 62 Borsoka => 86 += 10293 63 Midnightblueowl => 86 += 10379 64 Aoba47 => 84 += 10463 65 Legolas2186 => 84 += 10547 66 Juliancolton => 81 += 10628 67 Ironholds => 80 += 10708 68 Scorpion0422 => 76 += 10784 69 Starstriker7 => 76 += 10860 70 Dana boomer => 74 += 10934 71 Resolute => 74 += 11008 72 Jaguar => 72 += 11080 73 Ian Rose => 71 += 11151 74 Muboshgu => 71 += 11222 75 Floydian => 70 += 11292 76 Gary => 70 += 11362 77 Isento => 70 += 11432 78 Crisco 1492 => 69 += 11501 79 Zawed => 69 += 11570 80 KAVEBEAR => 68 += 11638 81 Judgesurreal777 => 67 += 11705 82 AustralianRupert => 66 += 11771 83 JG66 => 65 += 11836 84 Sabrebd => 65 += 11901 85 Nvvchar => 64 += 11965 86 BlueMoonset => 63 += 12028 87 Kosack => 63 += 12091 88 Al Ameer son => 62 += 12153 89 Lemonade51 => 62 += 12215 90 My love is love => 60 += 12275 91 SusunW => 60 += 12335 92 CaliforniaDreamsFan => 59 += 12394 93 HĐ => 59 += 12453 94 Iazyges => 59 += 12512 95 Sanfranciscogiants17 => 58 += 12570 96 TarkusAB => 58 += 12628 97 Redtigerxyz => 57 += 12685 98 Spinningspark => 57 += 12742 99 Frickative => 56 += 12798 100 TheAustinMan => 56 += 12854 101 West Virginian => 56 += 12910 102 Candyo32 => 55 += 12965 103 Ichthyovenator => 54 += 13019 104 Viridiscalculus => 54 += 13073 105 Yeepsi => 54 += 13127 106 11JORN => 53 += 13180 107 Bencherlite => 53 += 13233 108 CorporateM => 53 += 13286 109 Nergaal => 53 += 13339 110 Rhain => 53 += 13392 111 Toa Nidhiki05 => 53 += 13445 112 Auntieruth55 => 52 += 13497 113 Glimmer721 => 52 += 13549 114 Hog Farm => 52 += 13601 115 97198 => 51 += 13652 116 Dunkleosteus77 => 51 += 13703 117 Petergriffin9901 => 51 += 13754 118 Tintor2 => 51 += 13805 119 Gog the Mild => 50 += 13855 120 Mattythewhite => 50 += 13905 121 Trust Is All You Need => 50 += 13955
Again, this is just a beta report. The list is not 100% accurate, as there are known bugs in the program. But the numbers are reasonably close to being accurate. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
My last run took 16 hours, 18 minuteswow, well my code takes 15–20 minutes. The secret lies in concurrency. The MediaWiki API is very robust and resilient – for read queries, you don't have to be kind and just send one query at a time. You can process 40 pages simultaneously. (In fact, some tools like Twinkle send as many 50 concurrent queries even for write operations like deleting pages!). – SD0001 ( talk) 03:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
A note for reviewers: The WP:OPED shortcut (which some reviewers have used fairly often) has been re-targeted to the same Signpost submissions page as WP:OP-ED. The MoS section the shortcut formerly pointed to already had (and still has) MOS:OPED and MOS:OP-ED and MOS:EDITORIAL shortcuts. In particular, if you have a custom template you use for doing reviews and it makes reference to that guideline, please update any WP:OPED shortcut in it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
A note about formatting of the list of nominations page—and I might be just running low on sleep—but I was really confused by the "(start review) (Reviews: #) [Username]" layout. Even after reading through the instructions, I was under the impression that the Reviews: number count was for current reviews of a given nomination, and kept trying to look for them in the talk page like a very confused moth drawn to a non-existent flame. I didn't realize it actually referred to a user's review count until I noticed two by the same user in a row. Would it perhaps be advisable to move the number count to after the username? I initially passed over an article I had wanted to review because I thought it was covered already (thinking perhaps the "discuss review" option only came up after the review was finished). WhinyTheYounger ( talk) 04:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, the GA review for Priscilla Jana is nearly done and the only lingering question regards the image, File:Priscilla Jana.jpeg. Could someone experienced in fair-use images kindly advise us on whether a further rationale needs to be appended or if it already has the needed information? The file is only being used in this one entry, but the “add a rationale” banner is tripping us up. Many thanks, Innisfree987 ( talk) 15:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likelyHoping a shoebox full of public domain images magically appears or requiring that we spam people's email isn't "reasonably likely". — Wug· a·po·des 22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
See the edit history at Talk:Robin Hood (2010 film)/GA1. I've posted to the editor's user talk asking for clarification but darned if I can find any specific policy saying there can't be more than one Reviewer and maybe I'm missing it but I don't see a request for a second opinion... Help? Shearonink ( talk) 05:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.Bold mine. So yeah it's allowed and actually encouraged to get more opinions on a review, its just up to the first reviewer (i.e. the person who created the page and is listed at the top of the review) to make the final decision. AIRcorn (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome).It's a feature, not a bug. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
While looking for a GA to review, I noticed that 66.103.58.199 has made what appears to be a test edit (see the edit summary), but it started the GA review for James Oglethorpe Monument. (Courtesy ping to @ 66.103.58.199:, if you're still around at all.) Should this page be deleted so that JJonahJackalope can get a review? Thanks! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 19:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
A number of articles that have been recently delisted per WP:GAR still need reassessment — for example, Sorry (Madonna song). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could someone take a look at Talk:Sarah_Cooper/GA1? Reviewer intended to pass the article but may need some advice about the process. Any observations to help improve the article would be welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above suggests this is the right place for a GAN revert. At Talk:Arbus, Sardinia/GA1, a new user Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (<50 edits) has made what appears to be an entirely inadequate review. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I am completing a GAN on Jacob Earl Fickel, and am confused about where to list it as a passed GA. Help! Georgejdorner ( talk) 20:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to propose something formal for sub-par reviews, and how we deal with them. We currently post any reviews that are either of poor quality or reviews that are ok, but the articles themselves clearly don't meet the criteria on this page, and then gain a consensus whether we should delete the review, continue with the status quo, go via WP:GAR etc.
I think this actually happens quite a lot; so a formal process, or at least something official as to how we deal with these should be added to our rules. I'm open to any input on how this should be implemented, but I did come up with a couple ideas.
I think this issue depends on how much you view these reviews to be a problem. I quite often get asked what to do when someone spots a suspicious review, so having a policy or even a specific area would be a good place to send them. Let me know your thoughts. If this isn't an issue, please disregard :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Is the "You can help!" on the WP:GAN really supposed to be a disambiguation page? I would assume it's supposed to link to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing but I'm unsure how to access whatever template that text is in. Aza24 ( talk) 10:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
When I looked at the topics to select for the article I nominated Frank Bailey (firefighter) (a relatively short article anyway) I was not really sure it fits well under any of the topics so I just left it to auto-classify as Miscellaneous. However, the template is warning about the lack of subtopic so I was wondering if it will still be seen by prospective reviewers under the misc. section or if it is just best to select the most related subtopic? Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone resume the GA review of King Ludwig Oak as it has been abandoned by a new editor Cobalt03 due to some problems as stated on my talk page. See the communication at User_talk:Amkgp#Your_GA_nomination_of_King_Ludwig_Oak. As of now it looks as if someone is actively reviewing. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 16:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This GAR has brought up concerns that the article may not have enough depth to meet WP:GNG or to satisfy the GA criteria for breadth of coverage. We agreed that it may be helpful to get someone else to take a look at the article and add their thoughts to the GAR. Would anyone be able to help, please? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Danielyng I am glad that you are willing to help out with this backlog, but it may be better to start a bit more slowly. ( t · c) buidhe 20:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The GA review was done by a new account with less than 20 edits, all of which are edits of them vandalising, POV-pushing or edit warring on the same article (which they also got banned for). The review itself doesn't properly fit the GA reviews' rules as well. Any idea on what should be done? — CuriousGolden (T· C) 09:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted rather peremptorily a bunch of edits to an article with GA status, "per WP:GA". I have seen this form of words used at other GAs too. But I can't find any such policy? Am I looking in the wrong place? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Question regarding categories: It is not quite clear to me where statues and monuments fall into. Are they architecture? Or are they places? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 12:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I've just noticed that a new user has opened a review of an article they also just nominated. Could someone please delete the GAN? ♦ jaguar 21:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that Wolfwalkers seems to have gained a no-nom GA from an anon user. Thats not normal is it? Its not a GA either, is it? Fob.schools ( talk) 09:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
An IP just opened the review at Talk:Brodie Lee/GA1, and "passed" it... there hasn't been any follow up yet, and the IP seems more interested in spaceflight than wrestling, so could someone roll it back and hope they don't try again? Kingsif ( talk) 13:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, happy holidays and best wishes for the new year! I'm assuming we're on for a reviewing drive in March again-- just mentioning it here in case anyone thinks that's too soon-- we want to avoid burn-out at all costs.
There was some mention recently about creating a task force for sweeps and I think January would be a great time to get that set up and start the process-- it's probably going to be a multi-month if not year effort. If there's interest I'd also be happy to re-set up an irregular newsletter (that could be sent out before a drive, after a drive, whenever there are updates or relevant discussions, but probably not more than quarterly). Any interest in any of this stuff? Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor who registered an account on 14 January and who has had most edits reverted, nomination Holiday World & Splashin' Safari for GA after one minor edit to this currently C-class article. I reverted the nomination. David notMD ( talk) 20:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Ewf9h-bg is both the nominator and reviewer of Talk:Ancient furniture/GA1. It looks like they might not have realized that they have to wait for an uninvolved editor to open the review. ( t · c) buidhe 04:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
G'day all, I am currently reviewing a GAN on a controversial subject, and consider that one aspect of the article does not meet criteria #4 (neutrality). I would prefer to not fail it on my opinion alone, the rest of the article is fine, but am at an impasse with the nominator. Usually, use of a RfC to get a community consensus isn't necessary or even desirable at GAN (in fact WP:RFCNOT says not to), and in nearly 350 GAN reviews, I have never had this arise, but the article seems important enough to me to ask for a community view on neutrality before I fail it on my opinion alone. Is it reasonable to IAR here? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Can an admin delete the following reviews: Talk:Stadium MRT station/GA1, Talk:Fraser's Hill/GA1 and Talk:Arbor Hill Historic District–Ten Broeck Triangle/GA1? The reviewer, AussieCoinCollector, has passed the articles as good articles after making a single comment. For example, at Stadium MRT station, the reviewer noted, "1. No copyright/plagiarism 2. Meets all 6 of the GA criteria. So yes, I would pass this article." However, per WP:GAI#Reviewing these are not substantive enough. Epicgenius ( talk) 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware of three GAs redirected at AFD lately: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Shop (Madonna song) (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complicated (Rihanna song), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway). Is there anything that needs done on the GA end of this to reflect that these are no longer GAs (or articles)? Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I reviewed my first article today (you can find my review here). The writer thought I interpreted the guidelines a bit harshly. Is he correct? Or am I in the right? Please answer honest and direct please :) -- Ruling party ( talk) 23:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Ruling party:
The preferred Overall comment is to start the conversation with "Kindly attend to the issues raised above"
All of that conversation under Overall needs to be indented properly. You need to stay within the boundaries of what is a GA Review.
Nice try, lots to learn, now go and read some GA Reviews by HogFarm or The Most Comfortable Chair or Ealdgyth -- Whiteguru ( talk) 06:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
See here for past Good Article Reviews by the editors mentioned above. (And more) -- Whiteguru ( talk) 07:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to thank all of you for taking time to comment here. I'm not at all annoyed about reading that the article is not broad enough or that any other criterion is not met. Had the complaint been about npov or reliability of a source, I would certainly ask for a third opinion (assuming I cannot resolve the matter with a reviewer). I saw that the scope of the article is a major issue and, after the initial exchange in the review, I felt the review would only proceed after a lengthy discussion what belongs in a GA and what goes into an FA - with either me persuading the reviewer to give in (which is inappropriate) or with me deciding to broaden the article to the indicated scope. I thought that the only way to avoid both of those outcomes is a withdrawal of the nomination.
I have nominated the article to GAN and would naturally like to see it sufficiently improved to meet GA criteria. If the article is so way off the mark, there is no point in pursuing the review any further at this point (at least until it is significantly redone). Obviously, when I submitted the nomination, I thought the article was near enough to warrant a review, but I'm aware I might have missed the mark. Lee Vilenski you are quite welcome to contribute - I would appreciate any input. How would you like to proceed? Cheers-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 14:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I had signed up for Talk:Crusader states/GA2 during the October backlog drive. It took me weeks to gather the source material and I subsequently lost the time needed to continue. Unbeknownst to me, the same article had already been submitted for MILHIST A-class review. All of the changes due to the A-class review have overwhelmed my already-limited ability to keep up. I cannot pass the article as-is because verification problems keep creeping up and Norfolkbigfish (who submitted the GA nom) deserves a complete and correct review which is now months overdue. How shall I proceed? Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a proposal. If a reviewer has started GA review but has not responded in 30 days, a bot (most likely User:Legobot) can notify the reviewer that they have not responded to the GA review in over 30 days. The same could apply to the nominee. If the bot is down, users can put a template on the reviewer's talk page that says the same thing. Any problems, or is this a good idea? Lazman321 ( talk) 18:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I have flagged sections on a GA nominated article, University of Chicago Law School, for lacking any citations or references for content, as required by the verifiability policy and good article criteria, as well as WP:BLP. Nicomachian thinks that my approach is "entirely unreasonable", considering that many other articles have unsourced content. [11] He asks that I put the matter to the community to decide who is right. ( t · c) buidhe 09:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
one of the pre-eminent constitutional law scholars of the 20th centurythat need to be sourced if anything like them is to be said in wiki-voice. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I have noticed that Some Dude From North Carolina has been nominating a bunch of articles for GA recently without having made any or only making a few edits on the last several of them. Most of the latter set's main contributors were inactive for months/years or even blocked as sockpuppets, but it is still strange to see no edit being made at all to the article in the last six months. I brought this up at the unofficial Wikimedia discord server and was told to post my findings here.
Out of the pending noms made by the user so far (edit count by article for the user here at XTools):
MSG17 ( talk) 18:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I feel as long as the nominator is committed to responding to a review it shouldn’t really matter too much about being an extensive contributor. I was chased away from Sonic the Hedgehog (film) because of that, in my opinion, reductive mindset. Rusted AutoParts 03:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Experienced GA reviewer User:HaEr48, who previously completed a review of one of my GA nominations, agreed to be reviewer for my GA nomination of Biotin. We got off to a start, but then HaEr48 stopped doing any edits on any articles. Last edit was 30 January. I left a note on Ha's Talk page. No response. I am willing to wait a bit longer, but want to know if there is a procedure for returning the nominated article to the list of articles awaiting a reviewer. David notMD ( talk) 18:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I've been noticing there have been flawed reviews recently at GAN with the following issues:
Based on these issues, I think there should be more clear instructions to let users know that these things are not appropriate at GAN:
I was wondering if any of these suggestions should be added at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Bold would be addition. In regards to socks Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_24#Winstanley_Estate though that was an afterthought. -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 02:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
My sense is that the three suggestions given above are simple and don't really need any modification. They should go straight into Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions -- Whiteguru ( talk) 04:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
On this Good Article review that started in May (2020) the reviewer has taken a very long time between the time I answered his issues and when he replied again - usually with more issues. I would answer those in a day or two, but the reviewer would take weeks again before he responded. That's why this review has dragged on for over eights months. I recently asked the reviewer if he would be willing to let another reviewer finish off this review. Again he has ignored my pings, but continues editing. I would like to have another reviewer finish off this review. User:Hog Farm (administrator) has volunteered to do the job. What can be done at this point? Thanks for your help. -- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 11:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this review has dragged on for far too long. However, Goldsztajn has just stated on the review, "I'll finalise my comments by the end of the coming weekend." So let's wait until Monday to see what the remaining comments are. If the review doesn't conclude by Monday, then we really should bring in another reviewer. Edge3 ( talk) 18:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Avishai11 has started reviewing my first GAN, Social media in the 2016 United States presidential election, and while I'm sure it's in good faith, I'm not sure they have enough experience to conduct a review. They have 11 mainspace edits in total, of which 6 have been reverted. I would appreciate input from a more experienced GA reviewer on whether to proceed, or whether the review should be paused. Thanks, Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 16:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Guys, last time we did a GAN drive, we had just over 600 nominations, just over 550 of which were unreviewed. Right now (as of 14 February 2021) we have 627 nominations and 536 of them yet to be reviewed. As it takes a few weeks to get a drive up and running with notifications, volunteers to check reviews etc, and even perhaps a pre-Drive discussion over scoring (e.g. should GANs that are >3 months old get bonus points?), I thought I'd start the debate now. I can easily envisage us having more than 600 unreviewed nominations by the time we start. Thoughts? The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
length at nomination vs. age of nomination | 1 month | 2 months | 3+ months |
---|---|---|---|
<500 words | 1 | 2 | 3 |
500-1000 words | 2 | 3 | 4 |
1000-2000 words | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2000-4000 words | 4 | 5 | 6 |
5000+ words | 5 | 6 | 7 |
quick fail | .5 |
Despite the symbol appearing to be the neutral symbol
for a second opinion, I believe this is pretty generic and a different symbol could satisfy this matter. I know this is quite a silly request; would something like
this suffice? Forgive me for my terrible art, I made this on Chrome Canvass.
P
anini
🥪
13:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Jon698 currently has 5 articles in the GAN queue, but he has been relatively inactive since the end of December. See also my discussion thread on his talk page, where I discuss the timeline for the review I'm conducting at Talk:Kathy Karpan/GA1. Goldsztajn has also opened a review at Talk:Darlington Hoopes/GA1, but I suspect that review will also be delayed similarly. Therefore, I'd like to discuss the current status of the following:
I'd appreciate any thoughts you may have. Thanks! Edge3 ( talk) 23:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I think enough time has passed, and we can now conclude that the nomination has been abandoned. However, I'm still interested in getting this to GA status. Would anyone like to take over the review, so that I can go ahead and address the remaining issues? Alternatively, you can step in as a replacement nominator, and I'll remain as the reviewer. Edge3 ( talk) 16:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently in the process of writing a good article review and I've written a lengthy list of specific suggestions for each part of the article that would bring it closer to being a GA. However, I think that, even with the changes, the article might still be shy of reaching good article status. On top of that, some of my suggestions would require entire sections to be rewritten or removed entirely. At this point, I'm wondering if I should just write a review failing the page and make the changes myself or if I should proceed with posting the list of changes that I suggested and see if that helps. benǝʇᴉɯ 12:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
status=2ndopinion|note=New reviewer needed
The fruit of this will be that an experienced reviewer can join and help you with a second opinion --
Whiteguru (
talk)
21:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)I believe Politics of Massachusetts is a well-done, up-to-date article and meets the good article criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.243.237 ( talk) 15:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok Chutyo ( talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Following this discussion, AlabamaFan101 has requested that they withdraw from the GAN of Saquon Barkley. (Independently, I think the review might just need to be closed as the nom only has nine edits to the page and none to the review page.) Could someone help him with that? I don't know the process there. Alyo ( chat· edits) 17:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand the denial for Lead to be a GA article, but could you recommend how to get it to that status? I kind of adopted the page back in 2018 due to the under-sourcing and lack of articles, which I've since spent hundreds of hours sourcing and creating approved articles.
I know the page has the potential to be approved Good Article status, I just need help on how to get it there.
Thank you! Xenobia4 ( talk) 04:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Pinging The Ultimate Boss. Everything here, may I remind you, is of good intentions and I have no hard feelings towards you specifically.
I've currently been waiting about a month-ish now for the review of Super Paper Mario. It is one of the only major works in the series remaining before a Paper Mario good topic is possible. The review was picked up by The Ultimate Boss, but, with all good intentions, I would much prefer another editor to pick this one up. Over the past couple of months, he has attempted 14 FACs which ultimately resulted in negative feedback to which frustrated him and had him forcefully withdraw the nomination; see here for details. This editor is, in no way, harming the encyclopedia, with multiple constant GAs, I would just prefer someone with a more professional and thorough examination (such as here, and although I did not look at the article this review is very short) pick this one up instead. The review has also been collecting dust since late January. P anini 🥪 14:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if a nominator with a COI can nominate their own article. This is in regards to Boaz Eidelberg, which based on the nominator's username, is an autobiography on themselves. They added a COI tag to their userpage before nominating. This is the first time I've seen this happen, and I didn't see a similar past occurrence in the GAN talk pages before. Would a GAN review be effected due to the COI? Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I started reviewing an article for GA, Talk:IRIS Kharg/GA1, but I've realised the nom hasn't edited since November as buidhe pointed out on the talk page. Any advice on what I should do? Kind regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 15:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I've made an observation similar to that raised in the preceding post: an article I'd nominated for GA has been passed in a rather cursory review by a fairly inexperienced editor (Ballpointbiro). I don't think it's much of a problem in the case of said nomination ( Geoffrey Kirk), but this editor might cause problems when reviewing nominations on the trickier end. Since they could have been animated by the current backlog elimination drive, it may be a good idea for one of the co-ordinators to give them a brief heads-up about the process. Modussiccandi ( talk) 14:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
A reviewer with fewer than two hundred edits has passed Woodrow Wilson's GAN, identifying no issues whatsoever. While I suppose it's possible that the article is really that great, it strikes as unlikely that there would be no problems at all with such a lengthy article about such a contentious figure. I'm a bit unsure of the formal procedure here, so I figured I'd just leave a note here so someone could take a closer look. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The LegoBot claimed to have added the nomination for Galileo (spacecraft) twice
[12]
[13] but it wasn't added.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
23:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I'm hoping that someone on this page can take a look at this. I think we should conclude that Jon698 is an infrequent contributor to Wikipedia. While he has been editing articles over the past few months (see his user contributions), his activity has been limited to reversions and minor edits. He has not responded to inquiries on his talk page regarding his GA nominations (see thread 1 and thread 2). Therefore, I would like to recommend that the following nominations be removed from the queue:
This is a follow-up thread to our previous discussion on February 8–18 regarding the same topic. Edge3 ( talk) 16:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Ruth Williams Cupp was moved to Ruth Cupp during the current GA review, but the Talk:Ruth Williams Cupp/GA1 review page was not also moved. The reviewer, Edwininlondon, has started up a new review page to match the new name of the article: Talk:Ruth Cupp/GA1. Can an admin please merge the two review pages and their histories at Talk:Ruth Cupp/GA1? The header section should combine the very top from the new file and the Review: line from the old one (which has the time the original review was started). I'd put the comment from the new page at the bottom of the combined pages. Edwininlondon, please hold off making any further edits to the review until this is all fixed. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, I'd like to request a second opinion on Talk:Kemp Caldera/GA1, written by Jo-Jo Eumerus. This relates only to criteria 1a, details on the GAN page. All other criteria met. Thanks in advance, CMD ( talk) 10:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, could I get a second opinion on my review of Tin Star (video game). This is also being discussed at my talk page. Happy to reopen if people think the article meets the GA Criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I came across this review today, brief to say the least. Is that an acceptable review? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I started review for Red Velvet (group), but since I don't know how to finish it, so it pass 11 weeks...... Would somebody please help me for finishing review? -- Wendylove ( talk) 17:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I was just reviewing the backlog and noticed that there are some articles that have been on review an extremely long time. The Doo-Wops & Hooligans Tour is a good example - it's been "on review" over 10 months without a decision either way. I note that the reviewer took a brief break but, nevertheless, this does feel like an extremely long time without a decision. Even glancing at the review page now, comments are slow. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Woodrow Wilson/GA2 is in the hands of a reviewer whose first contribution to en:WP was made on 25 February 2021. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Noting here that the article was passed. CMD ( talk) 06:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
How old should an article should be to Nominate for Good Article, as it is not mentions in criteria, also, who reviews a nominated article? Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 13:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
This is interesting. Legobot has delivered a failure of a review before I even started it. See the Talk Page and history. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 05:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Can we edit the article while it is being reviewed, and add content to the page. Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 05:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that Martensdale, California was nominated for GA despite still being tagged as a stub. It is a bit long for a stub but it really has only one section so maybe the stub tag is still appropriate. And the subject had a short enough history that the current article length may be appropriate. Still, it caused me to wonder: DYK explicitly disallows articles tagged as stubs. Should GA do the same? It doesn't seem to now; the closest I can find is requirement 3(b) that the article provide broad coverage of its topic. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
If an article is genuinely a stub the Johnbod is right - it cannot become a GA as the two things are fundamentally incompatible. As mentioned above to, the article in question, in its current state, is not a stub. Have no issue with the stub tag removed, and assessed on its merits to become a GA. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I was tagging an article and I thought of an edit that might be nice to make to {{ GA}}. When I went to Template talk:GA, however, I found that there was a requested edit from a few years ago that had sat there with no response. That post is here.
Mine is this: I think that, since the majority of GAs only have one review page, invoking {{
GA}} without the page=
parameter should default it to 1 (i.e. {{GA|~~~~~|subtopic=Geography}} would be the same as {{GA|~~~~~|subtopic=Geography|page=1}}. I think it would also be possible to detect if there was more than one GA subpage, and throw an error if one existed. Anyway, this is my humble suggestion. Feel free to tell me if there is something that makes this a bad idea.
jp×
g
03:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I would very much like another reviewer to take a look at this.
Absurd decision to quick fail—especially considering that he even failed to consult with me or ask any questions. The rationale for this decision is flimsy at best. Laos does not have over 200 years of constitutional history as US or the UKs 800+ so stating it should have that same length does not make any sense. In addition, considering that the Prime Minister of Vietnam is a GA the decision seems even more incomprehensible.
At last. There are no other major sources on the Laotian prime ministershipin English sources. I couldn't find any and I've searched! -- Ruling party ( talk) 18:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
You're either dumb as a brick or lazyis a personal attack, and demanding an apology is incredibly rude. A reviewer has the choice to fail any article if they don't believe they meet the criteria. They are not at liberty to ask you questions or keep the review open for you to respond. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
guy that doesn't know crap, it's not only rude to insult people for no reason (read: just disagreeing with a reviewer over a point of interpretation is not a reason), but it's completely hypocritical to then demand an apology.So yeah, WP:BOOMERANG for those couple of WP:PAs. —— Serial 12:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
If anyone wants to watchlist Wikipedia:Four Award or Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations, the reviewing processes require care but aren't rocket science (especially compared to GAN) and it would be nice to have some more eyes on it. They might only get a nomination each per month but there's only a couple of us that have been reviewing recently and sometimes they threaten to fall off my watchlist and get forgotten. Wikipedia:Four Award/Instructions lays out the Four Award process in full detail and for Triple Crown you need to (if awarding) add to the right table (remove from the old one if upgrading), give a talk page award template to the recipient and update the (cumulative) tallies on the main page. Drop me a message if you have questions. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Just wondering why or how the article on the 1950s British jet bomber the Vickers Valiant came to be assessed as Religion and Philosophy Good Article.
64.223.92.229 ( talk) 08:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Editor OgamD218 started a review of SpaceX 10 days ago ( Talk:SpaceX/GA1), but there is no indication of any work on it. I tried to contact the editor directly ( [14]) to understand if they want to eventually review the article, but I had no reply even though they seem to be actively editing. What is the best way forward here? Maybe it's better to delete the review page so that another editor can work on it? -- Ita140188 ( talk) 03:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Limiting the number of GA nominations per editor, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs)
17:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
On Talk:Yuzuru Hanyu/GA1 Jasper Deng asked to take over as reviewer, and I agreed. But I am still listed as the reviewer. What is the correct way to handle this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Just noting that Legobot appears to have stopped working with regard to GANs. I'm not sure if there's some sort of short-term workaround that would be feasible. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 16:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Me again...this time an IP editor has started conducting a review. Although it seems to be in good faith, this is forbidden (see WP:GAN/I#R2). It's also causing serious issues for Legobot, who is incrementing the IP's review count every 20 minutes (see, e.g., Special:Diff/1018392792). Cheers, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:37, 17 April 2021 (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. |
I've been considering reviewing some GAN's for a while, but I would like some comments about this article I'm considering reviewing
Did I miss anything (or make any errors) for this? Username 6892 18:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Pinging involved users: @ Dyveldi and Chiswick Chap:. The reviewer at Talk:Troll (Middle-earth)/GA1 was very involved at a recent AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll (Middle-earth)) and would as thus be disqualified from reviewing the article. I was also involved with the AfD, so I'm not posting this at the review page because I'm also not an eligible reviewer for this article. Would someone mind popping over there and picking up the review? Hog Farm ( talk) 03:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? (I don't think so) Username 6892 16:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Given the ongoing backlog drive, I thought I'd post an extended list of the oldest unreviewed nominations. This includes all pre-November 2019 nominations (41 total). If anyone is inclined to review any of them, please feel free to strike them from the list. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 01:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This is convenient to have here, but I thought it would be worthwhile to let people know that they can also get similar information on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report page. While it doesn't give nomination dates, the Oldest nominations section at top shows the oldest ten unreviewed nominations, and in the Exception report, the Old nominations section shows all the nominations at least 30 days old (the ones without icons are the ones waiting for reviewers), along with how many days it's been since the nomination was made. People can go to that page at any time; from this page, just click on the "Report" tab at the far right of the top tabs. The page is updated daily at 01:00 UTC. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
As 39 of the 41 pre-November 2019 nominations have now been claimed(!), I thought I'd update the list to include all unreviewed 2019 nominations. The list comprises 39 nominations. As BlueMoonset has pointed out, a more detailed list of nominations is found under the Report tab. This list is intended as a temporary subset of that list to aid anyone who wishes to help cull the list of old nominations during the backlog drive. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 23:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
A comment pointing to an individual reassessment of Joe Biden was posted at the reassessment talk page. I looked through it and was not happy with how it was conducted so have now opened Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joe Biden/1. The individual reassessment attracted a lot of editors not really familiar with the good article process so it would be nice if some regulars were willing to venture over there and make sure the comments align with the GA criteria. it also begs a deeper question on how the stability criteria applies to delisting articles that we should probably address a bit more formally at some point. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Does this section give undue weight to the history of the square (and not the station itself)? Username 6892 15:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi reviewers, would anyone be able to:
Thanks, Kingsif ( talk) 22:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Users may find this monthly graph at User:Eddie891/GAGraph of interest. Comments are welcome, I think there's something off around October '09... Eddie891 Talk Work 01:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Though I wouldn't particularly want to call-out a user, many past discussions, most recently here, suggests that the pattern of poor nominations and reviews by Happypillsjr needs to be further (perhaps more formally) addressed. An attempt at mentoring by myself at the end of 2019 and start of 2020 didn't help much, and various requests for the user to slow down or stop have shown that they will wait about 2 weeks before going again.
In this open setting, I would like to invite @ Happypillsjr: to tell us all what they think 1. the GA process is for, and 2. what the GA criteria are and mean. Then, it may be helpful if other users could discuss these responses, and what the best way forward may be. Another concern that has been noted in Happypillsjr's reviews is poor communication skills, which could suggest a command of English that is not good enough to assess GA's altogether, but which I bring up here in case it seems comments are being misunderstood. Kingsif ( talk) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Kew Gardens 613, Epicgenius, Kingsif, and Coolmarc: I am just aware of having a consultation of me of considering temporary restricted from GAN reviews and nominations. I know my presence from nominating and review articles is troubling to you guys. I know you guys heard about my history of nominating articles. I wanted to apologize about that. I was thought being confident reviewing these articles but I thought wrong. I tried so hard of editing these articles work with. So that again, I wanted to apologize.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 19:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
As is clear from the above, Happypillsjr has, over the past five years, nominated articles that invariably do not meet the criteria, done reviews that do not adequately address the criteria, and otherwise displayed an insufficient grasp of the GA process and how it should be applied. Given this, and because they have not been willing to stay away from GAN despite multiple requests after problematic edits, it is time to prevent further disruption.
The proposal is to indefinitely ban Happypillsjr from nominating any articles to be Good Articles, from reviewing any GA nomination, and from editing in the GA space, broadly construed; this includes all GA-related pages. The ban can be appealed in 12 months, and only at 12 month intervals thereafter, but there must be evidence of attained competence in improving article quality to GA levels for the ban to be lifted. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
"community process"is blocking an editor, which isn't under discussion. Any WikiProject can set rules for participation and refuse edits from an editor under that WikiProject. No one is imposing an IBAN or any such sitewide prohibition outside of GA upon the editor in question. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I have an unusual problem with my recent GAN (I am the main author of the article). All the issues raised but one have been addressed. The remaining issue concerns a discussion between several editors on whether a certain content issue is sufficiently summarized or not. The problem is that I have read the sources presented and I don't see what is missing, despite quotations being provided on talk. I feel the quoted parts are either properly summarized already or would be undue, some others agree with me, some, including the reviewer, disagree. Crucially, nobody else has attempted to edit the article to address it outside adding a POV tag, despite my repeated pings or requests for someone to try to propose a compromise version on talk or directly by editing the article (I certainly don't OWN it). The GA reviewer keeps asking me to address this issue and summarize the sources better, but I feel I am unable to do so without compromising my own view of what's UNDUE, what's worse, I can't even figure out what particular events/issues/people/organizaitons/etc. are being demanded to be included, as all I am hearing is 'read the cited quotes'. Which I read multiple times and I don't see what could be used to expand the article beyond going into what I think are unnecessary details. The reviewer said that I don't summarize the cited quotations better, they will fail the article. I am not new to GA (have written dozens), but I am at a loss with what to do, in the past I was always able to address any issues raised. I admit there is no consensus on talk whether I am right or not, but if nobody else whats to follow WP:SOFIXIT, and if the article is reasonably stable, what can be done? I think the demands made that I summarize the content which I think is either impossible (as all important issues are summarized already) or would compromise neutrality (UNDUE) are unfair, particularly as nobody else has actually clarified what needs to be added. (So to be clear, there is no edit warring on any content issue outside a POV tag being added or removed twice or so over the last week). If the article is failed (due to the unresolved POV issue), can it be renominated if the situation continues (if nobody is willing to actually spell out what sentences should be added to the article)? From that perspective, it looks like this: general objections are raised, impossible to address, but since there are objections, the article fails the stable/neutral. Wouldn't it be pure GAMING, looking for a reviewer who might agree with me on this issue? Which is why I wonder if we have some form of a GA 3O - would it be ok to ask someone to look at the dispute and try to mediate? Or should we just to to RfC or such? And what would this mean to the GA workflow? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
On this review, I finished it, asked for a second opinion, and after an opinion was given, the nom withdrew. Should I mark as failed? Username 6892 13:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned on Talk:Jedediah Sanger#GA nomination, I had looked to review the Jedediah Sanger article, but it needed some summarizing of information, with detail put into notes, and regrouping. I worked on the article a lot, changing it from this version to the current Jedediah Sanger version. I had said that I felt the most important to get it GA-review-ready - and have someone else do the GA review.
But, now, I am very familiar with the article. Is it ok for me to perform a GA review in this case?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there a tool whereby we can enter a user name and see a count of their GA nominations, and/or GA reviews? — Maile ( talk) 16:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Recently I've noticed a number of articles fail a nomination, and within hours be nominated anew. In at least one case, this has happened twice to the same article. Although there may occasionally be a good reason for this, it raises the concern that the issues that lead to failed nominations are not being adequately addressed before the articles are renominated. In the featured-article context, this is dealt with by requiring that "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it." The good-article instructions are not so specific, although they note that "If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately." And generally, they envision that seven days is an adequate time to respond to any issues raised in a review.
With that in mind, how would others feel about a requirement that a failed nomination wait seven days before it can be renominated? This would not be a perfect fix, of course, but it would at least ensure that there is some built-in time to digest the comments from the previous nomination and implement any improvements before renominating. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 17:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Raising essentially the same issue [...] to multiple [...] reviewers) and so it should be uncontroversial to revert a nomination if no significant edits have been made to an article since its last review was failed. Perhaps we could codify this formally somewhere. I'm quite concerned by the text:
If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately.A genuinely improper review (e.g. by a new editor who doesn't understand the GA criteria) should be deleted/reverted and the page should be relisted under its original nomination timestamp. A review that one disagrees with is still a review that needs to be addressed and resolved before renomination. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's a possible change to Step 5 (nom instructions): If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately,
but note that the article may be quick failed if the new reviewer agrees with the concerns brought up in the previous review.
I'm not sure how the reviewing instructions should be changed.
Username
6892 22:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC
At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately.
At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you may renominate the article after taking the reviewer's suggestions into account and waiting at least seven days; a renomination made earlier may be reverted, and a renomination that does not take adequate consideration of issues raised in the earlier review may be quick-failed. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, however, you may ask for additional input on the discussion page.(The bolded part is a link to this page).
If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately.part. Even if you don't think the review was adequate you should still take it into account, you just might decide that you don't need to make the suggested changes before renominating. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
We should add something along the lines of:
It's worth noting "considered" because some GA reviewers are shit and while they think they know what they're doing, they don't, so this wording allows leeway for new reviewers to take those kind of reviews with a pinch of salt while applying some level of diligence should a former review be of value. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, although this has only been around for a week, there seems to be strong consensus in favour of adding this bullet to the criteria. I note Josh's footnote suggestion too, which is a good idea. I suggest we give it another week and if consensus is still in favour then I'll add the new bullet and associated footnote. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since it may be relevant to this discussion, I note that I recently renominated Freud and Philosophy after a failed review because the review was unfair and incompetent (the reviewer made a series of rambling, peculiar comments during the review demonstrating total lack of understanding of the subject, claiming, among other things, that a properly cited statement in the article was uncited, which it clearly was not). No apologies for the renomination or for calling an incompetent review incompetent. Unfair and incompetent reviews happen. They are a serious problem and more people should point them out and criticize them when they occur. I see no reason for a seven day waiting period. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 22:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the article is so good that it belongs at WP:FAC rather than at WP:GAN. Indeed at FAC you'll multiple reviewers with varying interests and differing competencies, as opposed to GAN where you will usually find one generous volunteer prepared to devote their own unpaid time trying to do their best to help you out. Which clearly isn't working in this instance. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
As noted above, several good article reviews have not gone the way Freeknowledgecreator might have liked. Four articles by him on similar topics - Philosophical Essays on Freud, Sexual Desire (book), Sexual Preference (book), and The Homosexual Matrix - have been promoted in the last few years. Someone who has not previously involved with reviewing these articles may want to take a look at them. Josh Milburn ( talk) 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible for someone to close the #Comment discussion? The GA review has long since failed, there are suggestions by me and another user of how to improve the article - which can be used or not.
The conversation had gone quiet, I was so looking forward to it rolling off... but there are more complaints, without, I am afraid, a possible satisfactory resolution. And, I am guessing it's likely going to push out when the discussion can be archived. If possible, can someone close this discussion?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
A review for one of my noms got opened, but then passed without any comment. At all. ( Talk:Art of Francisco Narváez in the University City of Caracas). It's a recent nom so I don't mind if it just gets sent back instead of asking someone to do it, but I thought I'd inform everyone. @ BlueMoonset: to delete it or something. Kingsif ( talk) 15:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
without a proper review. I think that this damages the integrity of the project and is not fair to both content writers and reviewers who go through this necessarily lengthy process. So, @ BlueMoonset: you're saying that Martian-2008 should be reverted and the review page be placed for speedy deletion?-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 07:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This user needs to be closely monitored. I have tried to review the GA nominations of Talk:Everything I Wanted, Talk:Stressed Out but the editor keeps withdrawing and then renominating them. It appears to me they are trying to game the system in hope that a much less leniant reviewer will pass their underprepared articles. I wanted to let you know about this as this new editor appears to be nominating whatever song they like for GA only because they like the song and not because it meets GA criteria. The article Stressed Out, they only contributed 2% to on that article as well. Cool Marc ✉ 19:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: @ Kingsif: the user has just gone ahead and withdrawn Lovely (Billie Eilish and Khalid song) after I reviewed it and put it on hold. It has also came to light at Talk:Stressed Out/GA1 that Stressed Out was not the only article they nominated for GA without properly contributing to. Zmbro has pointed out that they had the same issue at Talk:The Man Who Sold the World/GA1. Cool Marc ✉ 21:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry I have been a nuisance to all of you, but Jesus fucking Christ. You guys have the audacity to speak about me behind my back. I am sick and tired of this! I want you all to stop threatening with Afds and saying that I need to be closley "monitored". It is not your job to babysit me. I am a fucking adult. My experience here has become total SHIT because of users like you. Now I know what my loved ones meant when they told me this website would be a complete waste of time. unsigned comment by DarklyShadows ( talk| contibs) 00:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I passed this article, which had previously failed, but the notifications about the article here and here at the nominee's page Markworthen show it as a fail.
Is there something that needs to be done on the Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States page?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Matthewishere0 Has misunderstood the GA process, and initiated the nom without properly carrying it out: what's the best thing to do here? Harrias talk 10:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia/GA1 and Talk:Rusyns/GA1. I am unsure what to say to them, so I'm posting it here. b uidh e 17:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The recently archived discussion
here brought about a general consensus to add a fifth quick-fail criterion: A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered.
(This wording combines the proposals of The Rambling Man and Bilorv. I changed "considers" to "determines" to avoid using the former word twice in the same sentence.)
The criteria are housed at WP:Good article criteria/GAC, and listed at WP:Good article criteria#Criteria. The former page is template protected, however, so a template editor will be needed to make the change. I imagine we have one here?
As a side note, there was not a consensus in favor of adding a seven-day waiting period before renominating an article following a failed review, but there was a consensus in favor of either removing or changing the line If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately
; I've thus changed it to If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, however, you may ask for additional input on
the discussion page.
(The bolded part is a link to this page)." --
Usernameunique (
talk)
04:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello!
I've recently did a review for a song by Alvvays called " Archie, Marry Me". Nevertheless, the nominator has since "vanished" and his last edits were regarding said article. I was not expecting that, however he was able to make most of the edits, I made several small ones to the prose and replaced unreliable sources. I've put the review on hold, if someone wants to fix the very last issue, it is regarding adding some sort of note to the infobox or even a collaps list, due to the numereous genres of the song. I would very much appreciate, it should take no a great amount of your time.
Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 19:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I just tried to pass Talk:Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill for GA, after a second review. The nominator User talk:Bneu2013 just got a message from Legobot that the nomination has failed. What did I do wrong and how do I fix it? Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I had one of my nominations, Warcraft (film) reviewed and passed but i don't really know if this should be considered legitimate or not. The reviewer, @ P,TO 19104: has only been a user for a day, and the review really didn't go into a lot of detail. Wondering if someone can assess this. Rusted AutoParts 00:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm working on an article on "creation narratives in Korean shamanism" here, with an eye to GA status.
The issue is that the topic is covered nearly entirely by Korean-language sources. There is a relatively large amount of Korean-language scholarship on Korean creation narratives, including a full-length monograph with extensive discussion with an appendix of all relevant primary sources along with extensive annotation (Kim H. 1994). By contrast, I've searched a fair bit, and virtually the only English-language scholarship directly on the topic appear to be:
So I'm currently planning on using Korean-language sources almost exclusively, since even the Religions chapter is effectively a tertiary source not in the least helpful to anyone with access to the actual Korean-language secondary sources and in some parts openly inaccurate.
Would this be a problem for the verifiability criteria?-- Karaeng Matoaya ( talk) 14:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, and hopefully all is well. Though the GA drive hasn't quite ended yet, it's safe to say that it has seen a fair bit of success and I'd like to congratulate all editors involved. The drive and good articles are profiled in this month's issue of The Signpost ( here). One of the sections rather briefly talks about ways to revitalize the project, something I'm sure we all have opinions on and I know has been discussed time and time again with little change. Coming off of such a successful drive, I think now is the time to have this discussion again. How can we keep the backlog from becoming too high? How can we ensure the continued quality of good articles?
Here are my thoughts:
I don't want to come off as presumptuous as I've not previously been involved in much GA-related discussions. I know that I'm not always right, and my ideas certainly aren't the best, but this is a discussion worth having. If these are the worst ideas you've ever heard, please say that. If you have other ideas please list them. Let's figure out what changes we can agree on to move this project forward and hopefully ensure its success in the future. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I asked at the Biography Wikiproject to no response, so would anyone here like to chime in on the Personal life section re. Talk:Laura Harrier/GA1? Thanks, Kingsif ( talk) 08:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I started a review template at Talk:Irene Dunne/GA1, but am having second thoughts about doing the review. How can I delete this template without affecting the nomination? Please advise. — Maile ( talk) 11:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The nominator of, and main contributor to, this article (Geography - Places) appears to be a blocked sock. Not sure a nomination could progress in such circumstances. A pity, as it looked rather good. KJP1 ( talk) 06:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This article was nominated for GA and has been reviewed (see comments here), but there has been no response by the nominator since it was put on hold on 13 June 2020. Can anyone help here to avoid the article being failed? if I know someone is willing to pick this up, I'm willing to allow more time for the work to be done. Amitchell125 ( talk) 08:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I've searched for the answer to this in the archives of this page and in pages relating to WP:COI but I'm not sure yet what the established practice is. I'm the Wikimedian In Residence for the Khalili Collections. In that capacity I've written about the history of kimono, including creating the article Khalili Collection of Kimono and improving other articles. This is part of work for which I've been paid. I'm proud of Khalili Collection of Kimono, think it deserves a higher than B rating and would be happy to get it reviewed by the community. The review process would involve me making changes to the article in response to requests for the reviewer, so it would require me to edit the article directly in non-trivial ways. I hope, and it would seem sensible, that the fact that the edits would be made in response to a neutral reviewers' comments, to bring the article to a high quality, would make these edits okay, although they are edits about an aspect of my employer. Since I couldn't find a precedent for this, I thought best to ask explicitly before proceeding. MartinPoulter ( talk) 10:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
One of my GANs ( Talk:2002 Football League First Division play-off Final/GA1) has been picked up by WikiEditor28582573 who has a total of 17 edits. I'm not wholly convinced I'll get the kind of review I'm looking for, but I'm happy to AGF. I think I'll need some assistance to restart the nomination in a couple of days time without it dropping to the bottom of the queue. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello again. I am reviewing Bat virome with no prior knowledge of the subject. According to the criteria in a good article "all inline citations are from reliable sources". By simply looking through the list I know from experience that the WHO and New York Times are reliable sources. But there is no way I could manually check all the scientific journals are reliable sources as there are so many. Any suggestions? Chidgk1 ( talk) 05:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, people. I wanted to know if there is any minimum size restriction in the God Article criteria. I have read what is written and know that stubs cannot be made a good article but what about article which are not stubs but at the same time not as long as most articles as well? (An example would be WDM-2G) Forgive me if this comes out as a normie question but I'm pretty new to the whole thing. (Have mostly done CVU stuff till now). Thanks, Field Marshal Aryan ( talk) 19:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I realise that good articles do not have to completely follow the manual of style, but even checking the sections they do have to follow would be time consuming to do completely by hand. So is there any automated style checker I could run against the article to at least do mechanical checking which does not rely on human judgement? Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks. What the view on paywalled sourced? I'm reviewing Mitsuharu Misawa and I think there is 160 references that are behind a paywall. How does that effect the review? Thanks. scope_creep Talk 16:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:Reviewing good articles already states, "If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means. Reviewers can confirm information from sources they cannot access at the resource exchange or request translations at Wikipedia:Translation." This seems reasonable to me. ( t · c) buidhe 04:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Only 40% are behind the paywall and unfortunately in Japan wrestling isn't seen as premier sport really, not on the same level as more traditional sports e.g. Sumo. So there is not a large number of folk commenting on it, writing books, newspapers/journals/e-papers or sports pages. I did a 4hour search one night, trying to flesh out the details of the man's life, but no luck. I suspect the paywall sources are supporting the whole arc of the article structure, while the remaining sources are match details and so on, that provide locations and times. scope_creep Talk 21:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The article is Mitsuharu Misawa. It is 220k, which is quite substantial for biographical article. scope_creep Talk 09:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Qibla/GA1 was done by a currently blocked sock puppet. While being a sock puppet does not necessarily mean an inability to do a proper review, it does cast doubts. What strikes me most: the whole review took just over an hour. Bit short, isn't it? -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 08:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
After a discussion with myself, Username6892 has opened a community reassessment for Chester station (Toronto), so feedback is welcome! Kingsif ( talk) 01:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, the last discussion fizzled out with little comment, but I think this is something that really needs discussed. The last backlog drive was very successful, but the number of unreviewed (and total) nominations just keeps rising. A-drive-whenever-there-gets-to-be-so-many-noms-the-page-breaks makes a decent stopgap solution, but something more permanent needs to be done. For one thing, the Good Articles WikiProject has very ad hoc leadership, so electing a handful of coordinators may be something work looking into (although it's not guaranteed to help with anything from an organizational perspective). I've seen several suggestions bandied around in the past, so I'll list the ones I can remember:
1: Rolling drives. Three of four one-month drives a year with a push on reviewing. The last drive seemed to peter out after one month, so one month is probably an ideal drive length. However, that drive was also done during the midst of the COVID lockdown, meaning editors had way more time to spend on the site. There was also the issue that during drives, a lot of the progress is driven by a handful of users. The Rambling Man had triple digit reviews, and me and several others had over 70 in the last drive. Honestly, I don't think a handful of users cranking out 70+ reviews in a short period of time is something we can count on.
2: A cap on how many nominations a user can have active at one time. Points were made that this has drawbacks, such as some nominations sitting for months without being reviewed. It isn't really fair to a user for them to have to wait for months to nominate an article they've worked up to status because nobody is picking up reviews for earlier articles. At times, the effect of this would also be limited, as prolific nominators also see their articles more likely to be reviewed sooner.
3: Some form of QPQ requirement. Honestly, my fear with this is that there's going to be an uptake in low-quality reviews, as people game the system to get a QPQ in. I've seen similar things happen with DYK QPQs, although it's not as widespread as it could be.
4: Enhanced quick-fail allowances. Make it easier to quick-fail articles. I don't really like this one, although maybe it's because I rarely quick-fail articles, unless it's a bad faith nomination. Quick failing often doesn't lead to greatly improved content, just frustrated new-ish users.
All of the suggestions I can think of have some amount of drawbacks. However, something needs to be done. Letting the backlog grow to unbearable numbers and then trying to fix it isn't going to work well in the long-term. There's always going to be a backlog, probably a substantial one at this page, but the best way to keep if from getting overwhelming is to try to find a solution that will do something to keep things at reasonable levels. Any ideas? Hog Farm Bacon 03:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Articles may go through WP:Peer Review or WikiProject internal peer reviews such as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review before being nominated here. In this case, ideally someone "fresh" would pick up the review here at GAN so that the article gets checked by as many people as possible. However, the pool of "fresh" reviewers that haven't had their say already at the Peer Review may be depleted; especially if the article is about a niche topic, it might have to wait in the "Nominations" page for quite a while. So here comes my question: If I did a review at Peer Review for an article, am I encouraged to pick up the review for the same article here at GAN as well? Or should I wait for two weeks to see if someone else is interested before picking it up? Or should I just stay away from it? Thanks. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 18:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I recently tagged the article on John Major for GA review under World history, but it isn't appearing on the list on this page. Is there something else I need to do other than tag the article as GA-review on its Talk page?? WisDom-UK ( talk) 13:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I've found a good article. It doesn't have an individual focused editor. I have not edited this article, and I am not knowledgeable enough about the article to discuss it in depth and do research, as the instructions here require of a nominator of good articles. And yet it is a good article that I am sure people would like to see promoted to featured article. The article is called Edmonia Lewis. I understand there is a major backlog at GA, but I am sure people want to see this kind of article fast tracked at present, the biography of a female, African American, Native American, fine artist, from the turn of the 20th century... full of lovely pictures, a significant text about the ladies life with some discussions of her notable works, a famous person from modern antiquity. It's a quietly good article of some genres Wikipedia is seeking to increase promotion. I'm not qualified to nominate it. It seems there was interest in nominating it long ago but that has not come to pass. I do not know how this article came to be on my watchlist. I think it was from being a Google Doodle in 2017, when it got almost a million extra views over the course of two days. Please send this article on its way to featured article: Edmonia Lewis, thank you o/ (apologies for all the text, I am practising talking to myself) ~ R. T. G 20:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I've quick-failed Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes/GA1 due to instability without reviewing the content, the article is just unstable from day-to-day, since it's a controversial ongoing event. Are there any objections to doing this? I personally don't like quick-fails, so doing this seems pretty radical to me. Hog Farm Bacon 00:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Should the albums sub-section of this topic list have the info that EPs are included added to its current overview: "This includes record albums, soundtracks, and video albums."? I say yes, since EPs are often submitted under the albums subtopic. -- Kyle Peake ( talk) 20:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious, is there a List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles, similar to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits? I'd love to know which editors have promoted the most articles. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
|action1result=
) whose value was "listed" then look at the discussion link connected with that (e.g. |action1link=
) and see what user started that discussion page. Would that work?
wbm1058 (
talk)
21:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
Article history}}
added by bot in the past? I don't see it on the talk page of
my most recent passed nom or the
one I've reviewed most recently. Picking a couple more recent GAs out of a hat (
1 and
2) they don't have that template either. Were folks adding it manually in the past? If that's desired, we could add it to
Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions...
Ajpolino (
talk)
22:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I think Lee's suggestion is the most foolproof, whenever a {{subst:GAN|subtopic=blah}}
was added to an article talk page, it can be safely assumed that was the nominator.
The Rambling Man (
Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)
07:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
|nominator=
can be parsed. So in
my random example
AustralianRupert gets credit for that one. So the algorithm is to search the talk page history for the most recent version with {{
GA nominee}} and credit the editor specified in |nominator=
? In this example, the nominator would be parsed from the edit of 22:41, 30 March 2012 which was the edit before
the edit that removed {{GA nominee}} (and replaced it with {{
ArticleHistory}}). –
wbm1058 (
talk)
11:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, which I don't recall seeing before. That's updated by Rick Bot per this April 2007 BRFA. That list is automatically generated from by-year summary lists, for example Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2024, which in turn is created by the same bot. The by-year summary lists are in turn derived from monthly lists such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2020 which are created by humans (shout-out to Ealdgyth and Ian Rose – thank you for your helpful behind-the-curtain work!). The monthly lists simply are lists of transclusions of individual nominations, e.g. {{ Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor/archive1}}.
Having recently worked at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I've seen that there are similar lists of transcluded reassessment nominations, the most recent is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 65. But I'm not so familiar with how the Wikipedia:Good article nominations process works so I suppose an analysis of that is in order here.
Noting that Rick Bot first gets the list of all articles which were accepted as featured articles and then cross-checks that against Category:Featured articles (or Wikipedia:Featured articles) and Category:Wikipedia former featured articles (or Wikipedia:Former featured articles). Thus the bot is able to show the former featured articles on its list (indicated by the hollowed-out star ☆). If I start from a list generated from Category:Good articles I won't be able to show the former good articles on the list. Thus maybe a more appropriate title would be Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by currently-accepted good article nominations.
I hear Psiĥedelisto's desire to include XTools Authorship in the analysis. For my initial implementation I won't be doing that. Besides not seeing a consensus for that I think this is also more difficult if there is no API for me to easily get that data from XTools, and the reliability of XTools in determining "authorship" may be questionable in some cases. What if it doesn't recognize cut-paste moves? Is it intelligent enough to recognize when content has been merged so as to credit the original authors rather than the editor performing the merge by copying the original authors' work while giving attribution to them in an edit summary and/or talk-page template?
This has bubbled up my to-do list so I should be focusing more on this task soon. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a
User:GA bot/Stats page that ranks GA reviewers by number of reviews they've done. I just read the Signpost WikiProject report
Revitalizing good articles (which somehow I overlooked when it came out just over a month ago) and hereby declare that a
GA.
I see a quote that links to that stats page: "
The main problem with GAN is that reviewing is
highly concentrated among a small number of users, while nominating is much more broad-based
". I see that
Legobot took over the task of maintaining that list
in September 2013.
WP:List of Wikipedians by good article reviews,
WP:Wikipedians by GA Reviews and
WP:WBGAR all link to the bot's stats page, as does {{
User Good Articles reviewed}}. I suppose if GA bot/Legobot maintained a corresponding list of nominators y'all wouldn't be asking for one here.
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles was an effort to combine nominators and reviewers into a single table, but that was manually updated and not so well maintained, hence
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles.
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 155#Number of GA reviews reports issues with the accuracy of Legobot's stats.
Looking at the GA process, HERE I see Legobot removing a nomination as "passed", though it appears to me that it was placed "on hold". Looking at the review page for that, Talk:Break My Heart (Dua Lipa song)/GA1 doesn't appear to be transcluded in any Good article archive ( what-links-here), though Article alerts is on the case. So there doesn't appear to be a way to get this from archives (monthly lists) the way the featured-articles bot does. (Yes I've seen the two appeals for an operator to take over Legobot Task 33 in the archives. I'm fine with taking over the PHP code; my issue is with the SQL database. I've had plenty of experience working with databases on mainframes back in the day, but I'm rusty. I don't think it worth my time to get back up to speed with that. I question why an off-wiki database is needed when the wiki is itself a big database. My inclination would be to replace the SQL stuff with having the bot store whatever data it needed on pages in its own userspace. Then others could see what was going on there which could be helpful in working out any processing kinks.) Talk:Break My Heart (Dua Lipa song)/GA1 was created by the reviewer, not the nominator. It's easy enough from looking at that to see who the reviewer is, but the nominator not so much. From looking at the page history, I can guess who the nominator was (actually that one's easy to guess) but I see the need for trawling through the talk page edits to be sure.
So I will proceed with the algorithm we came up with in mid-June, for the initial development. If that goes well, I'll consider adding a walk through Category:Delisted good articles as a possible enhancement that could either be added to the listed-articles list or used to make a second list. And if the processing turns out to be too intense to keep repeating every time the bot runs to update its report, my inclination would be for the bot to store a table of nominations in its userspace or on a project page to avoid the need to keep searching the talk history again and again to find them. – wbm1058 ( talk) 23:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I've made good progress coding this up. My initial trial run through the first 250 Good Article talk pages found the {{ GA nominee}} template in the page histories of all but six of them. There are at least three different problems causing these not to be found; I am just reporting one of them now. Template:GAC used to redirect to Template:GA nominee (presumably as an acronym for Good Article Candidate) before it was usurped to make a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC on 29 June 2008. A number of nominations may have transcluded this template during the 1 year, 11 months between its 19 July 2006 creation and the 29 June 2008 retargeting. For example, {{ GAC}} was used on Talk:22 Short Films About Springfield at 22:00, 19 October 2007. I can make my bot recognize this alias, but to mitigate potential confusion I intend to undo that usurpation that made the cross-namespace redirect. Alas this new usage was put in a template that was substituted many times so it will take about 1800 edits to bypass that redirect to {{ Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC}}. I've got AutoWikiBrowser set up to make these edits (see example test edit), but will wait a bit for any response here. – wbm1058 ( talk) 00:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
FYI: Found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 5 § Suggested recommended template name change – wbm1058 ( talk) 10:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Why not change {{ GA nominee}} officially to its alternative, {{ GAC}}, to match {{ fac}} Wouldn't even need to move Template:GA nominee, as there's already a redirect. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden talk 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. Homestarmy 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
My script now treats Template:GAnominee, Template:GAC and Template:GAN as aliases of {{ GA nominee}}. I found a few cases where editors failed to {{ subst:GAN}} (e.g. 20 March 2008 edit, 28 March 2008 edit and 13 May 2008 edit). These all predate this move:
My test run through the first 1,000 Good Article talk pages found one case where the talk history had been moved to an archive page. After I merged Talk:1+1 (song)/Archive 1 back into Talk:1+1 (song) (revisions up to 14:57, 20 April 2012) the script was able to find the nominator for that article. Hopefully if there aren't too many other talk archives like this, they can all be manually merged back in similar fashion to help the script find the nomination.
After making these adjustments the script found the GA nominee for all but three of the first 1,000 processed Good Article talk pages. These three date to the earliest days of the GA process, and give some interesting insight into its evolution. Looking at them in order, the first is
Great Comet of 1882 which is one of the small set of founding Good Articles. Wikipedia:Good articles was
created at 13:23, 11 October 2005 by
Worldtraveller, who last contributed on 3 March 2007. Their edit summary: created page, listed a few example articles that I think are good but nowhere near FA
. Their original instructions:
What makes a good article?A good article will share many characteristics with featured articles, and like featured content it should be well written, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. It should definitely be referenced, and wherever possible it should contain images to illustrate it. Good articles may not be as comprehensive as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.
How to list an article on 'good articles'
The process by which articles are designated as 'good' should be much simpler and quicker than that by which articles become featured. List candidate articles on Wikipedia:Good article candidates, where they will be reviewed, and if no-one raises any objections within 24 hours, they may be listed here. If you see an article listed here that you think is not good, you might consider being bold and removing it, leaving a note on its talk page to indicate why you think it is not good.
And, with that 11 October 2005 edit which gave birth to Good Articles Worldtraveller de facto nominated
Great Comet of 1882 to be a
founding Good Article.
At 18:02, 23 October 2005
Slambo placed the {{
GA}} template on
Talk:Great Comet of 1882, as the de facto reviewer.
At 07:36, 2 February 2008
GimmeBot placed {{
ArticleHistory}} on
Talk:Great Comet of 1882, declaring September 26, 2005 as the listing date as that was the
current version on 23 October 2005. Cool, smart bot!
Category:Good articles wasn't created until
29 May 2010.
Spider was
the first article to be nominated by another editor, hours after Good Articles was created. Perhaps after noticing that their instructions to list candidate articles on
Wikipedia:Good article candidates hadn't been followed, Worldtraveller quickly
changed the instructions (let's make it really simple
): "Simply add any articles here that match the criteria." An
edit at 10:53, 24 October 2005 gave shape to the GA criteria (bulleted list so it's easier for readers to see what's required). An
edit on 30 October 2005 added the text "It is probably best to avoid self-nominating articles as this can introduce bias."
The second of the three where the script didn't find the GA nominee is 1997 Pacific hurricane season. This was nominated at 20:19, 12 December 2005.
An edit at 04:53, 24 December 2005 added an "experimental self-nomination system": Wikipedia:Good articles/Self-nominations (now Wikipedia:Good article nominations) was created at 04:52, 24 December 2005.
The third of the three where the script didn't find the GA nominee is A215 road. This was nominated at 13:58, 30 May 2007.
Overall not bad that the bot is not finding nominators for just 0.3% of the first 1,000 Good Articles (3/1000). For now I'll focus on reporting the nominators that have been found while grouping the others into a "nominator undetermined" bucket. Might enhance the script to better handle the older cases later. – wbm1058 ( talk) 20:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Per a {{ policy-change-warning}} (that template was created on 11 March 2006):
Template:GAnominee was created
at 15:53, 19 March 2006 and
this 15:55, 19 March 2006 edit added the instruction to Add {{
GAcandidate}} to the nominated article's talk page.
in addition to List it below under "Nominations" using "{{
article|NAME OF ARTICLE}}". Sign your nomination using four tildes (~~~~).
When the instructions were split to the
Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines subpage
at 17:14, 30 September 2007 they still instructed to list the article at the bottom of the relevant section of
Wikipedia:Good article nominations, until
this 18:06, 18 September 2010 edit removed the need for manually listing there as a bot was implemented to do that.
For the few cases where my bot isn't finding {{ GA nominee}} in the article's talk history, I can have it look back through the Wikipedia:Good article nominations edit history from the 17:52, 18 September 2010 TRANSITION TO BOT FORMAT when {{ GANentry}} replaced {{ la}}. This should find a few where an editor posted a nomination to WP:Good article nominations but neglected to post {{ GA nominee}} to the article's talk, and also nominations that predated the creation of {{ GA nominee}}. – wbm1058 ( talk) 21:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
" it's not self-noms that we're discouraging, it's self-promotions" – Slambo, 20:37, 1 March 2006
I'm continuing to work on "data-cleaning" including doing history-merges that help my bot find the nominations. The bot couldn't find any nomination in the page history of Talk:Fraser Kershaw and this edit by Chapter35 (whose contributions imply a possible COI) explains why. – wbm1058 ( talk) 01:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
4,431 editors have nominated at least one Good Article. As of yesterday, when this report was generated, there are 32,118 Good Articles. The program found nominators for 32,008 of them (99.7%). The 110 articles for which the nominator wasn't found generally date to 2007 and earlier. Here are the top forty:
1 Sturmvogel 66 => 731 2 Parsecboy => 593 3 TonyTheTiger => 335 4 Hurricanehink => 296 5 Gen. Quon => 272 6 MWright96 => 258 7 Chiswick Chap => 247 8 Hawkeye7 => 247 9 Mitchazenia => 232 10 Miyagawa => 217 11 Sasata => 216 12 ChrisGualtieri => 206 13 Imzadi1979 => 193 14 Arsenikk => 191 15 The Rambling Man => 186 16 Cplakidas => 185 17 Dough4872 => 182 18 Magicpiano => 175 19 Epicgenius => 174 20 SounderBruce => 173 21 12george1 => 171 22 Courcelles => 154 23 Hunter Kahn => 152 24 Cyclonebiskit => 150 25 Encyclopædius => 138 26 Yellow Evan => 137 27 Carbrera => 136 28 Ritchie333 => 131 29 Cartoon network freak => 130 30 ThinkBlue => 128 31 Grapple X => 126 32 Bellhalla => 125 33 Rodw => 124 34 Ruby2010 => 123 35 Hchc2009 => 120 36 Jackyd101 => 120 37 ProtoDrake => 116 38 Another Believer => 112 39 Ealdgyth => 111 40 Ed! => 111
I'm thinking it would be good to create a subpage for each editor to list each of their nominations. – wbm1058 ( talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The GAN template lists a single nomination. If it's a co-nom, how do the bots handle the 2nd nominator as far as crediting both users for promoting it to GA (provided it passes the review}? Atsme Talk 📧 20:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
|note= USER is a co-nominator
to note a co-nom. See the formatting added
here and
here for currently open examples. There has been discussion about adding support for a co-nominator
dating back to at least 2014. The template does not otherwise support a second nominator, and AFAIK the bot does not recognize it, but both users obviously can take credit. A reviewer should manually use {{
GANotice}} to notify the noted co-nom about their nomination. Hopefully that makes sense Best,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
21:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)When you use the start review tab to create the framework of the review (basically the pre-loaded part), the section two heading is titled GA Review, which is not compliant with MOS:HEADING. See Talk:Japanese destroyer Shii/GA1 for an example. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the preloaded header produces a MOS error that at a number of reviewers would comment on in a GA review? Hog Farm Bacon 01:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello all. There are currently at least five open GANs that were nominated by (indefinitely) blocked users. CommanderWaterford has Wolfgang Diewerge, Kailash Satyarthi, and Cemetery of San Fernando, and ZarhanFastfire nominated Clifford Wiens, Daniel Cockburn, Donald Shebib, and You Are Here (2010 film). The most concerning fact is that ZFF is currently blocked for copyright violations. Suggestions on how to proceed? None of the articles appear to be quick-fails at a glance, but none are clearly up to our standards either. I'd propose leaving a note at relevant wikiprojects to see if anyone is willing to take on the nomination and if not, failing the nominations. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering if this needs a second opinion. The reviewer has relatively few edits in total, and passed the 1 Wall Street article as a GA immediately after leaving comments and making one edit to the article themselves. That in itself is not too concerning, though I would've expected that a few issues might have been brought up in an article of this size. What does concern me a bit is that the review doesn't explicitly mention the criteria, although the review seems to touch on everything in the GA criteria. I would appreciate any feedback on whether this review is all right. epicgenius ( talk) 16:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
the large majority of the citations originate from reputable sources, we'd expect all of the sources to be from reputable sources. Without giving a thorough read-through, I'd also imagine that there are small things within the article to fix. The editor seems to be a good-faith reviewer, so maybe just asking for a second opinion would help? they did seem to pretty substantially edit the lede, though I'm not convinced all the changes improved readability. I'd be happy to give a more detailed review, either informally on the talk page of the article or more formally through a GA process. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
the reviewer lays out how they feel it meets the criteria pretty clearly. However, if you think there are small things that need to be fixed, I'm fine with an informal review. epicgenius ( talk) 16:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I am currently reviewing a GAN that has a number of broken links in the references section. Should I expect the nominator to repair them? Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 18:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
One of my nominations, East Bengal Ultras failed for the 3rd time. I will be grateful if someone becomes my mentor and guides me to promote the article to GA. ❯❯❯ S A H A 08:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
User:The Ultimate Boss (previously known as DarklyShadows) promoted the Can't Tell Me Nothing song article to GA status without making any comments whatsoever and did the same for the IDGAF song article just 7 minutes later. I find this concerning because this user clearly has not given these articles a proper review while 6 of their own song articles are currently up for nomination. ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 09:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
ThedancingMOONpolice, The two editors had to wait almost a week for a review, so I took my time and thought both of them did great. And btw, there are a lot of editors that do the same thing. Why not snitch on them too? If you have a problem with me, just tell me. This has happened before, so if you want to get me I’m trouble go right ahead. This doesn’t affect me at all in real life. IDC. I’m going to ping Kyle Peake and LOVI33. The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 12:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, I have gotten rid of the of my GA articles that weren’t being reviewed. So thanks a lot ;). The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 12:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Pell's equation/GA1, Talk:Ideal polyhedron/GA1, Talk:Sylvester–Gallai theorem/GA1, all created within the span of less than an hour by HeartGlow30797 ( talk · contribs). The first was a nomination by someone else (although I have worked on the article in the past); the second two are nominations by me.
Do we have a review drive on, or something that would encourage new reviewers? Because the reviews also do say that they are HeartGlow30797's first reviews. We do need reviewers, and I want to encourage HeartGlow30797 and other would-be reviewers instead of biting them, but we need their reviews to be competent and non-bitey. Would it be possible for someone to take this reviewer in hand and guide them a little better in terms of what is expected in a review and how to make more specific requests to article editors that will guide them to actual improvements in articles? Or at least, can I get a disinterested opinion in these three reviews and what to do about the mess they've made of these three GA nominations? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
There's now three GAs of warships of the Confederate States of America, and they're in this section. It seems really odd to have them listed here, considering they were used in combat against the US. However, whether or not the CSA was a separate country is rather debatable, see Confederate States of America#International diplomacy for background. How should the listing of these GAs be handled? Hog Farm Bacon 16:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Warfare#Warships of Yugoslaviathen
Warfare#Warships of Confederate States of Americacould work, but if that proves controversial, maybe something like
Warfare#Otherper
Armies and military units#Other warships? Mujinga ( talk) 14:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
After reading an article in the Signpost that talked of the need for a new bot, I have set up this page (shortcut WP:GANSORT) that lists GA-nominated pages with no review in progress (page list is pulled from Category:Good_article_nominees_awaiting_review). Pages are sorted using ORES, and an excerpt is shown. Lemme know what you think about this. I have set up the bot to update the page everyday at 05:00 UTC.
Suggestions for any improvements are welcome. I see that legobot also includes the number of reviews by the nominators in its listing. If this information is useful, I could probably include that as well (but at the moment, I don't know where this information can be fetched from). SD0001 ( talk) 14:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, after really successful backlog drives in October last year, and May 2020 I would like to organise another backlog drive. We have just shot up over 500 nominations and whilst this is by no means as high as it has been we are now long enough removed for reviewers to recover from any fatigue they might have had from the last one. This also fits in really well with the final round of the wikicup. I propose:
Let me know your thoughts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, if this is going to run in September, it needs to be set up this weekend to start at the end of Monday. If October, then we have plenty of time. I'm happy to put the usual notice on the GAN page and to help set up the charts and table if you'd like—as this is running one month rather than two, we can go back to the simpler versions for the former. Please let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I've been planning on reviewing my first GA nom for a while now so count me in to. (Please feel free to let me know if I mess up as I've haven't reviewed any GA noms before). REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 14:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
How much can I copy-edit the article I'm reviewing? If the issues are minor its faster to fix them myself. VR talk 02:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The title Super Outbreak needs to have "Tornado" put in front. There's plenty of people who don't know the formal name of this disaster. My first search "Tornado outbreak May 27 2011" brought up the article for May 21-26, 2011 and I couldn't find the article for May 27.
This is worrisome because I'm very familiar with tornadoes and the science behind them. If I can't find it easily, then a large group of people won't find it at all.
So, I recommend that the title be amended to this: Tornado Super Outbreak May 27, 2011" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.203.185.185 ( talk) 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I would be surprised if review discussions weren't archived, but I'm having trouble finding any links to previous reviews of an article/articles that aren't listed on the current reviews board. BlackholeWA ( talk) 16:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I realize this is an ongoing issue (and not only at GAC), but I was hoping there is a better way, a timeline guide for potential reviewers. The difference between GA reviews and others such as DYK, is that whoever is allegedly doing a review, is the only one who can wrap it up. Right now, like a lot of nominators, I've been waiting since May for a review of Gloria Swanson. I did not anticipate a rapid response, as this is a hefty article to read through. Long story short - Gloria Swanson/GA1 was finally opened on August 19. And then ... absolutely nothing. I've recently posted an inquiry on the potential reviewer's talk page, and they are otherwise active, but no response.
As frustrating as that is, it's not a first for me or anyone else. It's just ... well ... rude. And unproductive. But probably in step with how Wikipedia works. There are assorted instances where a reviewer does their thing, and the nominator never responds. Or the reviewer never finishes the review, and doesn't respond to attempted contacts with them. Or any number of variations on those.
I don't suppose we could come up with a very basic guideline, that if an editor opens a GAC template and says they'll be the reviewer ... they have to at least actually begin the review within a given time period. And if they don't, the template can be cancelled out, or someone else can take over the review. — Maile ( talk) 22:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Remember: Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. Do not stop half way through and just leave it. Consider reviewing only one or two articles at a time and plan to wrap up your review in about seven days.As an admin, you can just delete the review page, notify the reviewer, and adjust the GA nominee template if a reviewer hasn't returned in a couple of weeks, even if they're active elsewhere. Most nominators just have to wait it out until the delay is painful, a month or (much) more, before they finally ask for help. And the laggard reviewers aren't always cooperative. BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset and The Rambling Man: I hope I did this correctly. The review started, but I decided I need another reviewer, and stated my reasons on the template. The reviewer is OK with this, but did not do a "Fail". I did the "Fail", to close the template, so I can start over. And I felt it was important to keep the history of what review was already there. — Maile ( talk) 13:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
This might be pertinent to the Legobot, which seems to be about a day and a half behind, and might continue as such for a few days: Village Pump: Toolforge problems? — Maile ( talk) 19:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Still no updates to GAN since 8 September. ( t · c) buidhe 07:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't Smile at Me was failed because of edit warring. I get it is immediately failed it that happens, but what if it was almost a month ago? Is it still possible for a quick fail? The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 01:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, it's my first time reviewing a nominee, and I seem to be close to done, could someone else check it out and tell me how I can improve and whatnot? Thanks! Talk:Network_synthesis/GA1 Dh.wp ( talk) 23:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The page Network synthesis seems to have been reviewed and passed for GA, and I removed the topicon from the page due to the review being unusually short (both in time and content) and for the nomination seemingly disappearing from the nominations page. My own attempts to locate when it was removed have came up short. I am hoping that those more familiar with the process could provide input on the article being removed from GA status until it the process is followed correctly. Thepenguin9 ( talk) 10:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Passing: This just meets my standards, but please split this article into different sections.PythonSwarm, this is completely unacceptable; articles have to be assessed against the agreed criteria and not your personal criteria. Assessments should be referencing those criteria and how the article fares against each. If editors have invested significant time and effort in developing articles they deserve better than a single throwaway line of review which frankly in this case doesn't make sense. I am struggling to understand why, when the two previous reviews you have conducted are both being discussed here, you think it is appropriate to conduct another in the same style without discussing the issues raised regarding the first two. I really urge you to step away from conducting GA assessments until such time as you can demonstrate a better understanding of how assessments should be conducted. Nthep ( talk) 12:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
allowing the pen to be quot pushed quot against the skin, apparently translating the quotation mark to the word "quot"). I'm not going to intervene because I'm not a GA reviewer, but I see that you've pinged Woody below and this has escalated to the administrator's noticeboard for discussion of a topic ban. GeneralNotability ( talk) 13:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Will someone please decide either that the GA status of network synthesis is going to stand, or else put it back in the queue for review, or else let it stand and send to FAR. The back and forth removing the topicon and putting it back is getting silly. Plus, removing the topicon does not actually stop it being a GA article. It is still listed. Spinning Spark 14:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I've deleted the Automatic Scorer review and the Network Synthesis review has been deleted by someone else after a request by PythonSwarm. I have reverted the GA notice on the talk pages and reinstated the nominations on the talk page and on the GAN page. Essentially back to the status quo before PythonSwarm commenced the reviews. Woody ( talk) 10:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I discovered that there are two articles which are currently still affected by current events but were nominated for Good Article status, although it may still not stable due to heavy edits and the content could change time by time. The article in question are Transmission of COVID-19 (due to COVID-19 pandemic still ongoing) and Joe Biden (due to upcoming US elections). Should the editor warn the nominator that it was too early to nominate due to potentially could have content changed rapidly as it's affected by current events and remove from nomination until the article status has become stable? WPSamson ( talk) 03:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I started the review of Gratian, but the bot have not updated the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that the article is being reviewed, and have not informed the nominator that the article is being reviewed. What did I wrong? Borsoka ( talk) 02:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add all review comments below this comment, and do not alter what is above.In particular, the "Review:" line has to end with the date, and be in the exact format that I've shown. No comments should be included in that section, nor should a review table. I've adjusted the review page, and the bot should take care of things the next time it runs (about ten minutes from now). If not, I'll keep working at it. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Paradise (nightclub) just passed its GA review, but Legobot just
removed the article from the nomination page as "maintenance" and did not add the GA icon to the article or the oldid to the talk page. How can this be fixed? Is it okay to manually add the GA icon?
Armadillo
pteryx
05:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Move good/featured article topicons next to article name. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
23:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
After reviewing Die güldne Sonne voll Freud und Wonne for Gerda Arendt and placing the article on hold for a week, it was heavily edited by someone else (without any discussion taking place). The article now appears quite different from the one I reviewed and now cannot yet be passed: both Gerda Arendt and I are unhappy about some of the changes made after the review was completed. I'm confused about the correct way forward here—do I have to add more comments for Gerda Arendt to address and risk this editor's interference again, or should I fail the article? Amitchell125 ( talk) 13:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Help us test our problematic statement detection system. We hope to deploy this to help editors.
We are developing an AI to automatically detect issues in articles related to: NPOV, CLARIFY and CITE. We need help evaluating how well the model is working. We are asking for a group of volunteers to evaluate a set of sentences that are flagged by the AI. The landing page for evaluations can be found here. This page has a small set of examples for each issue. We have included sub-pages that include more examples (e.g. More POV examples). If you want to help, please assess as many example statements as you can. The more assessments we get, the better we can judge our model and make improvements. A description of our research project is on meta. Sumit ( talk) 23:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb decided to edit the template to move the nominator/nomination information earlier in the display, in the interests of saving space. I had always thought of this information as equivalent to a sig, and easier to see who had nominated it and when.
When I reverted them, rather than going with WP:BRD, they reverted me. So now we can discuss this here, and (with my impending second reversion) keep the template display as it is until we have consensus here at GAN on how we'd prefer the display to look. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Good article nominations/Archive 24 is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at an unspecified date. To complete the template use: {{ GA nominee|~~~~~|nominator=~~~|page=1|status=|subtopic=}} Please use the
|
![]() | Good article nominations/Archive 24 is currently a
good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at an unspecified date. To complete the template use: {{
GA nominee|~~~~~|nominator=~~~|page=1|status=|subtopic=}}
Please use the
|
![]() | Good article nominations/Archive 24 is currently a Science good article nominee. Nominated by Headbomb { t · c · p · b} at 02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)
|
![]() | Good article nominations/Archive 24 is currently a Science
good article nominee. Nominated by
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} at
02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) |
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have a problem with Talk:1970 United States Senate election in New York/GA1. Nomader, who is the currently reviewer, hasn't said anything since September 9, and Nomader's last edit on the site was October 4. Nomader only had a problem with the MOS of one section so I am wondering if somebody could do the last step? Sorry if this is the wrong place I was told to go here by EpicGenius. Jon698 ( talk) 23:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
A new user indicated a willingness to review my GA nomination of Little Women (2019 film) on October 9. I'm pessimistic about them following through given that they have not been active since then. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to proceed? Thank you in advance! KyleJoan talk 05:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
What is the procedure if an article was a good article but now has deficiencies?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, it looks like a number of older GAs no longer meet the criteria. I know everyone's busy, and project involvement here is down, but it looks like some form of sweeps in necessary. I just had a recent GAR for an article that was in this state at the time of the GAR. The GAR thankfully attracted attention, and the issues have been very nicely resolved, but the fact that an article in that state has the GA banner reduces the value of GA. Also take To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants, which has many issues, and I am about to open a GAR on it. I'm worried that there are significant problems here with older promotions (and probably even some newer ones), and something likely needs to be done if the GA assessment is going to keep meaning something. Hog Farm Bacon 19:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Hog Farm, Kew Gardens 613, Eddie891, MrLinkinPark333, and Barkeep49: What say we create a task force specifically for GA reassessment, with a priority list of tasks? I'd also push for a (small) talkpage banner, so there's an automatic category set-up as new "potentially needs reassessment" articles come in. Kingsif ( talk) 21:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Here is a list of articles with cleanup tags and GA queries on talk page, left by me today. I also opened a couple of GA reassessments. Feel free to add. Possibly we should have a template like there is at WP:FAR. ( t · c) buidhe 21:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This article, Rajnath Singh, is currently a GA nom under the "Politics and government" section. The user who nominated it has been blocked indefinitely. Please can someone remove the article from the GA list. I am not sure as to what the correct procedure is. DTM ( talk) 13:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
What is to be done if the GA and A-class review of the same article has started parallelly? Borsoka ( talk) 05:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to say that I have regrettably withdrawn from reviewing Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse). The associated review and comments from editors are here. As layout is a requirement for GA, I referred to MOS:TV. Due to (my perceived) lack of clarity regarding MOS:TVPLOT for television crossover articles, a disagreement arose with the nominator, Favre1fan93. Second opinions were sought, and were mostly beneficial. I however felt personally attacked by the comments of Alex 21 for simply noting my original opinion (which had already changed given others' comments) and felt pressured into promoting. I thought I respected them as an editor due to their wonderful template contributions, but felt discouraged from continuing to review or even note any further disagreements due to their comments. They did not seem to have an understanding of the GA criteria or process either. There were also other comments by Aircorn which I don't think were addressed appropriately. Therefore, I felt any further of my comments would have been a waste of time. This was not a beneficial process to the nominator or myself. I hope someone with more knowledge of Arrowverse articles is able to review this article. Heartfox ( talk) 16:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I nominated European early modern human, and the review was started by Benson85, but I don't believe s/he actually meant to start the review, and I'm fairly certain they're unfamiliar with the MOS. Is there a way to close the review without having to fail and renominate it? User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 17:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The Ultimate Boss has been working productively on Billie Eilish and music-related topics lately, but after reviewing Where's My Mind Tour (where I noticed significant issues so didn't do as much due diligence as I normally would) I saw that the article had been failed for GA a week before, with a good list of constructive criticisms that the nominator got very angry at and didn't engage in. The Ultimate Boss was also quite angry at my review, I think. They nominated the page for deletion and, upon me reverting a PROD (it would need to go to AFD), instead immediately nominated it for GA a third time. I reverted this (invoking WP:IAR) and was reverted back. I then found that the underlying reason was the good topic candidacy of dont smile at me, which would be closer to passing were the article either deleted or passed for GA. The article appears notable to me but it's a long way from GA standard.
We've recently added a new
quickfail criterion, A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered
, which I would suggest that an independent reviewer invoke, but I also think it would be helpful if some other people could talk to the user. The Ultimate Boss told me You are not in the position to decide to get rid of my GA nominations. If it’s an admin, then that’s fine.
and ignored my subsequent talk page message but been editing since. The user could be quite young and it is worth bearing in mind that they have been making productive contributions in this area before now. —
Bilorv (
talk)
21:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I left a note on TheEpicGhosty's talk page but since then other somewhat-hurried/not-detailed Reviews have also come to light - see Talk:Systime Computers/GA2, Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/GA2, Talk:Jonathan Scott (television personality)/GA1, etc. Is there a procedure for assessing or rolling back these GA Reviews? For instance, I just don't see how it is possible to do a valid GA Review of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in less than 30 minutes. And they are starting these GA Reviews and then passing them to GA status without any input from other editors...like the people who helped write the article in the first place. I get that EpicGhosty seems new and seems to want to help but I am troubled by the sheer numbers of these very quick GA Reviews... I don't know where my concerns should be posted but this talk page seemed like one of the Wiki-places that could be appropriate for a discussion. Shearonink ( talk) 16:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I just moved the above discussion from WT:GAR to here, since this is where we discuss issues in the GAN process, including reviews; perhaps a consensus can be found on how to proceed. Pinging Shearonink, Berchanhimez, Aircorn, and TheEpicGhosty so they know where it has gone. TheEpicGhosty's only prior GA review was Talk:Alan Dershowitz/GA1 back in February, and it looked much the same as the new ones except that the final "pass" wasn't done on the article talk page; the review was taken over later that month, and as there were problems with the article that didn't get fixed, the nomination failed. Their first recent review was Talk:Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse)/GA2; after it passed, and a subsequent review was done at DYK, a copyvio was noted and fixed, which is troubling. I think it would be wise to have a second reviewer recheck the articles, if one can be found. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! The October 2020 backlog drive has concluded, thanks to all who participated. While not all reviews have been checked by the co-ordinators (we're working on it!), tentative credit has been given to 44 participants who completed a total of 358 reviews. We were able to bring the backlog down from 606 to 361 outstanding nominations, and from 552 to 285 unreviewed ones. That's a drop of 48.4%, and what I'd consider another success! Special congratulations to MWright96, who completed 56 reviews (the most), and thanks to BlueMoonset and Aircorn whose invaluable gnoming has helped keep the GAN process running (semi)-smoothly. If there are any suggestions on how to improve the drive, please don't hesitate to let me or anyone else know. Thanks again to everyone who participated, and until next time (maybe March?) -- Eddie891 Talk Work 20:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to review the GAN Yusuf Sayfa by Al Ameer son, but saw it had already begun by apparent junk edits [1] by an IP. Could it be reset so I can review it? FunkMonk ( talk) 22:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is one citation away from GA. Unfortunately, this nomination languished more than five and a half months, and in that time the editor has stopped being active on Wikipedia.
Can someone step up and provide the missing citation mentioned in Talk:Lights (musician)/GA2? I don't want to fail an article that is so close because of the slowness of the GA system as a whole. Raymie ( t • c) 07:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I was just on my way out, but I noticed that a brand new account, @ GANreviewer, just created and passed Talk:The National WWII Museum/GA1 with no prior edits - is there any guideline on experience needed before being able to conduct a good article review? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 17:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed that as well. That was a very odd occurrence. Was it a rogue bot or something?
StubCreatorAFC (
talk) 17:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC) strike sock comment
Dreamy Jazz
talk to me |
my contributions
21:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I just started my first GA review. I am afraid of making faux-pas. It looks to me as if the nominator does not know that I have started the review of the article George II of Greece nominated by him. A GA1 page was created when I clicked Start Review link, and I have written on this GA1 page to review it, but the nominator (who is not very experienced) does not reply on it. The nominator is however active editing the nominated page. I think I am not supposed to write on the nominator's talk page or to ping him/her/them. I expected that an automatic GANotice notification alerting the nominator would appear on his/her/their talk page, but I have looked there and can't see one. I may have done something wrong or omitted an important step. Please have a look — and please advise and correct me. Perhaps I should have approached GA first as a nominator, but as participants should do two reviews for each nomination, I thought I should do my duty before the pleasure. With many, many thanks Johannes Schade ( talk) 10:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I reviewed Talk:Sunderland A.F.C. supporters/GA1 and put it on hold a while ago. @ Maxim.il89: has been of Wikipedia for a while and is yet to respond on the review page. The article has been on hold for well over a month. What do I do? REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 20:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
"en dashes" and thingsare a part of the GA criteria. The first criterion is that the article must be well written, and it specifically mentions that this includes grammar and MOS compliance. Armadillo pteryx 21:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, a review with such brevity is always going to be regarded as dubious and certainly doesn't seem to be in the spirit of GA even if it meets the letter of the GA "law". I personally think I have a relatively high standard of GA review which incorporates substantial elements of MOS and look for elegant and compelling prose. The article in question here, Aparna Rao, is by no means a poor one, but in its current form I would be keeping it on hold. There are issues with poor grammar, poor citation placement, some odd linking, some missing detail (when was she given her singular award?), MOS fails (e.g. MOS:HYPHEN), repeated notes etc etc. While I wouldn't class any single one of these as a GAN fail, I would class the collective as needing attention and would highlight it and work with the author to resolve the issues. To reiterate: the original brief and undetailed review may "pass the bar" but the article certainly can use a lot of work. I'll leave it to others to determine if such (basic) failings are the kinds of things we want to encourage to be overlooked at GAN. The Rambling Man ( Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I just saw this section. I've seen in the past in issues of inexperienced reviewers, the GA review is essentially "reverted" and the article moved back to the top of the queue. Would this be a possible situation to consider here? I'd appreciate at least a bit of a more detailed review to get valuable feedback on the article (and I'm sure Мастер Шторм would be as well). I would also note that right cite has started another review on a page we've been working on: Talk:Stephen Fuchs/GA1 (will wait to see the depth of comments on that one). Sam-2727 ( talk) 02:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm very concerned that there doesn't appear to be much understanding of the need for high-quality sources, that articles should be structured around high-quality sources, due weight depending upon the quality of sources and the context they provide, and what it means to be encyclopedic. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
As Right cite, Cirt conducted and passed the following reviews. They should be re-examined and/or reopened, given the issues that followed the Aparna Rao nomination and their own socking. They opened three reviews on October 27, one of which (Ready Player One) received attention over a number of edits and the other two weren't looked at again until they were passed in the same 24-hour period that another group of three reviews were opened and passed, after which they quickfailed one:
Kingsif, I noticed you took over the Talk:Ready Player One (film)/GA1 review, which was the only one still ongoing. Might you be willing to take a look at any of these? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I was asked for an update of the list I published on 23 July 2020. With the caveat that I haven't upgraded my PHP program that generated the list, so the same inaccuracies remain, here is an updated and expanded list. I still have working on further enhancements to this on my to-do list. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - -
4,337 editors have nominated at least one Good Article. As of yesterday, when this report was generated, there are 32,857 Good Articles. The program found nominators for 32,746 of them (99.7%). The 111 articles for which the nominator wasn't found generally date to 2007 and earlier. Here are the top 121 (anyone with 50 or more GAs). The numbers after +=
are the running total of GAs produced by the top contributors.
1 Sturmvogel 66 => 777 += 777 2 Parsecboy => 608 += 1385 3 TonyTheTiger => 331 += 1716 4 Hurricanehink => 301 += 2017 5 Gen. Quon => 282 += 2299 6 Chiswick Chap => 270 += 2569 7 MWright96 => 263 += 2832 8 Hawkeye7 => 259 += 3091 9 Mitchazenia => 226 += 3317 10 Miyagawa => 219 += 3536 11 Sasata => 216 += 3752 12 ChrisGualtieri => 208 += 3960 13 Epicgenius => 208 += 4168 14 The Rambling Man => 197 += 4365 15 Imzadi1979 => 193 += 4558 16 Cplakidas => 191 += 4749 17 Arsenikk => 189 += 4938 18 Dough4872 => 184 += 5122 19 12george1 => 178 += 5300 20 Magicpiano => 175 += 5475 21 SounderBruce => 174 += 5649 22 Courcelles => 155 += 5804 23 Hunter Kahn => 150 += 5954 24 Cyclonebiskit => 148 += 6102 25 Carbrera => 144 += 6246 26 Encyclopædius => 143 += 6389 27 Ritchie333 => 141 += 6530 28 Yellow Evan => 139 += 6669 29 Cartoon network freak => 135 += 6804 30 Grapple X => 130 += 6934 31 ThinkBlue => 130 += 7064 32 ProtoDrake => 128 += 7192 33 Bellhalla => 126 += 7318 34 Rodw => 124 += 7442 35 Ruby2010 => 123 += 7565 36 Wizardman => 121 += 7686 37 Jackyd101 => 120 += 7806 38 Hchc2009 => 119 += 7925 39 Another Believer => 116 += 8041 40 Doug Coldwell => 112 += 8153 41 IndianBio => 112 += 8265 42 Ealdgyth => 110 += 8375 43 Ed! => 110 += 8485 44 Cirt => 109 += 8594 45 Yzx => 107 += 8701 46 Theleftorium => 105 += 8806 47 Nova Crystallis => 103 += 8909 48 Czar => 97 += 9006 49 Gerda Arendt => 97 += 9103 50 PresN => 97 += 9200 51 MPJ-DK => 95 += 9295 52 Tomobe03 => 95 += 9390 53 Piotrus => 94 += 9484 54 Jo-Jo Eumerus => 93 += 9577 55 Kew Gardens 613 => 92 += 9669 56 Cwmhiraeth => 91 += 9760 57 Igordebraga => 91 += 9851 58 Harrias => 90 += 9941 59 Thegreatdr => 90 += 10031 60 Calvin999 => 88 += 10119 61 Lee Vilenski => 88 += 10207 62 Borsoka => 86 += 10293 63 Midnightblueowl => 86 += 10379 64 Aoba47 => 84 += 10463 65 Legolas2186 => 84 += 10547 66 Juliancolton => 81 += 10628 67 Ironholds => 80 += 10708 68 Scorpion0422 => 76 += 10784 69 Starstriker7 => 76 += 10860 70 Dana boomer => 74 += 10934 71 Resolute => 74 += 11008 72 Jaguar => 72 += 11080 73 Ian Rose => 71 += 11151 74 Muboshgu => 71 += 11222 75 Floydian => 70 += 11292 76 Gary => 70 += 11362 77 Isento => 70 += 11432 78 Crisco 1492 => 69 += 11501 79 Zawed => 69 += 11570 80 KAVEBEAR => 68 += 11638 81 Judgesurreal777 => 67 += 11705 82 AustralianRupert => 66 += 11771 83 JG66 => 65 += 11836 84 Sabrebd => 65 += 11901 85 Nvvchar => 64 += 11965 86 BlueMoonset => 63 += 12028 87 Kosack => 63 += 12091 88 Al Ameer son => 62 += 12153 89 Lemonade51 => 62 += 12215 90 My love is love => 60 += 12275 91 SusunW => 60 += 12335 92 CaliforniaDreamsFan => 59 += 12394 93 HĐ => 59 += 12453 94 Iazyges => 59 += 12512 95 Sanfranciscogiants17 => 58 += 12570 96 TarkusAB => 58 += 12628 97 Redtigerxyz => 57 += 12685 98 Spinningspark => 57 += 12742 99 Frickative => 56 += 12798 100 TheAustinMan => 56 += 12854 101 West Virginian => 56 += 12910 102 Candyo32 => 55 += 12965 103 Ichthyovenator => 54 += 13019 104 Viridiscalculus => 54 += 13073 105 Yeepsi => 54 += 13127 106 11JORN => 53 += 13180 107 Bencherlite => 53 += 13233 108 CorporateM => 53 += 13286 109 Nergaal => 53 += 13339 110 Rhain => 53 += 13392 111 Toa Nidhiki05 => 53 += 13445 112 Auntieruth55 => 52 += 13497 113 Glimmer721 => 52 += 13549 114 Hog Farm => 52 += 13601 115 97198 => 51 += 13652 116 Dunkleosteus77 => 51 += 13703 117 Petergriffin9901 => 51 += 13754 118 Tintor2 => 51 += 13805 119 Gog the Mild => 50 += 13855 120 Mattythewhite => 50 += 13905 121 Trust Is All You Need => 50 += 13955
Again, this is just a beta report. The list is not 100% accurate, as there are known bugs in the program. But the numbers are reasonably close to being accurate. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
My last run took 16 hours, 18 minuteswow, well my code takes 15–20 minutes. The secret lies in concurrency. The MediaWiki API is very robust and resilient – for read queries, you don't have to be kind and just send one query at a time. You can process 40 pages simultaneously. (In fact, some tools like Twinkle send as many 50 concurrent queries even for write operations like deleting pages!). – SD0001 ( talk) 03:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
A note for reviewers: The WP:OPED shortcut (which some reviewers have used fairly often) has been re-targeted to the same Signpost submissions page as WP:OP-ED. The MoS section the shortcut formerly pointed to already had (and still has) MOS:OPED and MOS:OP-ED and MOS:EDITORIAL shortcuts. In particular, if you have a custom template you use for doing reviews and it makes reference to that guideline, please update any WP:OPED shortcut in it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
A note about formatting of the list of nominations page—and I might be just running low on sleep—but I was really confused by the "(start review) (Reviews: #) [Username]" layout. Even after reading through the instructions, I was under the impression that the Reviews: number count was for current reviews of a given nomination, and kept trying to look for them in the talk page like a very confused moth drawn to a non-existent flame. I didn't realize it actually referred to a user's review count until I noticed two by the same user in a row. Would it perhaps be advisable to move the number count to after the username? I initially passed over an article I had wanted to review because I thought it was covered already (thinking perhaps the "discuss review" option only came up after the review was finished). WhinyTheYounger ( talk) 04:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, the GA review for Priscilla Jana is nearly done and the only lingering question regards the image, File:Priscilla Jana.jpeg. Could someone experienced in fair-use images kindly advise us on whether a further rationale needs to be appended or if it already has the needed information? The file is only being used in this one entry, but the “add a rationale” banner is tripping us up. Many thanks, Innisfree987 ( talk) 15:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likelyHoping a shoebox full of public domain images magically appears or requiring that we spam people's email isn't "reasonably likely". — Wug· a·po·des 22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
See the edit history at Talk:Robin Hood (2010 film)/GA1. I've posted to the editor's user talk asking for clarification but darned if I can find any specific policy saying there can't be more than one Reviewer and maybe I'm missing it but I don't see a request for a second opinion... Help? Shearonink ( talk) 05:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.Bold mine. So yeah it's allowed and actually encouraged to get more opinions on a review, its just up to the first reviewer (i.e. the person who created the page and is listed at the top of the review) to make the final decision. AIRcorn (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome).It's a feature, not a bug. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
While looking for a GA to review, I noticed that 66.103.58.199 has made what appears to be a test edit (see the edit summary), but it started the GA review for James Oglethorpe Monument. (Courtesy ping to @ 66.103.58.199:, if you're still around at all.) Should this page be deleted so that JJonahJackalope can get a review? Thanks! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 19:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
A number of articles that have been recently delisted per WP:GAR still need reassessment — for example, Sorry (Madonna song). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could someone take a look at Talk:Sarah_Cooper/GA1? Reviewer intended to pass the article but may need some advice about the process. Any observations to help improve the article would be welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above suggests this is the right place for a GAN revert. At Talk:Arbus, Sardinia/GA1, a new user Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (<50 edits) has made what appears to be an entirely inadequate review. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I am completing a GAN on Jacob Earl Fickel, and am confused about where to list it as a passed GA. Help! Georgejdorner ( talk) 20:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to propose something formal for sub-par reviews, and how we deal with them. We currently post any reviews that are either of poor quality or reviews that are ok, but the articles themselves clearly don't meet the criteria on this page, and then gain a consensus whether we should delete the review, continue with the status quo, go via WP:GAR etc.
I think this actually happens quite a lot; so a formal process, or at least something official as to how we deal with these should be added to our rules. I'm open to any input on how this should be implemented, but I did come up with a couple ideas.
I think this issue depends on how much you view these reviews to be a problem. I quite often get asked what to do when someone spots a suspicious review, so having a policy or even a specific area would be a good place to send them. Let me know your thoughts. If this isn't an issue, please disregard :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Is the "You can help!" on the WP:GAN really supposed to be a disambiguation page? I would assume it's supposed to link to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing but I'm unsure how to access whatever template that text is in. Aza24 ( talk) 10:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
When I looked at the topics to select for the article I nominated Frank Bailey (firefighter) (a relatively short article anyway) I was not really sure it fits well under any of the topics so I just left it to auto-classify as Miscellaneous. However, the template is warning about the lack of subtopic so I was wondering if it will still be seen by prospective reviewers under the misc. section or if it is just best to select the most related subtopic? Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone resume the GA review of King Ludwig Oak as it has been abandoned by a new editor Cobalt03 due to some problems as stated on my talk page. See the communication at User_talk:Amkgp#Your_GA_nomination_of_King_Ludwig_Oak. As of now it looks as if someone is actively reviewing. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 16:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This GAR has brought up concerns that the article may not have enough depth to meet WP:GNG or to satisfy the GA criteria for breadth of coverage. We agreed that it may be helpful to get someone else to take a look at the article and add their thoughts to the GAR. Would anyone be able to help, please? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Danielyng I am glad that you are willing to help out with this backlog, but it may be better to start a bit more slowly. ( t · c) buidhe 20:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The GA review was done by a new account with less than 20 edits, all of which are edits of them vandalising, POV-pushing or edit warring on the same article (which they also got banned for). The review itself doesn't properly fit the GA reviews' rules as well. Any idea on what should be done? — CuriousGolden (T· C) 09:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted rather peremptorily a bunch of edits to an article with GA status, "per WP:GA". I have seen this form of words used at other GAs too. But I can't find any such policy? Am I looking in the wrong place? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Question regarding categories: It is not quite clear to me where statues and monuments fall into. Are they architecture? Or are they places? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 12:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I've just noticed that a new user has opened a review of an article they also just nominated. Could someone please delete the GAN? ♦ jaguar 21:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that Wolfwalkers seems to have gained a no-nom GA from an anon user. Thats not normal is it? Its not a GA either, is it? Fob.schools ( talk) 09:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
An IP just opened the review at Talk:Brodie Lee/GA1, and "passed" it... there hasn't been any follow up yet, and the IP seems more interested in spaceflight than wrestling, so could someone roll it back and hope they don't try again? Kingsif ( talk) 13:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, happy holidays and best wishes for the new year! I'm assuming we're on for a reviewing drive in March again-- just mentioning it here in case anyone thinks that's too soon-- we want to avoid burn-out at all costs.
There was some mention recently about creating a task force for sweeps and I think January would be a great time to get that set up and start the process-- it's probably going to be a multi-month if not year effort. If there's interest I'd also be happy to re-set up an irregular newsletter (that could be sent out before a drive, after a drive, whenever there are updates or relevant discussions, but probably not more than quarterly). Any interest in any of this stuff? Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor who registered an account on 14 January and who has had most edits reverted, nomination Holiday World & Splashin' Safari for GA after one minor edit to this currently C-class article. I reverted the nomination. David notMD ( talk) 20:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Ewf9h-bg is both the nominator and reviewer of Talk:Ancient furniture/GA1. It looks like they might not have realized that they have to wait for an uninvolved editor to open the review. ( t · c) buidhe 04:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
G'day all, I am currently reviewing a GAN on a controversial subject, and consider that one aspect of the article does not meet criteria #4 (neutrality). I would prefer to not fail it on my opinion alone, the rest of the article is fine, but am at an impasse with the nominator. Usually, use of a RfC to get a community consensus isn't necessary or even desirable at GAN (in fact WP:RFCNOT says not to), and in nearly 350 GAN reviews, I have never had this arise, but the article seems important enough to me to ask for a community view on neutrality before I fail it on my opinion alone. Is it reasonable to IAR here? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Can an admin delete the following reviews: Talk:Stadium MRT station/GA1, Talk:Fraser's Hill/GA1 and Talk:Arbor Hill Historic District–Ten Broeck Triangle/GA1? The reviewer, AussieCoinCollector, has passed the articles as good articles after making a single comment. For example, at Stadium MRT station, the reviewer noted, "1. No copyright/plagiarism 2. Meets all 6 of the GA criteria. So yes, I would pass this article." However, per WP:GAI#Reviewing these are not substantive enough. Epicgenius ( talk) 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware of three GAs redirected at AFD lately: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Shop (Madonna song) (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complicated (Rihanna song), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway). Is there anything that needs done on the GA end of this to reflect that these are no longer GAs (or articles)? Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I reviewed my first article today (you can find my review here). The writer thought I interpreted the guidelines a bit harshly. Is he correct? Or am I in the right? Please answer honest and direct please :) -- Ruling party ( talk) 23:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Ruling party:
The preferred Overall comment is to start the conversation with "Kindly attend to the issues raised above"
All of that conversation under Overall needs to be indented properly. You need to stay within the boundaries of what is a GA Review.
Nice try, lots to learn, now go and read some GA Reviews by HogFarm or The Most Comfortable Chair or Ealdgyth -- Whiteguru ( talk) 06:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
See here for past Good Article Reviews by the editors mentioned above. (And more) -- Whiteguru ( talk) 07:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to thank all of you for taking time to comment here. I'm not at all annoyed about reading that the article is not broad enough or that any other criterion is not met. Had the complaint been about npov or reliability of a source, I would certainly ask for a third opinion (assuming I cannot resolve the matter with a reviewer). I saw that the scope of the article is a major issue and, after the initial exchange in the review, I felt the review would only proceed after a lengthy discussion what belongs in a GA and what goes into an FA - with either me persuading the reviewer to give in (which is inappropriate) or with me deciding to broaden the article to the indicated scope. I thought that the only way to avoid both of those outcomes is a withdrawal of the nomination.
I have nominated the article to GAN and would naturally like to see it sufficiently improved to meet GA criteria. If the article is so way off the mark, there is no point in pursuing the review any further at this point (at least until it is significantly redone). Obviously, when I submitted the nomination, I thought the article was near enough to warrant a review, but I'm aware I might have missed the mark. Lee Vilenski you are quite welcome to contribute - I would appreciate any input. How would you like to proceed? Cheers-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 14:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I had signed up for Talk:Crusader states/GA2 during the October backlog drive. It took me weeks to gather the source material and I subsequently lost the time needed to continue. Unbeknownst to me, the same article had already been submitted for MILHIST A-class review. All of the changes due to the A-class review have overwhelmed my already-limited ability to keep up. I cannot pass the article as-is because verification problems keep creeping up and Norfolkbigfish (who submitted the GA nom) deserves a complete and correct review which is now months overdue. How shall I proceed? Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a proposal. If a reviewer has started GA review but has not responded in 30 days, a bot (most likely User:Legobot) can notify the reviewer that they have not responded to the GA review in over 30 days. The same could apply to the nominee. If the bot is down, users can put a template on the reviewer's talk page that says the same thing. Any problems, or is this a good idea? Lazman321 ( talk) 18:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I have flagged sections on a GA nominated article, University of Chicago Law School, for lacking any citations or references for content, as required by the verifiability policy and good article criteria, as well as WP:BLP. Nicomachian thinks that my approach is "entirely unreasonable", considering that many other articles have unsourced content. [11] He asks that I put the matter to the community to decide who is right. ( t · c) buidhe 09:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
one of the pre-eminent constitutional law scholars of the 20th centurythat need to be sourced if anything like them is to be said in wiki-voice. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I have noticed that Some Dude From North Carolina has been nominating a bunch of articles for GA recently without having made any or only making a few edits on the last several of them. Most of the latter set's main contributors were inactive for months/years or even blocked as sockpuppets, but it is still strange to see no edit being made at all to the article in the last six months. I brought this up at the unofficial Wikimedia discord server and was told to post my findings here.
Out of the pending noms made by the user so far (edit count by article for the user here at XTools):
MSG17 ( talk) 18:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I feel as long as the nominator is committed to responding to a review it shouldn’t really matter too much about being an extensive contributor. I was chased away from Sonic the Hedgehog (film) because of that, in my opinion, reductive mindset. Rusted AutoParts 03:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Experienced GA reviewer User:HaEr48, who previously completed a review of one of my GA nominations, agreed to be reviewer for my GA nomination of Biotin. We got off to a start, but then HaEr48 stopped doing any edits on any articles. Last edit was 30 January. I left a note on Ha's Talk page. No response. I am willing to wait a bit longer, but want to know if there is a procedure for returning the nominated article to the list of articles awaiting a reviewer. David notMD ( talk) 18:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I've been noticing there have been flawed reviews recently at GAN with the following issues:
Based on these issues, I think there should be more clear instructions to let users know that these things are not appropriate at GAN:
I was wondering if any of these suggestions should be added at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Bold would be addition. In regards to socks Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_24#Winstanley_Estate though that was an afterthought. -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 02:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
My sense is that the three suggestions given above are simple and don't really need any modification. They should go straight into Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions -- Whiteguru ( talk) 04:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
On this Good Article review that started in May (2020) the reviewer has taken a very long time between the time I answered his issues and when he replied again - usually with more issues. I would answer those in a day or two, but the reviewer would take weeks again before he responded. That's why this review has dragged on for over eights months. I recently asked the reviewer if he would be willing to let another reviewer finish off this review. Again he has ignored my pings, but continues editing. I would like to have another reviewer finish off this review. User:Hog Farm (administrator) has volunteered to do the job. What can be done at this point? Thanks for your help. -- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 11:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this review has dragged on for far too long. However, Goldsztajn has just stated on the review, "I'll finalise my comments by the end of the coming weekend." So let's wait until Monday to see what the remaining comments are. If the review doesn't conclude by Monday, then we really should bring in another reviewer. Edge3 ( talk) 18:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Avishai11 has started reviewing my first GAN, Social media in the 2016 United States presidential election, and while I'm sure it's in good faith, I'm not sure they have enough experience to conduct a review. They have 11 mainspace edits in total, of which 6 have been reverted. I would appreciate input from a more experienced GA reviewer on whether to proceed, or whether the review should be paused. Thanks, Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 16:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Guys, last time we did a GAN drive, we had just over 600 nominations, just over 550 of which were unreviewed. Right now (as of 14 February 2021) we have 627 nominations and 536 of them yet to be reviewed. As it takes a few weeks to get a drive up and running with notifications, volunteers to check reviews etc, and even perhaps a pre-Drive discussion over scoring (e.g. should GANs that are >3 months old get bonus points?), I thought I'd start the debate now. I can easily envisage us having more than 600 unreviewed nominations by the time we start. Thoughts? The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
length at nomination vs. age of nomination | 1 month | 2 months | 3+ months |
---|---|---|---|
<500 words | 1 | 2 | 3 |
500-1000 words | 2 | 3 | 4 |
1000-2000 words | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2000-4000 words | 4 | 5 | 6 |
5000+ words | 5 | 6 | 7 |
quick fail | .5 |
Despite the symbol appearing to be the neutral symbol
for a second opinion, I believe this is pretty generic and a different symbol could satisfy this matter. I know this is quite a silly request; would something like
this suffice? Forgive me for my terrible art, I made this on Chrome Canvass.
P
anini
🥪
13:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Jon698 currently has 5 articles in the GAN queue, but he has been relatively inactive since the end of December. See also my discussion thread on his talk page, where I discuss the timeline for the review I'm conducting at Talk:Kathy Karpan/GA1. Goldsztajn has also opened a review at Talk:Darlington Hoopes/GA1, but I suspect that review will also be delayed similarly. Therefore, I'd like to discuss the current status of the following:
I'd appreciate any thoughts you may have. Thanks! Edge3 ( talk) 23:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I think enough time has passed, and we can now conclude that the nomination has been abandoned. However, I'm still interested in getting this to GA status. Would anyone like to take over the review, so that I can go ahead and address the remaining issues? Alternatively, you can step in as a replacement nominator, and I'll remain as the reviewer. Edge3 ( talk) 16:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently in the process of writing a good article review and I've written a lengthy list of specific suggestions for each part of the article that would bring it closer to being a GA. However, I think that, even with the changes, the article might still be shy of reaching good article status. On top of that, some of my suggestions would require entire sections to be rewritten or removed entirely. At this point, I'm wondering if I should just write a review failing the page and make the changes myself or if I should proceed with posting the list of changes that I suggested and see if that helps. benǝʇᴉɯ 12:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
status=2ndopinion|note=New reviewer needed
The fruit of this will be that an experienced reviewer can join and help you with a second opinion --
Whiteguru (
talk)
21:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)I believe Politics of Massachusetts is a well-done, up-to-date article and meets the good article criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.243.237 ( talk) 15:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok Chutyo ( talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Following this discussion, AlabamaFan101 has requested that they withdraw from the GAN of Saquon Barkley. (Independently, I think the review might just need to be closed as the nom only has nine edits to the page and none to the review page.) Could someone help him with that? I don't know the process there. Alyo ( chat· edits) 17:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand the denial for Lead to be a GA article, but could you recommend how to get it to that status? I kind of adopted the page back in 2018 due to the under-sourcing and lack of articles, which I've since spent hundreds of hours sourcing and creating approved articles.
I know the page has the potential to be approved Good Article status, I just need help on how to get it there.
Thank you! Xenobia4 ( talk) 04:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Pinging The Ultimate Boss. Everything here, may I remind you, is of good intentions and I have no hard feelings towards you specifically.
I've currently been waiting about a month-ish now for the review of Super Paper Mario. It is one of the only major works in the series remaining before a Paper Mario good topic is possible. The review was picked up by The Ultimate Boss, but, with all good intentions, I would much prefer another editor to pick this one up. Over the past couple of months, he has attempted 14 FACs which ultimately resulted in negative feedback to which frustrated him and had him forcefully withdraw the nomination; see here for details. This editor is, in no way, harming the encyclopedia, with multiple constant GAs, I would just prefer someone with a more professional and thorough examination (such as here, and although I did not look at the article this review is very short) pick this one up instead. The review has also been collecting dust since late January. P anini 🥪 14:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if a nominator with a COI can nominate their own article. This is in regards to Boaz Eidelberg, which based on the nominator's username, is an autobiography on themselves. They added a COI tag to their userpage before nominating. This is the first time I've seen this happen, and I didn't see a similar past occurrence in the GAN talk pages before. Would a GAN review be effected due to the COI? Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I started reviewing an article for GA, Talk:IRIS Kharg/GA1, but I've realised the nom hasn't edited since November as buidhe pointed out on the talk page. Any advice on what I should do? Kind regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 15:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I've made an observation similar to that raised in the preceding post: an article I'd nominated for GA has been passed in a rather cursory review by a fairly inexperienced editor (Ballpointbiro). I don't think it's much of a problem in the case of said nomination ( Geoffrey Kirk), but this editor might cause problems when reviewing nominations on the trickier end. Since they could have been animated by the current backlog elimination drive, it may be a good idea for one of the co-ordinators to give them a brief heads-up about the process. Modussiccandi ( talk) 14:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
A reviewer with fewer than two hundred edits has passed Woodrow Wilson's GAN, identifying no issues whatsoever. While I suppose it's possible that the article is really that great, it strikes as unlikely that there would be no problems at all with such a lengthy article about such a contentious figure. I'm a bit unsure of the formal procedure here, so I figured I'd just leave a note here so someone could take a closer look. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The LegoBot claimed to have added the nomination for Galileo (spacecraft) twice
[12]
[13] but it wasn't added.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
23:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I'm hoping that someone on this page can take a look at this. I think we should conclude that Jon698 is an infrequent contributor to Wikipedia. While he has been editing articles over the past few months (see his user contributions), his activity has been limited to reversions and minor edits. He has not responded to inquiries on his talk page regarding his GA nominations (see thread 1 and thread 2). Therefore, I would like to recommend that the following nominations be removed from the queue:
This is a follow-up thread to our previous discussion on February 8–18 regarding the same topic. Edge3 ( talk) 16:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Ruth Williams Cupp was moved to Ruth Cupp during the current GA review, but the Talk:Ruth Williams Cupp/GA1 review page was not also moved. The reviewer, Edwininlondon, has started up a new review page to match the new name of the article: Talk:Ruth Cupp/GA1. Can an admin please merge the two review pages and their histories at Talk:Ruth Cupp/GA1? The header section should combine the very top from the new file and the Review: line from the old one (which has the time the original review was started). I'd put the comment from the new page at the bottom of the combined pages. Edwininlondon, please hold off making any further edits to the review until this is all fixed. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, I'd like to request a second opinion on Talk:Kemp Caldera/GA1, written by Jo-Jo Eumerus. This relates only to criteria 1a, details on the GAN page. All other criteria met. Thanks in advance, CMD ( talk) 10:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, could I get a second opinion on my review of Tin Star (video game). This is also being discussed at my talk page. Happy to reopen if people think the article meets the GA Criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I came across this review today, brief to say the least. Is that an acceptable review? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I started review for Red Velvet (group), but since I don't know how to finish it, so it pass 11 weeks...... Would somebody please help me for finishing review? -- Wendylove ( talk) 17:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I was just reviewing the backlog and noticed that there are some articles that have been on review an extremely long time. The Doo-Wops & Hooligans Tour is a good example - it's been "on review" over 10 months without a decision either way. I note that the reviewer took a brief break but, nevertheless, this does feel like an extremely long time without a decision. Even glancing at the review page now, comments are slow. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Woodrow Wilson/GA2 is in the hands of a reviewer whose first contribution to en:WP was made on 25 February 2021. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Noting here that the article was passed. CMD ( talk) 06:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
How old should an article should be to Nominate for Good Article, as it is not mentions in criteria, also, who reviews a nominated article? Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 13:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
This is interesting. Legobot has delivered a failure of a review before I even started it. See the Talk Page and history. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 05:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Can we edit the article while it is being reviewed, and add content to the page. Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 05:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that Martensdale, California was nominated for GA despite still being tagged as a stub. It is a bit long for a stub but it really has only one section so maybe the stub tag is still appropriate. And the subject had a short enough history that the current article length may be appropriate. Still, it caused me to wonder: DYK explicitly disallows articles tagged as stubs. Should GA do the same? It doesn't seem to now; the closest I can find is requirement 3(b) that the article provide broad coverage of its topic. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
If an article is genuinely a stub the Johnbod is right - it cannot become a GA as the two things are fundamentally incompatible. As mentioned above to, the article in question, in its current state, is not a stub. Have no issue with the stub tag removed, and assessed on its merits to become a GA. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I was tagging an article and I thought of an edit that might be nice to make to {{ GA}}. When I went to Template talk:GA, however, I found that there was a requested edit from a few years ago that had sat there with no response. That post is here.
Mine is this: I think that, since the majority of GAs only have one review page, invoking {{
GA}} without the page=
parameter should default it to 1 (i.e. {{GA|~~~~~|subtopic=Geography}} would be the same as {{GA|~~~~~|subtopic=Geography|page=1}}. I think it would also be possible to detect if there was more than one GA subpage, and throw an error if one existed. Anyway, this is my humble suggestion. Feel free to tell me if there is something that makes this a bad idea.
jp×
g
03:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I would very much like another reviewer to take a look at this.
Absurd decision to quick fail—especially considering that he even failed to consult with me or ask any questions. The rationale for this decision is flimsy at best. Laos does not have over 200 years of constitutional history as US or the UKs 800+ so stating it should have that same length does not make any sense. In addition, considering that the Prime Minister of Vietnam is a GA the decision seems even more incomprehensible.
At last. There are no other major sources on the Laotian prime ministershipin English sources. I couldn't find any and I've searched! -- Ruling party ( talk) 18:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
You're either dumb as a brick or lazyis a personal attack, and demanding an apology is incredibly rude. A reviewer has the choice to fail any article if they don't believe they meet the criteria. They are not at liberty to ask you questions or keep the review open for you to respond. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
guy that doesn't know crap, it's not only rude to insult people for no reason (read: just disagreeing with a reviewer over a point of interpretation is not a reason), but it's completely hypocritical to then demand an apology.So yeah, WP:BOOMERANG for those couple of WP:PAs. —— Serial 12:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
If anyone wants to watchlist Wikipedia:Four Award or Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations, the reviewing processes require care but aren't rocket science (especially compared to GAN) and it would be nice to have some more eyes on it. They might only get a nomination each per month but there's only a couple of us that have been reviewing recently and sometimes they threaten to fall off my watchlist and get forgotten. Wikipedia:Four Award/Instructions lays out the Four Award process in full detail and for Triple Crown you need to (if awarding) add to the right table (remove from the old one if upgrading), give a talk page award template to the recipient and update the (cumulative) tallies on the main page. Drop me a message if you have questions. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Just wondering why or how the article on the 1950s British jet bomber the Vickers Valiant came to be assessed as Religion and Philosophy Good Article.
64.223.92.229 ( talk) 08:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Editor OgamD218 started a review of SpaceX 10 days ago ( Talk:SpaceX/GA1), but there is no indication of any work on it. I tried to contact the editor directly ( [14]) to understand if they want to eventually review the article, but I had no reply even though they seem to be actively editing. What is the best way forward here? Maybe it's better to delete the review page so that another editor can work on it? -- Ita140188 ( talk) 03:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Limiting the number of GA nominations per editor, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs)
17:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
On Talk:Yuzuru Hanyu/GA1 Jasper Deng asked to take over as reviewer, and I agreed. But I am still listed as the reviewer. What is the correct way to handle this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Just noting that Legobot appears to have stopped working with regard to GANs. I'm not sure if there's some sort of short-term workaround that would be feasible. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 16:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Me again...this time an IP editor has started conducting a review. Although it seems to be in good faith, this is forbidden (see WP:GAN/I#R2). It's also causing serious issues for Legobot, who is incrementing the IP's review count every 20 minutes (see, e.g., Special:Diff/1018392792). Cheers, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)