![]() | 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 see there was a snow close recently for limiting the number of nominations recently ( Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Limiting the number of GA nominations per editor). I would have opposed that too but I do agree there has been a constant issue with the backlog. I have felt that a major cause of this is editors nominating a disproportionate amount of articles relative to the number they review. Thanks to the development of a tool that can tell us how many good articles someone has we can now work out a rough ratio of reviews to nominations. There are some issues with obtaining both numbers, but it should at least give us a good idea of the scope of these ratios.
Here is link a list of editors that have over 50 good articles as of 17 November 2020, but have reviewed less than half as many nominations according to User:GA bot/Stats. User names are not included. This does not take into account failed nominations, co noms, or editors that have taken over an abandoned review. At least one name on this list contributes to the GA process in other important ways. On the flip side out of the 121 editors with over 50 Good articles 17 have reviewed twice as many as they have nominated (one ten times as many).
There seems to be a consensus that we need more reviewers and I would think that these editors would be prime candidates. At the least I think we should leave notes on the talk pages of active editors pointing out the discrepancy and encourage them to contribute more to reviewing. This might be more impactful coming from the GA community than an individual editor (before this list was possible I approached editors I suspected were not reviewing as much as they could and tried to encourage them to review more with limited success). Maybe more should be done to encourage if that doesn't have the desired effect. Maybe we should just ignore it and be happy editors are contributing lots of quality content. I don't really know the best approach, but I do feel this is a major cause of our persistent backlog issues. Aircorn (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, this is simple. Some people like creating content and not reviewing others. Some people like reviewing content but not creating it. Some people like to do both. And there's nothing we can do about that, nor should we. However if there is any appetite to enforce a more rigid QPQ here then that should be proposed, otherwise things will definitely not change. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
That's called QPQ.. No kidding... Eddie891 Talk Work 12:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I find the "don't create so many GANs" arguments to be a bit poor. If you nominate 30 articles in one go, but review 50, then you've made a significant inroad to the backlog. I reviewed 25 articles last month, so why would I need to be limited to 3 concurrent ones? Surely if we got a bot to say what the ratio of reviews/nomination was, if they have better than 1, it's fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
A good writer does not necessarily make a good reviewer, and even then, it would be incorrect to assume that everybody making copious amounts of good article nominations is a good writer. I know that I would prefer that I have a reviewer who enjoys the process looking at my nominations. What no one has mentioned so far is that I know at least a few users who would be willing to help out with the review process, but they are afraid of doing something wrong. Having a system in place for experienced reviewers to help newcomers with their first or second reviews would make the process less intimidating, and would encourage more to try their hand. Kncny11 (shoot) 05:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Username. We are looking to encourage editors to review more articles at WP:GAN. As you are probably aware there is a large backlog. This means you and other editors may have to wait months before your articles are reviewed. According to [page] you have reviewed # articles and helped promote # articles to GA status. This suggests that you are familiar with the criteria and able to contribute more reviews. Without editors reviewing articles the process falls apart. If you need some help with reviewing feel free to ask a mentor or leave a note at WT:GAN.
A new editor's very first edit has been to start reviewing the above-linked GAN. While there's probably more to the story (some form of sockpuppetry seems probable), all that's clear is that this reviewer is not going to be able to complete an adequate review. G6 deletion is probably appropriate. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 16:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It is very informatve, and is the definition of good article material.is a satisfactory review so I am almost certain nothing more there will happen.) Though both main editors (AOS and nominator BasedMises) could also be socks of each other - none of the accounts is more than a few months old and almost entirely focus on this article. Kingsif ( talk) 19:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
We have done the WP:AGF and the sand has been kicked in our face. My sense is that the review should be removed and the article delisted, and the reviewer given a warning for blatant disregard of the criteria. Possible sockpupptery should also be investigated. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 21:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to express my concern about how a 2nd opinion on a GA review was obtained, here. I am not sure if this is the right way to go about getting a second opinion. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 07:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I could not find the GA reassessment for Deadmau5 when I looked at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment; I believe a mistake may have been made when the page was initially created. As such very few editors have had the chance to chime in. Would anyone care to take another look (and, if possible, fix?) Thank you. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 08:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
How we deal with suspected review process mishandling, and/or deliberate outright fail?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 19:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Good article reviews are not supposed to interfere with normal editing.The "edit war or content dispute" phrasing I mentioned above is a verbatim quote from the criterion; it is the only basis on which a stability fail is appropriate. The article certainly has some issues, and failing it might ultimately be appropriate. But it does not meet the stringent criteria required to deprive the nominator of a full review. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd say that of my last 40 GANs, all of them had a large volume of edits within the week preceding nomination. I'm expanding articles, and meeting the fivefold expansion requirement. If that makes them unstable, well.... shoot. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I have been reviewing Diaphragmatic rupture at Talk:Diaphragmatic rupture/GA2. Using free online software available to me, I identified some sections of prose copied verbatim from academic journals without a reference. Obviously, this does not comply with criterion 2d. Whilst this particular plagiarism has been highlighted and can be resolved, I am now concerned that I may not have identified all of the plagiarism in the article. Does anyone have advice on how I can "double-check", or does anyone know of more powerful free software for detecting plagiarism? Thanks! Bibeyjj ( talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that the bot seems to be down again (or its now running at a lower frequency). I've recently conducted a GA review, and the bot has yet to pick up that it has a reviewer and it's been several hours. If the article gets to the stage of passing before the bot comes to life again, will it mess things up for me to pass the article before it processes me as reviewer? Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm assuming that this will also prevent my GA nomination of Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862) from appearing for quite some time. Would it be worthwhile for me to manually add that nomination? Hog Farm Talk 06:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have had similar issues regarding Talk:Edward Lazear/GA1. I was able to "do the bot's work" manually, but my review count still seats happily at 1. Would there any way to add it to my GA tally? I am of course ready to live with it if that's not the case. JBchrch ( talk) 11:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@ LM150 and Trillfendi: Talk:Miranda Kerr/GA1 appears to be going nowhere. I've pinged both the author and the reviewer a few days ago, but while both are still actively editing, neither has responded. What's the right thing to do here?
A recently-passed GA,
Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu, has been DYK nominated, which is where I found it. I have some major concerns with the article, first of which is that it has an official English title but the reviewer, @
Some Dude From North Carolina: (hi!), didn't request that the article be moved to that title. The other, main, concern is that large parts are almost incomprehensible the English is that poor, and what you can understand still (physically, or maybe I'm dehydrated) hurts to read because of this lack of fluency. Courtesy ping to the nominator (of both),
Limorina, even though their userpage says retired. It seems like a machine translation, and a bad one, no joke. Some Dude, how did this pass? You only made three comments on the prose/grammar in your review, and also quoted something poorly-written only to say it was unnecessary. I'd say one only has to read the first four prose sentences of the article body – The series has been noted to draw attention with its actors, costumes, historical locations and story. Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu is written by Serdar Özönalan, directed by Sedat İnci and produced by Emre Konuk. After three years of scenario work for the series, every detail was meticulously prepared over 13-months. 350 décor employees, 100 carpenters and a team of 60 people took part in two separate sets, in which many locations in the series were built on.
– to get a headache and be asking what the hell does half of that mean.
Kingsif (
talk) 05:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, Wikipedia:The Core Contest is running again from June 1 to July 15. Enter at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Hope to get some important articles in the GAN pipeline :). FemkeMilene ( talk) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm a little concerned at the drive-by review for my nomination of the album The Ghost Inside. I finally got a chance to look at it and was dismayed to see that there were only three comments, of which one was vague and unhelpful ("Kind of awkward to read but it's fine") and the other two directly contradict my other album GAs, A Black Mile to the Surface and Painting of a Panic Attack. Namely, on both Black Mile and Painting, critical reviews and commercial response are under a "Reception" head, not split into separate sections, and, more importantly, there are no individual production credits per song. This is because, unlike rap, hip-hop, and pop, rock and metal albums tend to have 1-2 producers for the entire album, not separate writers and producers for each song.
I recognize that for most people, such a quick review would be a breeze, but it feels disingenuous to accept this review as is. I'm sure there are other areas for improvement on the article, as nitpicky as they may be. Kncny11 (shoot) 18:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, if a passing admin has a spare fix minutes, please pop round and "un-nominate" all six of CommanderWaterford's nominations as they have just been indef blocked at ANI. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, the reviewer at Talk:Emmanuël Sérusiaux/GA1 hasn't edited for 5 weeks and it appears as if this review has been abandoned. What's the standard protocol in situations like this? Esculenta ( talk) 13:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. According to GA bot, I have reviewed 26 GANs. However, looking through my Talk page contributions, I've reviewed 34 of them (including quickfails). Can my number be updated? I have a list of reviews if someone needs to verify this count. The 34 GANs doesn't include my 1 GA. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 17:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor who has made under 100 edits and never carried out a GA review before has taken on the GAN of Tolkien's legendarium as reviewer. The review comments do not seem to me to have anything to do with the GA criteria. Tkbrett has commented on the GA review page. The same editor has immediately and spontaneously (before I replied) launched a GAR of Women in The Lord of the Rings, also seemingly without knowledge of the GA criteria or the meaning of policy terms such as "neutrality" and "original research". I'm not sure how to proceed and would welcome inputs. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The above comments are hardly in keeping with Wikipedia's principle of assuming good faith. These articles do not meet criteria for Good Article status and the rushing through of these proposals is serious breach of Wikipedia protocol. Michael Martinez ( talk) 15:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I notice that someone has set up a new tab at the top of the page linked to SDZeroBot's GAN readout and labeled "Nominations [Alt GAN Sorting]".
The main distinction between it and the regular GAN page is that 1) SDZeroBot only lists unreviewed nominations and 2) they are annotated with additional information that is not on the regular GAN page. I don't have strong opinions over whether this tab should exist, but if so I think that the current wording is not a concise or easily understood way to label it, and suggest something like "Unreviewed nominations". ( t · c) buidhe 04:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Opened a bot task approval request for this at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 11. – SD0001 ( talk) 16:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I currently have two GANs, Politics of the Philippines and Political history of the Philippines. The upcoming 4 July represents the 75th anniversary of Philippine independence (although for quite interesting reasons it is not celebrated as such, 12 June is), so I thought it might be nice to list an interesting fact from them at DYK on that day. I didn't plan to finish around these dates (if I did I might have aimed for the 12 June date), but since the timing ended up as it has, I thought it would be worth mentioning here in case anyone was interested in reviewing one of them. Best, CMD ( talk) 17:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This article was passed as a GA by EasyTitle19 just now, this version, after a quick pass review with no real feedback ( Talk:Garry Kasparov/GA1). There are entire unsourced paragraphs in the article, I just added 42 {{ cn}} tags. And I see at least one unresolved dead link, too. EasyTitle19 has a total of 22 edits, all of them today. I think we need to disqualify that review. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
According to my review of the article against the Good Article criteria, it seemed to meet all the points. And I took my time with the review to make sure I understood what each criteria calls for. EasyTitle19 ( talk) 01:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
In light of this conversation and rereading the article, I realize now that I was probably too hasty with my review and promotion yesterday. I'd like to be involved in this process but maybe I need to start with shorter articles and really read them carefully. And I think having someone else review this article might be a good idea. How do I reopen the review and ask someone else to review it? And do I have to "demote" the article until after the second review? EasyTitle19 ( talk) 10:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
James Mueller (mayor), at some point, was taken off of "Good Article Nominations" list, or had somehow failed to be ever added by the bot. It should be listed. SecretName101 ( talk) 20:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I guess I've been lurking around Wikipedia, mainly editing as an IP when I have time to kill. Just created an account (3 or so days ago; not sure exactly when), and I understand all of the different criteria (^see above)
Should I wait a bit longer before reviewing or can I already start (the backlog is pretty huge, so I kind of want to start before the July drive)? Card Carrying Parrot ( talk) 22:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
A user named Modern NFL Historian has attempted to nominate Tom Brady for GA-status three times, despite not being a major contributor to the article, has few edits to their name and hasn't edited in almost a year. The user even asked a fellow football aficionado to nominate the article and in return, would help him during the editing process and get some advice during said process, before going on to nominate the article three hours after sending that message [4]. DepressedPer ( talk) 05:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
even leaving a message after each reedit? I can't see any messages from you on that talk page ( ever, for that matter), and as you say, you haven't discussed it with them on their own talk either. I've alerted them wrt to edit warring; while you, of course, don't need the template, it's probably worth a gentle reminder that reverting a misplaced GAN is not an exemption to the rules on edit-warring. Be mindful. —— Serial 12:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content... This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!. So remember: talk pages are to discuss the page in question (e.g., whether there shou;d be a GAN template on it), and user talk pages are for notifying other users that they may be edit-warring over aforesaid GAN templates. All the best! —— Serial 19:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
For those unfamiliar: Metroid Dread was previously a rumoured game in the said franchise. Emphasis on was, as Nintendo just announced it to be released this year. I bring this to your attention as our article is GA. However with it soon to be released I wonder how that status shall be. Should we leave it unchanged, revoke it due to imminent expansion or schedule a reassessment? I previously don't feel strongly either way. Thanks, anyway. DMT biscuit ( talk) 16:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello all,
Given that Legoktm has said that they would prefer not to do any feature or non-critical bugfix work relating to Legobot's GA(N) maintenance tasks, I think it's time we replaced the bot with a new one. This is in no way a criticism of Legoktm, who has diligently kept the bot running for years.
I have (mostly) reimplemented Legobot's GAN tasks, and am getting ready to run some live userspace tests as the first step on the path to BRFA. Alongside this I wanted to consult with those involved in the GA process to (a) ensure that I've not missed any potential bugs, and (b) assess any feature requests we may have for the new bot. For instance, I'm aware that there may be a desire to reshuffle the nomination categories that has been blocked as depending on ensuring the bot can handle them properly. My initial thought is to run this task under a discrete account rather than one of my FireflyBots, purely so that it's easier to add other maintainers to the project, and the edits made by the bot are clearly signposted as GAN-related. If people feel this is unnecessary or undesirable, that is fine, I can run it under FireflyBot. I intend to have a Phabricator project for the task either way, so the community can file bugs and feature requests after the initial specification-gathering/approval period.
In the interests of keeping things clear and ensuring I don't miss anything, I would ask that bugs, feature requests and general comments go in whichever section you feel is best below. Thanks for your thoughts, firefly ( t · c ) 13:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I have reviewed David Duke 1988 presidential campaign. As it is my first GA review, I have requested for a second opinion particularly for Grammar and MOS, and also to specify if I missed something. Although the Review is on hold as I recently gave my second set of comments, I would appreciate if any other reviewer can take a look and suggest. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 17:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
(Update: See WP:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021)
There are currently 514 nominations, 429 of which are unreviewed. In the two months since the March backlog drive ended, then, we've lost almost exactly half of the gains from the drive; at this rate, by the end of July we'll be back to where we started. How does a July 1 to July 31 backlog drive sound? Perhaps we could work in a point-based system (rather than the current one article = one point) to incentivize reviews of older and longer articles. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 04:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
As for points per size/age of nom, I'm good with that too. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The backlog page is now live, at WP:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021. It still has a number of placeholders, in particular:
-- Usernameunique ( talk) 05:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Notes
I've added the drive to the tab header, to give ample notice to anyone who visits the nominations page. In addition, what are good ways to raise awareness of the drive? Some ideas are:
I've got a general question about GA reviews. I've never done one myself so perhaps I'm just not too familiar with how it's usually done. Is it necessary to transclude the entire review on the article's talk page in an editable format? The example I'm thinking of is Talk:Jacinda Ardern/GA1 and Talk:Jacinda Ardern. Someone more unfamiliar with the GA process than even me, might not realize that what's posted on that talk page is actually transcluded from the GA1 page; so, they mistakenly might try to edit the review or add their own comments to the review. This might particularly be the case when a article has be PP'd for some reason and new or unregistered accounts are thus required to make edit requests on the article talk page. I came across this article via WP:THQ#Edit request: Death Threat ( permalink) where one such editor tried to post an edit request for the article at the Teahouse. If the review needs to be transcluded on the the article's talk page, then maybe it would be better to do so in a way in which the content of the review cannot be edited like is done with template documentation pages on the actual template page. It seems that one section title "GA review" for the entire review would be preferable to 30 sections, each of which can be individually edited. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I have added an article history section to the page, which moves the GA review off the talk page and supplies a link. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Do I need to install Prosesize if I'm taking part in the backlog drive? I am slightly confused. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 20:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Could someone take another look at Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump? it was passed at GAN, but I see some issues. There are uncited parts in the Trump counsel and Question-and-answer sessions sections. The article also has with 2 non-primary source needed tags and 2 expansion tags. Based on the review here by a newer reviewer, I believe this article wasn't thoroughly checked, especially with verification/broadness. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Quick question. Is someone able to point me in the right direction to a MOS link somewhere, about whether it is essential to italicize website names? And, should it matter for GA reviews if websites are not italicized but print media or magazines otherwise are? Haleth ( talk) 23:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Page numbers (or similar details) are only needed when the inline citation concerns one of the above five types of statement and it would be difficult for the reader to find the location in the source without a page number (or similar detail).which probably sums it up. Aircorn (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I was browsing GA nominations and spotted Arab Christians which has a merger proposal tag on. It appears that three other editors have supported the idea on the article talk page - including the nominator - without any opposition - since March. Moreover the merge proposal (and nominator's support) predates the GAN. The nomination is not under review at this point, but the situation may be puzzling to potential reviewers.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 11:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey! Do you want to reviews these article I have expanded: Hajipur , so I will be really grateful if you can so. Thank you! ItsSkV08 ( talk) 18:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Should the GAN of Be Best be reverted? This is the same user who quickpassed Talk:Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump/GA1 per the discussion above. They also have an open SPI on them as well. Pinging @ Colin M: as well as they've just opened the GAN review for Be Best. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 00:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
hi, I have a quick question Im interested in taking this article to GA (Im principle author [8]) is the article stable enough at this point?...thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I would wait on nominating this article for GA status: there are some editors who fiercely believe that Wikipedia's coverage of this event is unsatisfactory, & even if the article were perfect they would fight this rating. I mention this not because I agree with them -- I don't -- but because unless you are eager for a fight all you would get for the hard work is heartache. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
This article raises another question, which is can Good Articles contain excerpts? I would say excerpts can't fulfil the criteria, as any changes to their text does not show up in the article history, and thus it is difficult to assess stability. In addition, it makes it difficult to check the version of an article that passed GA, as oldid's would still display the current excerpt. CMD ( talk) 08:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Greysia Polii/GA1 (nominator: Sportsfan77777; reviewer: Stvbastian) and Talk:United Airlines Flight 328/GA1 (nominator: Dhaluza; reviewer: Bredyhopi) have both been "on review" for months, with little in the way of substance; despite pings, both appear to have been abandoned by the reviewers. It may be time to delete the review pages so these can be placed back in the queue. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 04:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Usernameunique, there are a number of reviews that have effectively been abandoned, but at least got to a certain point before the reviewer stopped for whatever reason—health, disappearance, lack of time, etc. The same sometimes includes 2nd opinions, where it's effectively a request for someone to take over. Might some of these be available for credit in the backlog drive? If the original reviewer did some good work and raised issues that do need addressing, it could be more effective to continue the open review rather than close it and start over. Perhaps we could specify ones that are eligible for takeover on this page. Any thoughts? BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, is the word count taken from the point where the review starts, or the point where the article is passed/failed, which may be slightly different? Thanks,-- Harper J. Cole ( talk) 10:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
"puff up" the article to get a word count bonus... internet anthropologists in 100 years reading this are going to be drawing some wonderful (amusing!) conclusions about Wikipedia's editors and epistemological motivations. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 00:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
It was recently brought to my attention that after providing a second opinion the person who provides it should place the article back on review (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Answering a second opinion). I personally have not noticed this to be occurring and it seems like it might be a good idea to leave it up to a reviewer to decide when to stop asking for second opinions. Just wanted to see what other editors who give second opinions do and whether it might be worth changing the instructions. @ Femkemilene:. Aircorn (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Today, by sheer coincidence, I stumbled upon an inexplicably deleted file titled "File:History of GAN Age Over Time.png" and requested it be restored from PROD at WP:REFUND. I now have for our elucidation a histogram of nomination ages as they were in 2018, breaking down data by the period the nomination has been open for -- it's interesting stuff. My impression from the archives of this talk is that the data is likely a little different now (I have the impression of a particularly long backlog a few years ago that's since shrunk), but the broad strokes are plausibly similar. Vaticidal prophet 12:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Due to sudden issues, I'm going to need to drop several of my open nominations for Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021. Is anyone able to pick up Talk:Let's Dance (David Bowie album)/GA1 and Talk:Heartless (Kanye West song)/GA1? Talk:Hardcore punk/GA3 as well, but I believe GhostRiver is interested in that one, so pinging her. The remaining open nom I can keep working with. Pinging @ Buidhe, Usernameunique, and Lee Vilenski as co-ords and @ Zmbro, Kyle Peake, and Hoponpop69 as nominators. Vaticidal prophet 21:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
But I just found out that 33% of all GAs have at least one outstanding cleanup tags. And I find that very high rate to be rather concerning. Not all of these tagged articles represent significant issues (I don't think the 5 tagged with "Articles using infobox body of water without alt bathymetry" or the 7 tagged with "CS1 errors: invisible characters" are that big of a deal) but many of these indicate possible sizable issues, such as the 187 tagged with Failed Verification or the 22 BLP GAs lacking sources. Would anyone else be interested in trying to work together to try to take a look through some of these classifications with the more serious concerns? Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
It may be worthwhile waiting for user:firefly, who was thinking about automating part of the GAR process before starting a serious sweep. FemkeMilene ( talk) 08:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
BigCheese76 nominated 2010 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania here in February, and I began reviewing the article in July. In the interim, however, BigCheese76 appears to have taken a break from editing—his last edit was in May. Would anyone be interested in shepherding the article through the nomination process? It needs a bit of work in a few places, but is in generally good shape; the review page is here. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Template {{GA inline}} and template GA pass {{GA pass|article|2000|01|01}} are up for merging. Discussion found here -- Whiteguru ( talk) 01:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who participated in the last drive and got GAN down by almost half. I am requesting any feedback from participants or suggestions from interested persons on how to improve the next drive—ideally, without adding too much complexity to the process. One thing that I think might improve the drive is making it shorter: say two weeks, which saw the greatest declines (199 articles!) during that period. By the end of the month, enthusiasm seems to have trailed off a bit. ( t · c) buidhe 06:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Your review must explicitly address all the GA criteria. An easy way to do this is by using one of the GAN templates.As you said, the reviewers leaving perfunctory reviews apparently are already using GAN templates. On the other hand, this creates a little bit of drudgery for those who prefer not to use those templates. I'm one of those reviewers. I stand by my reviews generally being very detailed, but I don't always explicitly mention all the GA criteria in each one. e.g. this review was 27k bytes, but nowhere in all that did I feel the need to say "This article is stable. There are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes." Similar situation for this really excellent review someone else did for one of my articles during the drive. I'm also a little iffy on 4. Though it's exceedingly rare, it's possible to come across an article that requires no substantial changes to meet the GACR, so it seems bad to force reviewers to come up with some change to mandate just because (I'm reminded of the anecdote of the queen's duck)
I see that Trevor Bauer has been GA-nominated. While the article itself is fairly stable, I wouldn't say the subject matter is - Bauer is a sportplayer currently on a restricted list due to ongoing sexual assault investigations. My inclination would be that this article doesn't meet the stability requirement due to the subject being in an up-in-the-air situation right now, but I want to know how others interpret the stability criterion at WP:GACR. Hog Farm Talk 02:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. If the "up-in-the-air situation" is causing an edit war then no, it doesn't meet the criteria; but, if there are no content disputes and it gets updated as new information regarding the situation becomes public then it meets the criteria. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Just a heads up, a user named "Sahaib3005" has just sped through a few GANs and approved them without leaving a single bit of critique:
The same user also nominated a clearly unready article ( Glasgow) without being a significant contributor or contacting those who did contribute. Perhaps we should have mandatory GAN training for new users before they are allowed to conduct their first standalone review. Sounder Bruce 08:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic: I know this isn't about their GAN/GA Reviews but I just took a look at their editing in general and they seem to be also having some issues with various file/pic uploads like File:John Gray with Greyfriars Bobby.jpeg & File:Blair drummond logo.jpg etc. Shearonink ( talk) 16:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
We have been here many times over the years with inexperienced reviewers not understanding the process and causing frustration among those more au-fait with the standards. Invariably, it ends up with the reviews being voided and placed back into the queue on their prior standing. Looking at these reviews, there isn't actually *any* where I can say even a superficial review has taken place. A script of some sort would be helpful, maybe even to flag up on the "size" of the review page to detect very short ones and allow for a double-checking. Usually, these problematic reviews are very short on size anyway. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello to all. I would ask the community to check out (another) review process for the same article nomination gone awry. In case of my nomination of " Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača/GA2", it seem that reviewer acted in drive-by mode, and never took time to alert me of his willingness to do the job, nor did he stick to the prescribed methods, and left me any space for fixes if they are needed, and so on. Reviewer just made a surprisingly long list of alleged shortcomings, which contains some rather obvious nonsense along with some reasonable points, and some points that may or may not be (mis)understood. Reviewer also noted how article needs "a large copyedit", which seem pretty unreasonable since that job was already performed by one of the project's top copyeditors ( User:Twofingered Typist). At this point the nomination has been failed, but it seems to me that the matter is pretty straight forward and that this review should be annulled. (Please @ Buidhe:, if you don't mind, I would ask you to take a look at this situation, considering that in the case of Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača/GA1 your promptly reaction helped resolve the situation.) Thanks.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 20:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Shoot for the Stars has been indefinitely blocked per an ANI discussion here. I have taken the liberty of manually removing all of the GAN tags on the articles that they nominated, but they also have an open (albeit not started) review here. — Ghost River 12:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
In regard to broadness, the GA criteria states "(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."
I agree with the criteria, but shouldn't there be a minimum length requirement of a nominated article? Even DYK had 1500 character requirement. I recently came across a GA titled "
M-105 (Michigan highway)", which is just slightly above 1000 characters. Although I have no issues with that article (or the whole Michigan highway's topic,
in which many are GA), but shouldn't there be a minimum limit of characters? Please correct me if I missed something. –
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk) 17:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
addresses the main aspects of the topic, there's no reason to force the author to ramble on about superfluous and tangential material. For some topics, 1500 characters is too long; for others, 50000 is too short. It doesn't seem like a one-size-fits-all minimum would really help, which is why it's been rejected in the past. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, unfortunately Mikehawk10 ( talk · contribs) has not edited since 4 July. He was in the process of reviewing 4 GA nominations:
Doug Coldwell and The C of E have pinged him, but he has not showed up.
As far as I can tell, we have no indication about why he is absent or whether he will return to the project at some point — I hope he is doing well.
May I suggest relisting these nominations as needing a new reviewer? ( WP:GAN/I#N4) JBchrch talk 16:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
User:JPxG created a review page for Presidential transition of Richard Nixon ( nom) on July 1, the day when the backlog drive started. I pinged the reviewer on the review page on July 25, and gave also informed on their talk page on August 11. The article has not yet been reviewed (though only a review page is created). Should that be marked as an abandoned review? I noticed that the reviewer is actively contributing to other projects. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 04:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
{{db-G6|rationale=Abandoned good article review}}
, which should ensure that the article gets another reviewer. Cheers,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 05:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The article Early life and career of Joe Biden, currently a GAN, is also being nominated at DYK under Template:Did you know nominations/Early life and career of Joe Biden. That nomination cannot progress unless a GA review is conducted, since the only way the article is eligible for DYK is if it's improved to Good Article status. As the DYK nomination has been open for over a month, I'm bringing it up here in case anyone is interested in reviewing the page. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The article "
Electoral history of Bill Clinton" would most probably be on the main page on August 19 (75th birthday of President Bill Clinton) in the Did you know column. It is a GAN, and I'll appreciate if anyone can review the article before it hits the main page. –
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk) 10:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like AAW may be in the same situation as the editor in the section above this one. He was in the process of reviewing two nominations. I'd be happy to finish the review on Esther Lederberg (once the nominator returns from a brief wikibreak). Larry Hockett ( Talk) 15:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Any experienced reviewers able to look at closing Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Metroid Dread/1? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 11:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's a registered user,
3E1I5S8B9RF7. They have nominated many GANs, and I haven't checked for other reviews but this:
Talk:Ashes and Diamonds (film)/GA1, came to my attention through the film assessment taskforce. Obviously that needs undoing, and the IP who mentioned it at the film project doesn't seem to have nominated it for GA, so I wonder if 3E nommed and reviewed it themselves, and maybe it doesn't need to be relisted for review. It does seem to fit in 3E's broad area of editing interest which may have motivated the blank review.
Kingsif (
talk) 12:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@ WaddlesJP13: has nominated Virginia at WP:GAN, but it is already a Featured Article (and has been since 2009)! This is clearly a mistake by the nominator, but I am unsure of the best course of action. Could more experienced editors advise please? Thanks Mertbiol ( talk) 08:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/GA1 was started by HeartGlow30797 on July 3. Things seemed to be going along but they haven't made any substantial comments on the GAN/Review since July 27th. (They did comment on July 29th "will get to this tomorrow" and on August 8th "Sorry I'm busy will get to this soon".) They haven't edited WP since their last comment to the review. On August 6th I mentioned at the Review page that I had done some additional work and yesterday I left a comment on their user talk asking what their intentions were towards completing the GA Review. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 21:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Can someone else please take on finishing this Review? Life has gotten the original Reviewer - HeartGlow30797 - too busy to finish it up in a timely manner. Does the process have to start all over again? I hate to completely throw it back into the pool again if I don't have to... Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 16:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Since another editor hasn't stepped forward to complete the present Review, I am putting the article back into the GAN queue per the instructions at When a reviewer withdraws. Shearonink ( talk) 14:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Not sure if this is the right place to ask but I was hoping to get some advice / feedback for a few articles I submitted to WP:AFC last year, and how much work it would take to get them up to GA-class.
On a related note, there's two which were rejected due to WP:ESSAY but I don't understand how these articles violate this policy. I've already removed some quotes / text but I'm not sure else needs to be edited. If this were a GA-class article what info would need to be cut from these articles?
Thanks for your time. 173.162.220.17 ( talk) 19:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I didn't realize there were different places. Thanks. 173.162.220.17 ( talk) 18:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk subpages, there's a bunch of old GA subpages that are now orphaned. Just looked a couple, but it mostly seems to have been old GAN/GAR stuff where the article was later deleted, such as Talk:John Wasdin's perfect game/GA1 and Talk:2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game/GA1. Any value in keeping these around, or should they get the G8 treatment? Hog Farm Talk 18:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello all. What's the thinking on the following:
It's theoretical at the moment but I'm intending to do a bunch of GA reviews I've had a few experiences where (1) and (2) have happened and I just have to fail the nom rather than make the changes to improve Wikipedia. I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 08:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Ham House is currently up for GA. I should like to pick up the review as I have watched the article’s progress through PR, and it matches my interests. But I did make some contributions to the article at PR. These were mainly in relation to citing a bunch of pictures, but it does put me as the third contributor in the Authorship statistics. Can somebody advise as to whether this would prohibit me from undertaking the review? I’m confident I could do an objective review, but I also appreciate the importance of an appropriate process. Thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 17:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to ask is it acceptable to ask someone special to review my GA nominated articles? Honestly, I have nominated four songs articles for GA, but no one has reviewed for more than a month. I might be busy soon and not be able to have a good respond, so I wanted to know can I ask someone (for example the reviewers who had reviewed my previous nominated articles or similar articles recently) to review them? Or I must wait for the reviewers to choose. آرمین هویدایی ( talk) 17:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
For Talk:Bank of America Tower (Manhattan)/GA1, it appears that Robertgombos, the "reviewer" listed on the review page, wanted to make a suggestion rather than do a full review. I asked Robertgombos if he planned to add more comments or if that was merely a suggestion, to which he replied that it was just a suggestion. A. C. Santacruz has offered to take over the review if Robertgombos was not interested.
My question is should the comment from Robertgombos be moved to the primary talk page for the article, allowing the GA1 subpage to be recreated? Or should A. C. Santacruz leave her comments in the existing subpage? I don't know if this is covered in WP:GAN/I which is why I'm asking. Epicgenius ( talk) 22:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Am I missing something here, or are IP's allowed to nominate articles for GA now? REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 13:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Heads up: I just went through the results of this query and cleared out around 80 articles that appear to have been erroneously categorized as good articles (their talk page was in a GA-class category, but they did not have the {{ Article history}} or {{ GA}} templates giving evidence of a review). The category may repopulate again over time, so someone may wish to clear it out again in a year or so. To do so:
class=GA
and class = GA
to just class=
.There were two articles that actually were GAs but had substed the GA template. If you want to check against outliers like that, convert your sandbox list to articles, and then do another PetScan run to filter for pages that are missing {{ Good article}}. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
class=GA
to a project banner; some of the ones I found were years old. I wasn't aware of the mismatches page and I'm glad to have a more permanent place to put the instructions above. I'll copy them to the documentation there for now, and
GreenC, if you're able to modify your bot to include this type of error in the regular listings, that would be fantastic, as it'd help resolve them more quickly. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 22:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)The March and July backlog drives were clearly successes, taking the number of unreviewed nominations from 579 to 273 (-306) and from 464 to 245 (-219), respectively. We're currently at 259 nominations—not bad compared to where it has been before, but still with much room to go down. (It would be significantly higher, but The Rambling Man has reviewed 148 so far this month as part of the WikiCup.) The only reason I can see to wait longer would be to avoid burnout. While this is important to bear in mind, I think it makes sense to have a few drives packed more closely together, and then, assuming the backlog can be taken down to a more sustainable level, spread them further apart (e.g., with two to three drives in 2022). Meanwhile, October is the last month of the WikiCup, so nothing wrong with adding an incentive to gain those points through reviews here. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 06:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure a drive is needed at this time, the backlog easily hits more than 500 from time to time, and that's when we need the really strong focus on reducing it. The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 09:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I had multiple tabs opened and accidentally began a review of my own article Talk:Agrippa_Postumus/GA1, meant Talk:Hungarian nobility/GA1. Was checking if anyone looked at mine while starting the other and goofed. Pretty sure it doesn't affect anything but explaining in case it does. SpartaN ( talk) 16:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Would someone be able to pick up Talk:Pierson, Iowa/GA1? It was insta-failed with mostly easily fixable issues. There are also non-issues like a healthcare and transportation section which can't exist for this town of 337 people. The reviewer also wants everything stated within the article to also pass the GNG. I waited around a week and half for this after the reviewer picked it up. SL93 ( talk) 02:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay hang on, looking now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Right - @ SL93: - Sounderbruce's suggestiions are what I would have suggested largely. Also avoid one-sentence paras. Once you've done them all, renominate and I'll review. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Casliber passed my GA, but the bot removed it from the pending nomination list as failed and no GA icon was ever added. SL93 ( talk) 21:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I've just undone a large number of out-of-process nominations by User:Bangalamania on articles that are either clearly not ready for GAN (e.g. Helen Munro Ferguson, Viscountess Novar, which only has two references) and/or that they have not significantly edited (e.g. Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners). There are a number of other borderline cases with stability concerns ( Boris Johnson), quality issues ( Korean Englishman), or that this user created several years prior but have not recently touched Squirt.org. I think the rest of these are worth combing over for possible removal/autofail. — Ghost River 20:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Today, my GAN Cedar Hill Yard was mysteriously instantly passed to GA without any review. When I looked into things, it turns out that User:PedroC6586 improperly passed it to GA, along with several other GANs. There's possible socking going on with another account, User:Brothers1837, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PedroC6586. All of their GA activity should be reverted. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make FA and GA icons in articles more noticeable #2.
Dege31 (
talk) 23:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
You are requested to provide your opinions at Talk:Tuqaq/GA2 — an individual reassessment. Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that Tintinkien had opened a review (possibly by mistake?) of his own GAN for Hawker Tempest. I applied CSD to the nomination page as it's not allowed to review your own nomination. Also, the GAN would not pass as the article meets quickfail criteria due to having active cleanup tags. ( t · c) buidhe 08:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey all. BuySomeApples opened the review for Streets (Doja Cat song) on September 20 yet they haven't made a single edit since September 22. Should we close that or mark it so someone else can pick it up? – zmbro ( talk) 18:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
[12] This GAN was nominated by User:What am you are 7 and promoted by User:What am you are 8. The latter is an account created solely [13] to promote the former's GAN. The socking is so obvious it's funny, but the GA should be undone. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/What am you are 7 Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
An article I nominated for GA just passed, but Legobot processed the pass as maintenance and did not add the GA badge to the article. Should it just be added manually? Armadillo pteryx 06:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've been working to improve the article Blood donation in India and was wondering if are there any restrictions on certain categories of articles ineligible for GAN? Since this topic focuses around general medicine/public health and not core medicine, would WP:GAN#MED be the right category to nominate it? Thanks! MT Train Talk 14:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Are nominations by an IP editor typically permitted? The only edits User:2804:7F4:8280:BEC4:DB4:94E2:8B9B:4E37 have made are to nominate articles, or to add the GAN tag incorrectly to the article space and their own user talk. Rfl0216 ( talk) 23:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday I reviewed Edith Garrud for GAN and marked it as passed. On the article's talk page this looks good, but there is no GA icon on the article page. Perhaps the bot got confused because at nomination time the article was called Edith Margaret Garrud. Can I just fix the article page myself? I also see that Edith Garrud is not listed in the Sports and recreation GAs. Should I fix that manually as well? Edwininlondon ( talk) 09:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm almost done with a review over at Talk:Shirley Chisholm/GA1. However, the the article has a 98% copyvio similarity with this website's article. Much of the text is supported by the sources cited, is publicly available, or basic facts about the subject (comes with being known for government work I imagine). However, I've never seen such a high similarity. I'd appreciate if someone with more experience dealing with plagiarism on Wikipedia could take a look at the review and copyvio report and see if the article can still pass GA or if something must be done with the article due to copyright. Cheers. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I've just started a review for Android Debug Bridge, but keep worrying I'm going to screw something up and pass an inadequate article/fail a good one. Is it okay to leave a second opinion request on my first review(s) to make sure a more experienced reviewer takes a look at it?
Also, unrelated question: what does the "X reviews" parenthetical after mean on the nominations page? Rusalkii ( talk) 17:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am also a new reviewer. I have an article or two in mind that I'd like to nominate for review, but I figure I should contribute to your backlog to understand the process and contribute first. I'll do my best by following the instructions. Ruthgrace ( talk) 17:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I am concerned about this review, which appears to consist of a single sentence. That's not sufficient in my view; every GA at least has discussion points that can be raised, including ones where I am confident that the nominator has sufficient expertise and writing skills to not require many changes during a review (which, in the case of Kyle Peake's experience on writing pop music GAs, seems likely). The nominator was community banned a few months later.
My question therefore, is what should we do? We could relist the GA review, or we could trust that Kyle has done a sufficient job that it probably does meet the GA criteria. Any thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Two days after it sprang a leakis considered "clear and concise prose" per the GA standard. I don't expect there to be a huge amount to clean up, but enough that a real review needs doing so the article can be improved enough to get there (for example, in the Background and recording section). BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Skytheunicorn has just reviewed and passed
Talk:Paganism in Middle-earth/GA1, but it doesn't seem to have been done according to the
GA criteria. In particular, Needs One or two more sections; I feel like more evidence would be too much for the reader's experience, but adding per se an author testimony section would be good
seems to be saying that the article fails number 3, Broad in its coverage
, and the final conclusion, With slight tweaking, yes
, means that it isn't there yet.
While I appreciate their enthusiasm, at best, the article should have been put on hold for additional work to be done, but it isn't clear that all the criteria have been addressed by the reviewer in their review. In addition, Skytheunicorn nominated five articles for GA at around the same time, two in the hour prior to their review, and three in the hour after it. As they hadn't made any edits at all to these articles, much less significant ones, and had not consulted with those who had contributed on the talk pages prior to nominating these articles (as WP:GANI notes should be done), I will be reverting their nominations. If they wish to consult on those talk pages, with the usual seven days to see what the responses are to the idea that the articles are ready for GA review, then they can always renominate if consensus is that the particular article is indeed ready. However, it might be a good idea to get far more experience of Wikipedia in general and article writing in general before plunging into the world of GA reviewing and nominating. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I know there was a discussion about this last month, but the backlog's gone up by nearly a 100 since then, so perhaps a Dec backlog drive is in order? AryKun ( talk) 04:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I should probably get my own house in order before I start throwing stones, but I have noticed yet another overeager young reviewer who is quickfailing articles with almost no commentary. The two examples so far from User:Kpddg include:
There is also one quick pass, at Talk:Philippe Coutinho/GA1, but I am more concerned about the quickfails, both of which came on nominations from GAN veterans. — Ghost River 05:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, I am concerned about the quick-fails too ... The reason given for failing George H. W. Bush broccoli comments (my nomination) here was "repetitve (the quote where he says 'I dont like brocolli', etc; short article". Well, that quote is just two times in the article (first time in the lead and then in the prose). Moreover, I don't think that the article is too short, there is no minimum length for a GA except that it has to cover all major aspects. Have left a message on reviewer's talk page. Would it be possible to have both the quick-fails re-assessed without renominating? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 08:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination.I am inclined to challenge the review then. Would that be fine? Courtesy ping for BlueMoonset and Whiteguru. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 08:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I saw Pseudo-reorganization acquisitions was in backlog and made my 2nd review ever here. Am concerned my feedback is harsh/unfair and would love a confidence check at Talk:Pseudo-reorganization acquisitions/GA1. Feel free to respond here or in the review directly. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, long time no talk. Without flatly begging for a review, the article Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album is up for DYK for Christmas Day, and is just short of the 5x expansion requirement. I don't want to artificially bloat the article, and I would be GA nominating it anyway after spending working on its expansion, and since a new GA status is also suitable for DYK approval, I nominated it and have come to ask if anyone would be kind enough to review it before Christmas? Thanks, Kingsif ( talk) 03:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering why Legobot hasn't processed my review of Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album (from the section above) yet; it seems to be working for other nominations. It didn't increment my review count nor did it process the pass (i.e. sending a notice and marking the article and talk page.) Did I mess something up? (One thing is that I immediately placed the article on hold after starting my review, rather than initiating it and reviewing it after as I've done before, not sure if that's affected it...) eviolite (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
See discussion at WT:FAC SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey all. An IP editor who contributed greatly to Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington) nominated it for GAN back in July. I made this edit reverting it as that specific IP hadn't edited since July and I was under the impression IPs couldn't nominate GAs, but unknowingly they have been continuously improving the article through various IPs and also have an official account here. Would it be possible to reinstate the nom's position in the GAN list; since they have been waiting since July it would be very unfair if they had to wait significantly longer due to a mistake on my part. I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. – zmbro ( talk) 04:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if there's any way to know who did the most GA reviews this year? Perhaps we could start handing out barnstars to people who are contributing to GAN reviewing all year round to aid people's motivation even outside of backlog drives. NPP has a similar system of handing out year-end barnstars. ( t · c) buidhe 13:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
There was a drive-by GA pass by an inexperienced reviewer at Talk:Philippe Coutinho/GA1. I am able to re-review this. Can I just add my feedback on the GA1 review page? I'm sorry for the delay in following up on this. I volunteered to give a second opinion and then forgot about it for >10 days, but I will start this weekend. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 22:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Can someone delete Talk:BAP Carrasco (BOP-171)/GA1 as G6/housekeeping? Elelch, you can't review your own GA nomination. Wait for someone else to create the review page ( t · c) buidhe 01:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, a new user has passed my GA nomination Talk:1961 San Diego Chargers season/GA1 without comment. I'm not sure of the correct procedure with this?-- Harper J. Cole ( talk) 01:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
A review of my GAN Tietze syndrome seems to have been passed way too quickly, in roughly 20 minutes time. The reviewer does not seem to be experienced in GAN, or Wikipedia even. Their account is less than a month old. Not to mention there are a couple of suggestions another user commented on my talk page that I have yet to complete, which you can find here. If anyone would be willing to re-review my article, it would be greatly appreciated. — TheRibinator ( talk) 17:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. But, I do want to learn how to do a Good Article review someday. I can always come back every month, so this isn’t the end of the world, that I understand. Go ahead and delete the GANs with my permission, and if you have anything else to say, let me know on my talk page. I check everything daily. Thank you! BubbaDaAmogus ( talk) 00:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Aurochs/GA1 here the reviewer An anonymous username, not my real name requested a second opinion, but as nothing was actually reviewed (or at least nothing mentioned here), maybe the page should be deleted? Artem.G ( talk) 10:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
In responding to this discussion on the backlog-drive talk page, I came across a few reviews that seem exceptionally short. The first two were quick-passed, and the third passed after three comments.
At least to me (although contrary views are welcomed), these seem to fall short of the requirement that "an in-depth review must be performed to determine whether a nomination passes all of the good article criteria". The third article, too, seems to have potentially serious breadth issues, which were largely passed over in the review. Does anyone have suggestions for how to address these reviews? -- Usernameunique ( talk) 08:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason why when GAN pages are created they list only the reviewer, and not the nominator? A lot of times when I look at a past GAN it takes me longer than it should to see who the nominator is (because many people commented on the review). Of course, it is listed in the main GAN page, but if one goes from article history, it is unavailable if the GAN has already finished. FLC, FAC and PR list the nominator, why not GAN? Aza24 ( talk) 06:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I did remember we requested one a while back. I assumed it had not been worked on. That's fantastic news Firefly! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. Kosack hasn't edited since October 3rd. He left Talk:Thomas Tuchel/GA1 unfinished. I am interested in taking it up but am not sure what the procedure is when the previous reviewer is AWOL. Advice? REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I have left initial comments on the GAR page. I'll have a look over Kosack's comments over the next few days, although Paul seems to have covered them pretty well so far. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 13:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, guys & gals, I have placed GA icon on Stjepan Vukčić Kosača manually - there was some confusion about the reviews of that article in the first and second attempts, it is very possible that the editors who tried to review (1st and 2nd time) handled templates and its set-up incorrectly. The review was done properly in the third and last attempt. Now, in order to avoid new confusions, and possibly some problems with the manual placement of GA icon by me since I was the nominator, I would like someone to confirm that I acted correctly and within the constraints of our guidelines - I found under the Instructions that this is possibility when bot is malfunctioning for some reason(s). Thanks.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°
Q28 has been nominating bunch of articles without a single contribution on those. 180.194.213.114 ( talk) 05:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Could another editor please take a look at Talk:Golden Retriever/GA1? The nomination was speedily failed without any chance given to rectify any of the issues raised. The reviewer, Kpddg ( talk · contribs), has been the subject of several threads here already including the one above, WT:Good article nominations/Archive 25#Another new reviewer causing problems and WT:Good article nominations/Archive 25#Second opinion. I have attempted to engage with them on their TP [14] but they have not acknowledged my message despite editing elsewhere. Cavalryman ( talk) 13:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC).
the required experience and permission is gained[15]. If they abide by this then there should be no need to seek a TBAN, if behaviour continues then I would support a trip to ANI. Cavalryman ( talk) 00:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC).
As a heads up, three nominations—of Out of This Club (nominated 26 March 2021), Lie About Us (nominated 30 March 2021), and Nokia Lumia 800 (nominated 5 January 2022)—were incorrectly formatted on their talk pages, and thus did not show up on the nominations page. The problem was that the {{ GA nominee}} templates were placed within the {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}} templates: see the example here. The first two, now nearly a year old, were nominated by MrHyacinth, who has not edited since October. The third—which was nominated with the subtopic "It has decent writing, good references too!" (and so still does not show up on the nominations page)—was nominated by Yodas henchman, who has not made a single edit to the article. For these reasons among others, I'll remove the nominations.
This should resolve some, and perhaps all, of the discrepancy between the numbers in Category:Good article nominees awaiting review (which displays at the top of the nominations page) and the numbers in WP:Good article nominations/Report—which is why I was looking at the talk pages of articles in that category in the first place. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 03:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Just as it seemed we were finally finishing up the review, another user active in WP:MATH,(not the nominator, who I must say in this context has been nothing but helpful and cooperative these past two months), chose to be hostile and confrontational with me to the point that I no longer feel comfortable continuing the review as it has become impossible for me to do so if I have to interact with this editor as I now have great difficulty assuming his participation in this review is in good faith.
Can it be flagged as needing a new reviewer? (It's not just "second opinion") We were so close to finishing it up that it really wouldn't be fair to the nominator to have to fail it/withdraw the nom and make him have to put it through the whole process again (although with the current backlog elimination drive that probably won't take too long, but it should be said that I took the review on in late October when no one had touched it since April, so it has already been the better part of a year here). But if that's the only way to separate myself from this review then I absolutely will ... someone else can deal with this guy. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
After each article title there is a total for reviews in brackets. Surely this should be “views”?? Am I missing something obvious?
If there is some reason it should be “reviews” could we add some sort of key or explanatory note? Mark83 ( talk) 01:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
And that means…? Sorry, not trying to be difficult. I just think it isn’t clear at all and other readers would benefit from clarity. Mark83 ( talk) 05:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
a lot of this stuff is fine, but doesn't really help us without a new bot. I can't say the current style is all that ambiguous... But I would like a ratio of nominations to reviews to show up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm reviewing
PrOP-M. At my suggestion,
Artem.G wrote this sentence: Sources differ on the physical size of the rover. Some say it's 25 cm × 22 cm × 4 cm (9.8 in × 8.7 in × 1.6 in), others say 25 cm × 25 cm × 4 cm (9.8 in × 9.8 in × 1.6 in) or 21.5 cm × 16 cm × 6 cm (8.5 in × 6.3 in × 2.4 in)
. Between the 3 sets of data, 3 numbers per set, and units conversion, it's not easy to read. Any suggestions on how to represent the source disparity correctly while maximizing readability? --
RoySmith
(talk) 15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The size of the rover is disputed, with it being listed between 21.5x16x4cm and 25x25x6cm. [a]
I'm reviewing Basuto Gun War, which has large sections and no subsections. Is this an issue? Is there anything other than the vague statement at MOS:BODY ("sections over a certain length are generally divided into paragraphs; these divisions enhance the readability of the article") to help guide me on this one? 13:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Amitchell125 ( talk)
I just wanted to get a second opinion on
this review. The reviewer is a newer editor, and only left suggestions about two sections in the article, stating no sources, and they're really the only two sections in the article that aren't typically sourced. I've written numerous good articles, I know my writing is good but it isn't that good
. There's always things (typos, grammar and wording suggestions, etc.) the reviewer catches that I missed, that this review doesn't have. The reviewer seems to have good intentions and is in good faith but isn't quite ready to be reviewing yet. Thoughts?
TheDoctorWho
(talk) 21:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Article was promoted immediately, even there are several unsourced statements, citation overkill and citations at the lead. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:3DC2:ED5C:21B0:A6 ( talk) 02:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I am reviewing Elisabeth Dmitrieff and am not sure about how to address photographs which were taken in the early 20th century but perhaps never published, or not published until very recently. Could an experienced reviewer advise over at Talk:Elisabeth Dmitrieff/GA1? Thanks! ~ L 🌸 ( talk)|
The use of {{excerpts}} seems incompatible with GA status (or at least very problematic). I've looked at the archives of this page and other editors seem to agree. Could I get some advice please as this is a concern relevant to a live nomination? But more generally I wonder if we could/should bring this into the GA criteria? Mark83 ( talk) 18:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
As of the daily report, there are 195 unreviewed nominations. As Eddie891's great graph shows, that's the first time in nearly a decade there have been fewer than 200 unreviewed nominations. (Although it's been close three times in that span, and is possible that during the day the number of nominations slipped under that number, and then increased before the report ran.) It'll undoubtedly go back up after the current backlog drive ends if not before, but is nevertheless fun to see. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 02:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The review of Ryan Carter (American football) was opened by Hey man im josh, with the edit summary "Accidently submitted myself as a reviewer". Unless I'm missing something, it appears that the review should be deleted so someone else may claim it. Note also that the review is malformed (it has no "Reviewer: [reviewer] [date] (UTC)" line), such that Legobot has difficulty with it. The nominator is Sportswikiteer. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 21:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, the review of 2022 College Football Playoff National Championship was opened by ArsenalGhanaPartey, who later edited the article's talk page to attempt to close the review, saying "Withdrawing my review with regret". The edit did not have the effect of showing the review as closed, however, and the article still shows up as under review on the nominations page. Given that no substantive comments were made on the review page, it should probably just be deleted. The nominator is PCN02WPS. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 21:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This is sort of a philosophical question, but one with significant ramifications for this process. And I don't doubt that it's been agonized over in the past, so references to previous discussions would be an excellent starting point for me to educate myself. Basically, the question is whether it's potentially possible to write a "Good Article" about any topic, or whether there are topics that are so narrow or abstruse or mundane that there simply isn't an intersection in the venn-diagram of "comprehensive," "not too detailed to lose the interest of a general reader," and "longer than a few sentences?"
I ask because it feels like there are otaku who toil over an article, adding every possible abstruse detail, yet never putting forward a rationale for why the topic might be interesting to a general reader... If you remove the trivia, there's not much left, certainly not a "Good Article." If you try to beef it up by broadening the context, it loses focus. Yet the author/nominator feels very strongly about their topic, and isn't interested in making any changes at all, on the grounds that they know more about their chosen subject than you do. Which they do. That just seems orthogonal to "goodness."
If the consensus is that anything can potentially be the subject of a "Good Article" and hallmarks of Good Articles are that they are both comprehensive and do not descend into trivia, it seems like the implication is that there can be very short good articles. Ones of only a handful of sentences. Because there are topics that are defined so narrowly that comprehensive coverage can be achieved with brevity.
Thoughts? Bill Woodcock ( talk) 10:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Manistee Watch Company/GA2 was passed by User:Vice regent at 07:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC). Legobot sent me a message on my Talk Page that it had failed. It does not show up in the tool that counts passed nominations as the most current one as it should. I think somehow Legobot got confused, because GA1 had failed. Can this be corrected so that it shows as a successful nomination, so that https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans? picks it up correctly. Thanks.-- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 11:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The reviewer quickly failed the review for language being "too technical". Not sure what specifically was too technical about the language as many terms were linked. Also, reviewer had issues with terms like "scuttling" and "navy transport", which I'm certain are fairly well known. I believe the article was not given a proper and mature review. I ask that a different reviewer reviews the GA nomination. Thank you. Crook1 ( talk) 19:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
the absolute minimum is that all paragraphs should at least end with a citation. 1 The first section after the lede has no citation in paras 1 and 3 and no ending citation in paras 4 and 5. There are further instances of this in later sections as well. A close read of the lede also revealed quite a few grammar and MOS issues as well, for a few examples: compare
... Eurana together with several other ships was ...and
... she together with several other vessels were ...(indeed this latter sentence implies that all of the purchased ships were
renamed Alamar) ;
... the ship was released from the navy service ...- remove 'the navy' as it's stated that the ship was requisitioned in the preceding sentence ;
... she was acquired by Frank Duncan McPherson Strachan to operate in the Atlantic trade- this is the only individual mentioned in the lede and the reader is not provided an explanation (there) as to who this is ;
... to prevent her from becoming the menace to navigation- a, not the. I don't believe that any of this is quickfail worthy, but the article needs a thorough review to meet the GA criteria. Mr rnddude ( talk) 01:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations, which I don't think this meets either but gives a bit more room for interpretation than
the absolute minimum is that all paragraphs should at least end with a citation(which is, strictly speaking, tighter than the GA criteria as written). -- asilvering ( talk) 22:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Editors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria(FAQ) up to and including C-Class<- That's pretty explicit, at least for me. The same section is for requesting an assessment against the B-class criteria. It's all a moot point now though as the GA and FA review processes supersede Wikiprojects' internal review processes. Checking the member's list, Crook1 isn't listed so it's likely they didn't know about MILHIST's 'customs'. Mr rnddude ( talk) 02:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The review for Talk:First homosexual movement/GA1 has been open for a month, but unfortunately the reviewer has never posted the review. I would love it if they could do it, but they haven't responded to multiple pings. Should this review be deleted or should I ask for a second opinion? ( t · c) buidhe 05:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
On 1 January, Jburlinson opened reviews of Jans der Enikel ( nominated by ΟΥΤΙΣ) and William Chaney ( nominated by me). Since then, the reviewer has made only five edits on Wikipedia, and has not responded to a reminder (on 30 January) on the Jans der Enikel review page. The reviews suggest that a few metrics have been looked at (e.g., both say "I added a couple of references where they seemed appropriate"), but this appears to be boilerplate copied over from previous reviews, since no such edits have been made to either article.
Absent any objections, I would propose deleting the review pages and letting a new reviewer have a go. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 02:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Christianization of the Roman Empire is currently being reviewed ( link to review page), but is not showing as such in the main listing of GA nominations. Not sure what the bug is. Ganesha811 ( talk) 14:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I selected this for review while I was on my tablet but it hasn't attached the GA tools template. Could you please insert the tools or, if necessary, revert the selection and I will pick it up again? Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi! It appears that the review of Leonel Gómez Vides has been abandoned at Talk:Leonel Gómez Vides/GA1. The reviewer has not taken any action on the review since January 23rd and has not edited on en.wiki since February 9th. What is the right thing for me to do in this situation as the nominator - mark it as needing a second reviewer? Thanks. Ganesha811 ( talk) 01:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
On 1 January, Jburlinson opened reviews of Jans der Enikel ( nominated by ΟΥΤΙΣ) and William Chaney ( nominated by me). Since then, the reviewer has made only five edits on Wikipedia, and has not responded to a reminder (on 30 January) on the Jans der Enikel review page. The reviews suggest that a few metrics have been looked at (e.g., both say "I added a couple of references where they seemed appropriate"), but this appears to be boilerplate copied over from previous reviews, since no such edits have been made to either article.
Absent any objections, I would propose deleting the review pages and letting a new reviewer have a go. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 02:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Telex80 has picked up several nominations and "reviewed" them by adding the standard template and a comment or two without critical commentary. These should be reverted or reassessed as appropriate:
Sounder Bruce 06:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Mohammed Shami has been nominated for GA, however the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Was wondering if this GA nomination should therefore be reverted per WP:DENY, or allowed to continue? Is there a standard way of dealing with this? Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I recently have just approved the Aqua Aqua article as a GA, however it is still being rated in the WikiProject Video Game ranking as a B instead of GA, And its badge doesnt appear? PerryPerryD ( talk) 20:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I can't find any instructions on how to remove premature nominations, like Ghost of Kyiv, which was recently nominated. I've reverted the nomination, but I don't know if that is sufficient or if further steps are required. Mr rnddude ( talk) 10:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Can I ask, is there a process for a speedy close of a GAR? A user involved in a dispute on the article NATO elected to nominate the article for GAR on the basis of an edit war they were involved in. While I'm sure a real GAR would be beneficial, this may not be the best time for one. There's a lot of new editors due to the article lately being in Wikipedia's top 25 most visited for the last few weeks, which is generally welcome, but leads to a certain amount of instability which could make it difficult for reviewers.-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 01:15, 6 March 2022 (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.
Can we not let
PerryPerryD review articles again? He suspiciously passed the article easily on
Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle/GA2 including this bizarre review
Talk:Assassin's Creed Odyssey/GA1, and then quick failing
Talk:Warlocked/GA1. They are probably only making articles more worst.
110.67.38.99 (
talk) 23:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear expert-reviewers. I am an apprentice-reviewer and wondered about spot checks on text-source integrity. I have looked at archived GA discussions and consensus seems to be that such spot checks should be regular parts of reviews. They are, however, not directly mentioned in the GA criteria. The Note 3 of the criteria comes perhaps nearest to do so where it says "At a bare minimum, check that the sources ... support the content of the article". I wondered what to do when sources are difficult to access. I believe I have read somewhere in Wikipedia that reviewers can ask nominators to provide excerpts from such sources. Is this true in GA? Where is this specified? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 17:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Grood day @ User:Caeciliusinhorto and @ User:Chris troutman, thank you very much for the discussion. I stupidly forgot to add the page to my watch and missed out on your contributions when they were actually made. They help me very much. I think I will take your advice and just politely ask nominators for excerpts, when I feel a spot check would be needed on an inaccessible source. Thank you very much, best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 10:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, my apologies at first for requesting this. It appears the reviewer of Banjarmasin nomination ( Talk:Banjarmasin/GA1) has not been active and the last review was on 22 January 2022. The nomination itself is older, nominated since June 2021. As such, I as nominator want to request new reviewer. Im not sure if the procedure would be to build on top of previous reviews or starting all over again as I am not familiar with this.
Thank you very much~ Nyanardsan ( talk) 08:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
As I mentioned above opening and closing community GAR seems a hassle to me so I won't open or close any more.
I asked for one to be closed both at the most relevant project and at Wikipedia:Closure requests but it has not been done. Could somebody please close the other 2 I opened namely:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Congestion_pricing/1
Not a big deal but it keeps the article alerts tidy at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change
Thanks
Chidgk1 ( talk) 09:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello all, I am looking for some additional thoughts regarding what I see as a very poor close of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2. It was open for several months, with a number of editors providing significant criticism on the basis of fact-checking, sourcing, neutrality, and prose. Many of these concerns were not sufficiently addressed during the GAR. Two days after the GAR closure, the article snow-failed its third FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SpaceX Starship/archive3) for reasons that mirror those brought up at the GAR, again making it very clear that the GA criteria are not met.
The close itself is thin: in its totality, it reads "No consensus: so I studied the article for over an hour and decided to keep as although I think a little criticism from https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/05/01/nasa-identifies-risks-in-spacexs-starship-lunar-lander-proposal/ should be added for FA I think it is neutral enough for a good article". This implies that the closer opted to ignore the vast majority of the discussion and decided to keep the article as a GA on their own recognizance, rather than on the basis of the article meeting the GA criteria after editing. I have attempted to discuss the closure with Chidgk1 at their talk page (see User_talk:Chidgk1#GAR_for_Starship) and have found their responses dismissive and insulting. Their final response was to suggest an individual GAR after four weeks. I think it is absurd to suggest starting all over again given that there is an existing GAR with a great deal of unaddressed input from multiple editors.
Would it be reasonable to undo the close and reopen the GAR to allow for a more experienced closer who will assess the article per the GA criteria? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
History of Terrorism, Entick v Carrington, and Somerset v Stewart were all just nominated by 185.251.10.201. In none of these cases does the IP seem to have been a substantial contributor to the article before the nomination, nor have they consulted the regular editors as WP:GAI suggests that they should. A quick glance suggests that none of these articles are of the standard we would expect of a GA, though I haven't thoroughly reviewed them. What should be done here? Just revert the nomination? Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 18:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
You shouldn't discriminate and treat them like any other nomination, remember you don't own wikipedia its for everyone, and everyone is equal is don't be a bigot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.251.11.193 ( talk) 16:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style. Then read through the GA criteria, and if you think the article meets the criteria, nominate it. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 19:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if anyone would like to review Indian Space Research Organisation. It's been a nominee for almost a year now (March 25th 2021) and has no review started. This article is not by me. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 17:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
What happens to a GA Review when the Review is finished? How does the Review itself kind of "disappear" from the article's talk page?... I know the answer is simple or is governed by MOS or some automated/bot process or whatever, but I need some of you experienced hands around here to please give me an answer and cite the MOS/GA guideline or whatever that governs the GA afterparty. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 20:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, I've noticed that IP addresses keep removing the good article nomination tag on
Jersey. Now,
Jèrriais janne, looking at the article itself, it would be failed if it went through the GAN process, as there are large swatches that do not have references, such as the entire "Administrative divisions" section, as well as unaddressed citation needed tags in "Economy". That being said, obviously an IP removing the nomination with an insidious comment in the edit summary (such a lazy nom
) is out of process. We may need to codify under what circumstances an uninvolved party may remove a GAN tag as opposed to letting an actual review play out. —
Ghost
River 19:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
“ | Challenges should not be made frivolously or casually, and should never be made to be disruptive or to make a point. Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate. | ” |
— Wikipedia:When to cite#Challenging another user's edits |
. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Not going to comment on this nom in particular, but I'd say we have two reasons for removing a nomination -
In all of these, I'd really expect a talk page section opened up to explain, unless there is no chance that the instigator is going to respond (AWOL, blocked, etc). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I notice that someone has decided to nominate Queen for GA again. This has happened several times before by drive-by editors who have done next to no work on it. Although I am slowly working through the article with the eventual aim to make it roughly equivalent to a GA standard, it is not ready at its current time - there are numerous "references" to copyvio YouTube clips and unreliable websites, which will take time to resolve. While the instructions say "Articles may be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject", I think it's reasonable to decline a nomination where at least one significant contributor objects. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The IP 212.250.168.131 is reviewing the Hayes Theater page. It states in the instructions that reviewers must be registered, so could someone remove the review? Nonexistent User ( talk) 21:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Can this be deleted per WP:GAN/I#R2? An IP user picked this up, but the GAN criteria indicate that only registered users should review GA nominations. Thanks. – Epicgenius ( talk) 13:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, this is my very first GA review so I might probably be missing something but my knee jerk reaction is this simply can't pass in its current state. Some sentences are grammatically unsound and the entire article is much too short, I think. At the same time, the nominator seems to have many GAs and FAs under his belt so I'm puzzled. Would appreciate a second opinion or even a third! Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Amir Sjarifuddin Harahap was listed as GA this morning, but this does not appear to be a valid GA review. Ruбlov ( talk) 11:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I recently reviewed Whitburn, Tyne and Wear for GAN, and promoted it, but the review was not transcluded to the article talk page, the nominator did not get a message from the bot on his/her talk page, and the GA symbol has not appeared on the article page. Have I simply missed out one necessary action? I haven't had the same problem with other articles I've promoted to GA recently. Advice would be most welcome. Tim riley talk 09:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I've become bored with reviewing an article, after I wrote up a review but ended up not saving it. Do I just leave it? blueskies ( talk) 17:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Mover of molehills today gave up in the middle of a review of a technical article, Talk:Möbius strip/GA1, after getting to the technical bits, because they were technical, and quick-failed the review for no valid reason. Until that point the review had consisted only of minor copyedits to the first two (nontechnical) sections and of points where I disagreed with suggested copyedits because they would have introduced technical errors. I don't think there's much to do in the actual GA process besides immediately renominate (I didn't lose much time from the original nomination date, and the other alternative, community review, doesn't seem likely to work better), but I thought I would leave this here as a heads-up to others of what I consider to be really bad behavior by Mover of molehills. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Play nice Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I hope my first nomination, Nintendo Switch, will pass the review. Also, can a bot put my entry in the Video Games section? Thank you. I am Rjsb0192 ( talk) 06:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to add a co-nominator to an existing nomination. How could I do this? K.e.coffman ( talk) 14:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
note=
parameter of {{
GA nominee}} that someone is a co-nominator, but the bot doesn't recognise it as a formal thing and they won't e.g. automatically get the notifications about the review that the nominator gets.
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I started taking on a review of the Guadeloupe woodpecker article, but my workload has significantly changed. Because I wasn't going to have the time I had planned to work over the article (it's not a quick pass or quick fail), I decided to withdraw from the review to open it back up to someone else who could spend the time with the nominator on it. Following the instructions above, I put a {{ db-self}} tag on it and notified the nominator. The talk page of the article looks to be correct and invites someone else to create a review, but the GAN page still shows that a review has been started, but with a reviewer of "unknown". Is it ok to just go in and modify the GAN page, or do I need to give the bot a strategically-placed kick somewhere? RecycledPixels ( talk) 18:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Over the past year or so, I've been writing a lot about 1960s keyboard instruments and improving quite a few to GA. On that note, I think Fender Contempo Organ is about as good as I can get it. It's an obscure instrument that was commercially unsuccessful, in production for no more than two years, and has only one notable musician documented in reliable sources to ever use it, so I genuinely think it meets the "broad in coverage" criteria. However, it's only just over 3K of prose, and I've always felt nominating an article that short is a bit of a joke. What do other people think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed"(emphasis mine) and reviewers should not require
the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources. Also, for what it's worth, if that article passed in its current state, it wouldn't even rank among the 100 shortest GAs in terms of raw byte count. Colin M ( talk) 17:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I completed this GA review last night, but though the bot has correctly removed it from the list of open reviews, it hasn't added the GA icon to the article. Did I screw something up here, or is it just the bot being temperamental? And can I just manually add {{ good article}} to the top of the article page, or is there anything else I need to do to fix this? Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 08:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Eluike, with zero prior contributions, has begun Talk:Heilbronn triangle problem/GA1 and Talk:Möbius strip/GA2. Already they have made some mistakes, trying (in different ways) to mark both of them as having passed before providing any actual review. Perhaps, assuming good faith, someone more experienced would like to help guide them through this process? As the nominator of both articles it is difficult for me to take that role, although I did at least undo their passage of HTP and leave a comment on both review pages pointing to the relevant guidelines. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is being reviewed by someone who's not very active and I do not agree with his opinions. Can anyone else take his place? Dr Salvus 15:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I would ask for a second reviewer by setting the status to second opinion and leaving a note. ( t · c) buidhe 17:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Gatti is a right-footed centre-back who is strong in the air at 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in) tall[2][22] and who is also strong physically[9] and who has an eye for the goal.Has all sorts of according to whom? for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Gatti is a right-footed
centre-back who stands at 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in) tall.
[1]
[2] According to Mirco Vecchi, writing for I am calcio, he is a physically strong player with good technique, thanks to his previous play as a
midfielder.
[3]
or similar. Otherwise, you are just stringing together citations that say something about this person, and picking out vague information without attribution. Best Wishes,
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs) 15:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
:3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).:6
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I know I haven't been on Wikipedia long enough to do a review. But, I was wondering if there is a way for me to be a Co-reviewer? Thank You Finnish Idea ( talk) 22:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This is well written and passes Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Grammar/Spelling is correct.This is not accurate. The History section is unclear, largely due to the placement of "in 1960", and that date (echoed in the infobox) is clearly problematic: one of the sourced publications is dated 1 January 1960, which means that Windley, at least, had to make his discovery prior to that date in order to write his paper, have it accepted and peer reviewed, and then published as of the first day of 1960. Indeed, one of the other History sources itself references a number of sources to support the list of discoverers, one of which has a date of 1959. You also haven't addressed MOS:LEADLENGTH. It is clear that you aren't anywhere near ready to be reviewing this article, and should find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. It is doubly unfortunate that you should pick this one article out of hundreds to review, since it has been subject to several problematic review attempts by sockpuppet accounts over the past week. In an abundance of caution, since your account was created less than 30 hours after the sockpuppet accounts were blocked, I will be requesting a check to be sure you are not yet another username of the same editor who's been trying to review this article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I came across something I hadn't seen except in historical circumstance: the GA review of Janie Fricke was conducted entirely on the article's talk page rather than on its own review page.
What I have done is copied the review to its own page, Talk:Janie Fricke/GA1 (adding the proper boilerplate to the top of the review), and updated the GA template to point to that separate review page. What I was hoping is that an admin could move or copy the history of the review (starting March 31 and ending April 17, posts by reviewer User:TenPoundHammer and nominator User:ChrisTofu11961) to the new GA review page.
TenPoundHammer, thanks for taking on the review. The instructions page explains how to open a review so it creates its own page next time you review. Have you recently done any reviews on the article talk pages rather than on their own pages? I'm happy to make adjustments if so. (Not counting the pre-2010 reviews you did, when things worked differently.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Is it okay if I ask for a second reviewer to take a look at the GAN for this article? The original reviewer, Bluesunnyfox, hasn't edited in almost a week and noted that the GAN for the article was her first review. Would it be okay for another editor to either help her with the review, or take over if she doesn't return? Thanks! Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 12:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to bring up the article Penang, which was rated as a good article back in 2018. However, it has been discovered that the GA Review was helmed by Semi-auto, a confirmed sockpuppet of Vnonymous, who was the user who had made major contributions to the article and had placed the nomination themselves. BonjourPinang and ParfaitMauban are also other confirmed sockpuppets of theirs that has made contributions to the article. Furthermore, the article swiftly went from nomination > review > passed in less than a day, which should had definitely caused great suspicion at the time, not to mention that it was also passed by their own sockpuppet account. These actions are clearly inappropriate uses of alternative accounts ( WP:BADSOCK).
This person was literally reviewing their own content and pretending to be distinct personas. There is a whole lot of boosterism throughout this article added by this user that should be addressed. It's also hard to confirm how much of these sources correlate to the text, and with this sockmaster already known to engage in deception, it leads me to think that they may very well be engaging in the same thing when they were making major edits to the article, especially if one is not a native or knowledgeable to the city/region.
I initially brought this up to WP:ANI and was advised to bring it up here to see what the next steps should be. Some have responded to just merely remove the GA tag and disregard the bogus GA Review as actions of socks should be considered meaningless, while others think it should be left as is or reassessed. In my view, I suppose doing nothing may incentivize others to also attempt similar things, and that it may seem like it wouldn't matter at all for them even if they eventually get blocked for sockpuppetry, as long as they have already succeeded in promoting an article. Paul K. Sutton ( talk) 19:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Add: Added George Town, Penang as well. Same situation. While it has been reassessed, it was done without the foreknowledge that there were deceptive sockpuppetry involved that may had influenced their judgement. Tagging SounderBruce to let them know about it. Paul K. Sutton ( talk) 09:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
it now meets the minimum standard in the GA criteria. Ignoring the deception and other issues with socking, the main issue re GA's is that someone independent assesses the article. That has been done in this case, although I will concede that if the socking had been known the reassessment might have been more in depth. Aircorn (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Otherwise, it now meets... Looking back at how things stood, we have a sockmaster trying to save a sockpuppet's GA passage, showing just how inadequate their original self-review was. The article should never have been given GA status to begin with, the reassessment was withdrawn in part because of Vnonymous's continuing deception, and I agree with Paul K. Sutton, Colin M, buidhe, CMD, and ProcrastinatingReader that the status should be pulled. I'll be interested in hearing SounderBruce|'s thoughts four years on. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
In this situation, an immediate demotion is the only possible option. The GA process relies on independent assessment by editors who have not heavily edited the article (minor grammar/spelling corrections do not disqualify). That has clearly not happened. As for Talk:Penang/GA1, the best course of action is to keep the text, but strike it through. If a new GA nom is made, it can be at GA2. Mjroots ( talk) 06:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that we have a consensus that George Town, Penang should be delisted, which I have done. I checked back and of those editors I pinged, all but buidhe had originally commented after Paul K. Sutton had added that article to Penang as another with the same sockpuppet approving a GAN by the same sockmaster nominator.
I basically followed the process I proposed above: the Talk:George Town, Penang/GA2 page has been archived/hatted with a "Voided" notice (as I did with Talk:Penang/GA1); I added a section to Talk:George Town, Penang explaining the delisting, and added an entry to the Article history template for the delisting, using the closest analogue, GA reassessment, pointing to that new explanatory section on the talk page. I hope this creates enough of a trail for people to follow, and satisfies the needs of the situation. Should I also hat/archive the original withdrawn reassessment? BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Can I have two articles waiting for a review at the same moment? Dr Salvus 21:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
We're now up to 457 nominations outstanding; 391 not reviewed compared to the end of January where we were at 165(!) not reviewed. Time to run another backlog drive in May or June? ( t · c) buidhe 00:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone has already noticed this, but @ Will y theweatherguy473737: appears to be reviewing the article they nominated - Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory. Don't know what the protocol is here, so thought I'd point it out to those who know more before something dubious happens. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:56, 2 May 2022 (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 see there was a snow close recently for limiting the number of nominations recently ( Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Limiting the number of GA nominations per editor). I would have opposed that too but I do agree there has been a constant issue with the backlog. I have felt that a major cause of this is editors nominating a disproportionate amount of articles relative to the number they review. Thanks to the development of a tool that can tell us how many good articles someone has we can now work out a rough ratio of reviews to nominations. There are some issues with obtaining both numbers, but it should at least give us a good idea of the scope of these ratios.
Here is link a list of editors that have over 50 good articles as of 17 November 2020, but have reviewed less than half as many nominations according to User:GA bot/Stats. User names are not included. This does not take into account failed nominations, co noms, or editors that have taken over an abandoned review. At least one name on this list contributes to the GA process in other important ways. On the flip side out of the 121 editors with over 50 Good articles 17 have reviewed twice as many as they have nominated (one ten times as many).
There seems to be a consensus that we need more reviewers and I would think that these editors would be prime candidates. At the least I think we should leave notes on the talk pages of active editors pointing out the discrepancy and encourage them to contribute more to reviewing. This might be more impactful coming from the GA community than an individual editor (before this list was possible I approached editors I suspected were not reviewing as much as they could and tried to encourage them to review more with limited success). Maybe more should be done to encourage if that doesn't have the desired effect. Maybe we should just ignore it and be happy editors are contributing lots of quality content. I don't really know the best approach, but I do feel this is a major cause of our persistent backlog issues. Aircorn (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, this is simple. Some people like creating content and not reviewing others. Some people like reviewing content but not creating it. Some people like to do both. And there's nothing we can do about that, nor should we. However if there is any appetite to enforce a more rigid QPQ here then that should be proposed, otherwise things will definitely not change. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
That's called QPQ.. No kidding... Eddie891 Talk Work 12:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I find the "don't create so many GANs" arguments to be a bit poor. If you nominate 30 articles in one go, but review 50, then you've made a significant inroad to the backlog. I reviewed 25 articles last month, so why would I need to be limited to 3 concurrent ones? Surely if we got a bot to say what the ratio of reviews/nomination was, if they have better than 1, it's fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
A good writer does not necessarily make a good reviewer, and even then, it would be incorrect to assume that everybody making copious amounts of good article nominations is a good writer. I know that I would prefer that I have a reviewer who enjoys the process looking at my nominations. What no one has mentioned so far is that I know at least a few users who would be willing to help out with the review process, but they are afraid of doing something wrong. Having a system in place for experienced reviewers to help newcomers with their first or second reviews would make the process less intimidating, and would encourage more to try their hand. Kncny11 (shoot) 05:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Username. We are looking to encourage editors to review more articles at WP:GAN. As you are probably aware there is a large backlog. This means you and other editors may have to wait months before your articles are reviewed. According to [page] you have reviewed # articles and helped promote # articles to GA status. This suggests that you are familiar with the criteria and able to contribute more reviews. Without editors reviewing articles the process falls apart. If you need some help with reviewing feel free to ask a mentor or leave a note at WT:GAN.
A new editor's very first edit has been to start reviewing the above-linked GAN. While there's probably more to the story (some form of sockpuppetry seems probable), all that's clear is that this reviewer is not going to be able to complete an adequate review. G6 deletion is probably appropriate. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 16:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It is very informatve, and is the definition of good article material.is a satisfactory review so I am almost certain nothing more there will happen.) Though both main editors (AOS and nominator BasedMises) could also be socks of each other - none of the accounts is more than a few months old and almost entirely focus on this article. Kingsif ( talk) 19:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
We have done the WP:AGF and the sand has been kicked in our face. My sense is that the review should be removed and the article delisted, and the reviewer given a warning for blatant disregard of the criteria. Possible sockpupptery should also be investigated. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 21:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to express my concern about how a 2nd opinion on a GA review was obtained, here. I am not sure if this is the right way to go about getting a second opinion. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 07:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I could not find the GA reassessment for Deadmau5 when I looked at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment; I believe a mistake may have been made when the page was initially created. As such very few editors have had the chance to chime in. Would anyone care to take another look (and, if possible, fix?) Thank you. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 08:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
How we deal with suspected review process mishandling, and/or deliberate outright fail?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 19:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Good article reviews are not supposed to interfere with normal editing.The "edit war or content dispute" phrasing I mentioned above is a verbatim quote from the criterion; it is the only basis on which a stability fail is appropriate. The article certainly has some issues, and failing it might ultimately be appropriate. But it does not meet the stringent criteria required to deprive the nominator of a full review. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd say that of my last 40 GANs, all of them had a large volume of edits within the week preceding nomination. I'm expanding articles, and meeting the fivefold expansion requirement. If that makes them unstable, well.... shoot. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I have been reviewing Diaphragmatic rupture at Talk:Diaphragmatic rupture/GA2. Using free online software available to me, I identified some sections of prose copied verbatim from academic journals without a reference. Obviously, this does not comply with criterion 2d. Whilst this particular plagiarism has been highlighted and can be resolved, I am now concerned that I may not have identified all of the plagiarism in the article. Does anyone have advice on how I can "double-check", or does anyone know of more powerful free software for detecting plagiarism? Thanks! Bibeyjj ( talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that the bot seems to be down again (or its now running at a lower frequency). I've recently conducted a GA review, and the bot has yet to pick up that it has a reviewer and it's been several hours. If the article gets to the stage of passing before the bot comes to life again, will it mess things up for me to pass the article before it processes me as reviewer? Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm assuming that this will also prevent my GA nomination of Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862) from appearing for quite some time. Would it be worthwhile for me to manually add that nomination? Hog Farm Talk 06:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have had similar issues regarding Talk:Edward Lazear/GA1. I was able to "do the bot's work" manually, but my review count still seats happily at 1. Would there any way to add it to my GA tally? I am of course ready to live with it if that's not the case. JBchrch ( talk) 11:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@ LM150 and Trillfendi: Talk:Miranda Kerr/GA1 appears to be going nowhere. I've pinged both the author and the reviewer a few days ago, but while both are still actively editing, neither has responded. What's the right thing to do here?
A recently-passed GA,
Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu, has been DYK nominated, which is where I found it. I have some major concerns with the article, first of which is that it has an official English title but the reviewer, @
Some Dude From North Carolina: (hi!), didn't request that the article be moved to that title. The other, main, concern is that large parts are almost incomprehensible the English is that poor, and what you can understand still (physically, or maybe I'm dehydrated) hurts to read because of this lack of fluency. Courtesy ping to the nominator (of both),
Limorina, even though their userpage says retired. It seems like a machine translation, and a bad one, no joke. Some Dude, how did this pass? You only made three comments on the prose/grammar in your review, and also quoted something poorly-written only to say it was unnecessary. I'd say one only has to read the first four prose sentences of the article body – The series has been noted to draw attention with its actors, costumes, historical locations and story. Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu is written by Serdar Özönalan, directed by Sedat İnci and produced by Emre Konuk. After three years of scenario work for the series, every detail was meticulously prepared over 13-months. 350 décor employees, 100 carpenters and a team of 60 people took part in two separate sets, in which many locations in the series were built on.
– to get a headache and be asking what the hell does half of that mean.
Kingsif (
talk) 05:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, Wikipedia:The Core Contest is running again from June 1 to July 15. Enter at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Hope to get some important articles in the GAN pipeline :). FemkeMilene ( talk) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm a little concerned at the drive-by review for my nomination of the album The Ghost Inside. I finally got a chance to look at it and was dismayed to see that there were only three comments, of which one was vague and unhelpful ("Kind of awkward to read but it's fine") and the other two directly contradict my other album GAs, A Black Mile to the Surface and Painting of a Panic Attack. Namely, on both Black Mile and Painting, critical reviews and commercial response are under a "Reception" head, not split into separate sections, and, more importantly, there are no individual production credits per song. This is because, unlike rap, hip-hop, and pop, rock and metal albums tend to have 1-2 producers for the entire album, not separate writers and producers for each song.
I recognize that for most people, such a quick review would be a breeze, but it feels disingenuous to accept this review as is. I'm sure there are other areas for improvement on the article, as nitpicky as they may be. Kncny11 (shoot) 18:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, if a passing admin has a spare fix minutes, please pop round and "un-nominate" all six of CommanderWaterford's nominations as they have just been indef blocked at ANI. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, the reviewer at Talk:Emmanuël Sérusiaux/GA1 hasn't edited for 5 weeks and it appears as if this review has been abandoned. What's the standard protocol in situations like this? Esculenta ( talk) 13:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. According to GA bot, I have reviewed 26 GANs. However, looking through my Talk page contributions, I've reviewed 34 of them (including quickfails). Can my number be updated? I have a list of reviews if someone needs to verify this count. The 34 GANs doesn't include my 1 GA. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 17:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor who has made under 100 edits and never carried out a GA review before has taken on the GAN of Tolkien's legendarium as reviewer. The review comments do not seem to me to have anything to do with the GA criteria. Tkbrett has commented on the GA review page. The same editor has immediately and spontaneously (before I replied) launched a GAR of Women in The Lord of the Rings, also seemingly without knowledge of the GA criteria or the meaning of policy terms such as "neutrality" and "original research". I'm not sure how to proceed and would welcome inputs. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The above comments are hardly in keeping with Wikipedia's principle of assuming good faith. These articles do not meet criteria for Good Article status and the rushing through of these proposals is serious breach of Wikipedia protocol. Michael Martinez ( talk) 15:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I notice that someone has set up a new tab at the top of the page linked to SDZeroBot's GAN readout and labeled "Nominations [Alt GAN Sorting]".
The main distinction between it and the regular GAN page is that 1) SDZeroBot only lists unreviewed nominations and 2) they are annotated with additional information that is not on the regular GAN page. I don't have strong opinions over whether this tab should exist, but if so I think that the current wording is not a concise or easily understood way to label it, and suggest something like "Unreviewed nominations". ( t · c) buidhe 04:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Opened a bot task approval request for this at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 11. – SD0001 ( talk) 16:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I currently have two GANs, Politics of the Philippines and Political history of the Philippines. The upcoming 4 July represents the 75th anniversary of Philippine independence (although for quite interesting reasons it is not celebrated as such, 12 June is), so I thought it might be nice to list an interesting fact from them at DYK on that day. I didn't plan to finish around these dates (if I did I might have aimed for the 12 June date), but since the timing ended up as it has, I thought it would be worth mentioning here in case anyone was interested in reviewing one of them. Best, CMD ( talk) 17:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This article was passed as a GA by EasyTitle19 just now, this version, after a quick pass review with no real feedback ( Talk:Garry Kasparov/GA1). There are entire unsourced paragraphs in the article, I just added 42 {{ cn}} tags. And I see at least one unresolved dead link, too. EasyTitle19 has a total of 22 edits, all of them today. I think we need to disqualify that review. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
According to my review of the article against the Good Article criteria, it seemed to meet all the points. And I took my time with the review to make sure I understood what each criteria calls for. EasyTitle19 ( talk) 01:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
In light of this conversation and rereading the article, I realize now that I was probably too hasty with my review and promotion yesterday. I'd like to be involved in this process but maybe I need to start with shorter articles and really read them carefully. And I think having someone else review this article might be a good idea. How do I reopen the review and ask someone else to review it? And do I have to "demote" the article until after the second review? EasyTitle19 ( talk) 10:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
James Mueller (mayor), at some point, was taken off of "Good Article Nominations" list, or had somehow failed to be ever added by the bot. It should be listed. SecretName101 ( talk) 20:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I guess I've been lurking around Wikipedia, mainly editing as an IP when I have time to kill. Just created an account (3 or so days ago; not sure exactly when), and I understand all of the different criteria (^see above)
Should I wait a bit longer before reviewing or can I already start (the backlog is pretty huge, so I kind of want to start before the July drive)? Card Carrying Parrot ( talk) 22:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
A user named Modern NFL Historian has attempted to nominate Tom Brady for GA-status three times, despite not being a major contributor to the article, has few edits to their name and hasn't edited in almost a year. The user even asked a fellow football aficionado to nominate the article and in return, would help him during the editing process and get some advice during said process, before going on to nominate the article three hours after sending that message [4]. DepressedPer ( talk) 05:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
even leaving a message after each reedit? I can't see any messages from you on that talk page ( ever, for that matter), and as you say, you haven't discussed it with them on their own talk either. I've alerted them wrt to edit warring; while you, of course, don't need the template, it's probably worth a gentle reminder that reverting a misplaced GAN is not an exemption to the rules on edit-warring. Be mindful. —— Serial 12:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content... This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!. So remember: talk pages are to discuss the page in question (e.g., whether there shou;d be a GAN template on it), and user talk pages are for notifying other users that they may be edit-warring over aforesaid GAN templates. All the best! —— Serial 19:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
For those unfamiliar: Metroid Dread was previously a rumoured game in the said franchise. Emphasis on was, as Nintendo just announced it to be released this year. I bring this to your attention as our article is GA. However with it soon to be released I wonder how that status shall be. Should we leave it unchanged, revoke it due to imminent expansion or schedule a reassessment? I previously don't feel strongly either way. Thanks, anyway. DMT biscuit ( talk) 16:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello all,
Given that Legoktm has said that they would prefer not to do any feature or non-critical bugfix work relating to Legobot's GA(N) maintenance tasks, I think it's time we replaced the bot with a new one. This is in no way a criticism of Legoktm, who has diligently kept the bot running for years.
I have (mostly) reimplemented Legobot's GAN tasks, and am getting ready to run some live userspace tests as the first step on the path to BRFA. Alongside this I wanted to consult with those involved in the GA process to (a) ensure that I've not missed any potential bugs, and (b) assess any feature requests we may have for the new bot. For instance, I'm aware that there may be a desire to reshuffle the nomination categories that has been blocked as depending on ensuring the bot can handle them properly. My initial thought is to run this task under a discrete account rather than one of my FireflyBots, purely so that it's easier to add other maintainers to the project, and the edits made by the bot are clearly signposted as GAN-related. If people feel this is unnecessary or undesirable, that is fine, I can run it under FireflyBot. I intend to have a Phabricator project for the task either way, so the community can file bugs and feature requests after the initial specification-gathering/approval period.
In the interests of keeping things clear and ensuring I don't miss anything, I would ask that bugs, feature requests and general comments go in whichever section you feel is best below. Thanks for your thoughts, firefly ( t · c ) 13:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I have reviewed David Duke 1988 presidential campaign. As it is my first GA review, I have requested for a second opinion particularly for Grammar and MOS, and also to specify if I missed something. Although the Review is on hold as I recently gave my second set of comments, I would appreciate if any other reviewer can take a look and suggest. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 17:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
(Update: See WP:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021)
There are currently 514 nominations, 429 of which are unreviewed. In the two months since the March backlog drive ended, then, we've lost almost exactly half of the gains from the drive; at this rate, by the end of July we'll be back to where we started. How does a July 1 to July 31 backlog drive sound? Perhaps we could work in a point-based system (rather than the current one article = one point) to incentivize reviews of older and longer articles. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 04:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
As for points per size/age of nom, I'm good with that too. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The backlog page is now live, at WP:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021. It still has a number of placeholders, in particular:
-- Usernameunique ( talk) 05:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Notes
I've added the drive to the tab header, to give ample notice to anyone who visits the nominations page. In addition, what are good ways to raise awareness of the drive? Some ideas are:
I've got a general question about GA reviews. I've never done one myself so perhaps I'm just not too familiar with how it's usually done. Is it necessary to transclude the entire review on the article's talk page in an editable format? The example I'm thinking of is Talk:Jacinda Ardern/GA1 and Talk:Jacinda Ardern. Someone more unfamiliar with the GA process than even me, might not realize that what's posted on that talk page is actually transcluded from the GA1 page; so, they mistakenly might try to edit the review or add their own comments to the review. This might particularly be the case when a article has be PP'd for some reason and new or unregistered accounts are thus required to make edit requests on the article talk page. I came across this article via WP:THQ#Edit request: Death Threat ( permalink) where one such editor tried to post an edit request for the article at the Teahouse. If the review needs to be transcluded on the the article's talk page, then maybe it would be better to do so in a way in which the content of the review cannot be edited like is done with template documentation pages on the actual template page. It seems that one section title "GA review" for the entire review would be preferable to 30 sections, each of which can be individually edited. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I have added an article history section to the page, which moves the GA review off the talk page and supplies a link. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Do I need to install Prosesize if I'm taking part in the backlog drive? I am slightly confused. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 20:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Could someone take another look at Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump? it was passed at GAN, but I see some issues. There are uncited parts in the Trump counsel and Question-and-answer sessions sections. The article also has with 2 non-primary source needed tags and 2 expansion tags. Based on the review here by a newer reviewer, I believe this article wasn't thoroughly checked, especially with verification/broadness. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Quick question. Is someone able to point me in the right direction to a MOS link somewhere, about whether it is essential to italicize website names? And, should it matter for GA reviews if websites are not italicized but print media or magazines otherwise are? Haleth ( talk) 23:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Page numbers (or similar details) are only needed when the inline citation concerns one of the above five types of statement and it would be difficult for the reader to find the location in the source without a page number (or similar detail).which probably sums it up. Aircorn (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I was browsing GA nominations and spotted Arab Christians which has a merger proposal tag on. It appears that three other editors have supported the idea on the article talk page - including the nominator - without any opposition - since March. Moreover the merge proposal (and nominator's support) predates the GAN. The nomination is not under review at this point, but the situation may be puzzling to potential reviewers.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 11:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey! Do you want to reviews these article I have expanded: Hajipur , so I will be really grateful if you can so. Thank you! ItsSkV08 ( talk) 18:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Should the GAN of Be Best be reverted? This is the same user who quickpassed Talk:Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump/GA1 per the discussion above. They also have an open SPI on them as well. Pinging @ Colin M: as well as they've just opened the GAN review for Be Best. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 00:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
hi, I have a quick question Im interested in taking this article to GA (Im principle author [8]) is the article stable enough at this point?...thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I would wait on nominating this article for GA status: there are some editors who fiercely believe that Wikipedia's coverage of this event is unsatisfactory, & even if the article were perfect they would fight this rating. I mention this not because I agree with them -- I don't -- but because unless you are eager for a fight all you would get for the hard work is heartache. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
This article raises another question, which is can Good Articles contain excerpts? I would say excerpts can't fulfil the criteria, as any changes to their text does not show up in the article history, and thus it is difficult to assess stability. In addition, it makes it difficult to check the version of an article that passed GA, as oldid's would still display the current excerpt. CMD ( talk) 08:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Greysia Polii/GA1 (nominator: Sportsfan77777; reviewer: Stvbastian) and Talk:United Airlines Flight 328/GA1 (nominator: Dhaluza; reviewer: Bredyhopi) have both been "on review" for months, with little in the way of substance; despite pings, both appear to have been abandoned by the reviewers. It may be time to delete the review pages so these can be placed back in the queue. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 04:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Usernameunique, there are a number of reviews that have effectively been abandoned, but at least got to a certain point before the reviewer stopped for whatever reason—health, disappearance, lack of time, etc. The same sometimes includes 2nd opinions, where it's effectively a request for someone to take over. Might some of these be available for credit in the backlog drive? If the original reviewer did some good work and raised issues that do need addressing, it could be more effective to continue the open review rather than close it and start over. Perhaps we could specify ones that are eligible for takeover on this page. Any thoughts? BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, is the word count taken from the point where the review starts, or the point where the article is passed/failed, which may be slightly different? Thanks,-- Harper J. Cole ( talk) 10:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
"puff up" the article to get a word count bonus... internet anthropologists in 100 years reading this are going to be drawing some wonderful (amusing!) conclusions about Wikipedia's editors and epistemological motivations. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 00:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
It was recently brought to my attention that after providing a second opinion the person who provides it should place the article back on review (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Answering a second opinion). I personally have not noticed this to be occurring and it seems like it might be a good idea to leave it up to a reviewer to decide when to stop asking for second opinions. Just wanted to see what other editors who give second opinions do and whether it might be worth changing the instructions. @ Femkemilene:. Aircorn (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Today, by sheer coincidence, I stumbled upon an inexplicably deleted file titled "File:History of GAN Age Over Time.png" and requested it be restored from PROD at WP:REFUND. I now have for our elucidation a histogram of nomination ages as they were in 2018, breaking down data by the period the nomination has been open for -- it's interesting stuff. My impression from the archives of this talk is that the data is likely a little different now (I have the impression of a particularly long backlog a few years ago that's since shrunk), but the broad strokes are plausibly similar. Vaticidal prophet 12:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Due to sudden issues, I'm going to need to drop several of my open nominations for Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021. Is anyone able to pick up Talk:Let's Dance (David Bowie album)/GA1 and Talk:Heartless (Kanye West song)/GA1? Talk:Hardcore punk/GA3 as well, but I believe GhostRiver is interested in that one, so pinging her. The remaining open nom I can keep working with. Pinging @ Buidhe, Usernameunique, and Lee Vilenski as co-ords and @ Zmbro, Kyle Peake, and Hoponpop69 as nominators. Vaticidal prophet 21:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
But I just found out that 33% of all GAs have at least one outstanding cleanup tags. And I find that very high rate to be rather concerning. Not all of these tagged articles represent significant issues (I don't think the 5 tagged with "Articles using infobox body of water without alt bathymetry" or the 7 tagged with "CS1 errors: invisible characters" are that big of a deal) but many of these indicate possible sizable issues, such as the 187 tagged with Failed Verification or the 22 BLP GAs lacking sources. Would anyone else be interested in trying to work together to try to take a look through some of these classifications with the more serious concerns? Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
It may be worthwhile waiting for user:firefly, who was thinking about automating part of the GAR process before starting a serious sweep. FemkeMilene ( talk) 08:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
BigCheese76 nominated 2010 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania here in February, and I began reviewing the article in July. In the interim, however, BigCheese76 appears to have taken a break from editing—his last edit was in May. Would anyone be interested in shepherding the article through the nomination process? It needs a bit of work in a few places, but is in generally good shape; the review page is here. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Template {{GA inline}} and template GA pass {{GA pass|article|2000|01|01}} are up for merging. Discussion found here -- Whiteguru ( talk) 01:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who participated in the last drive and got GAN down by almost half. I am requesting any feedback from participants or suggestions from interested persons on how to improve the next drive—ideally, without adding too much complexity to the process. One thing that I think might improve the drive is making it shorter: say two weeks, which saw the greatest declines (199 articles!) during that period. By the end of the month, enthusiasm seems to have trailed off a bit. ( t · c) buidhe 06:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Your review must explicitly address all the GA criteria. An easy way to do this is by using one of the GAN templates.As you said, the reviewers leaving perfunctory reviews apparently are already using GAN templates. On the other hand, this creates a little bit of drudgery for those who prefer not to use those templates. I'm one of those reviewers. I stand by my reviews generally being very detailed, but I don't always explicitly mention all the GA criteria in each one. e.g. this review was 27k bytes, but nowhere in all that did I feel the need to say "This article is stable. There are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes." Similar situation for this really excellent review someone else did for one of my articles during the drive. I'm also a little iffy on 4. Though it's exceedingly rare, it's possible to come across an article that requires no substantial changes to meet the GACR, so it seems bad to force reviewers to come up with some change to mandate just because (I'm reminded of the anecdote of the queen's duck)
I see that Trevor Bauer has been GA-nominated. While the article itself is fairly stable, I wouldn't say the subject matter is - Bauer is a sportplayer currently on a restricted list due to ongoing sexual assault investigations. My inclination would be that this article doesn't meet the stability requirement due to the subject being in an up-in-the-air situation right now, but I want to know how others interpret the stability criterion at WP:GACR. Hog Farm Talk 02:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. If the "up-in-the-air situation" is causing an edit war then no, it doesn't meet the criteria; but, if there are no content disputes and it gets updated as new information regarding the situation becomes public then it meets the criteria. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Just a heads up, a user named "Sahaib3005" has just sped through a few GANs and approved them without leaving a single bit of critique:
The same user also nominated a clearly unready article ( Glasgow) without being a significant contributor or contacting those who did contribute. Perhaps we should have mandatory GAN training for new users before they are allowed to conduct their first standalone review. Sounder Bruce 08:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic: I know this isn't about their GAN/GA Reviews but I just took a look at their editing in general and they seem to be also having some issues with various file/pic uploads like File:John Gray with Greyfriars Bobby.jpeg & File:Blair drummond logo.jpg etc. Shearonink ( talk) 16:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
We have been here many times over the years with inexperienced reviewers not understanding the process and causing frustration among those more au-fait with the standards. Invariably, it ends up with the reviews being voided and placed back into the queue on their prior standing. Looking at these reviews, there isn't actually *any* where I can say even a superficial review has taken place. A script of some sort would be helpful, maybe even to flag up on the "size" of the review page to detect very short ones and allow for a double-checking. Usually, these problematic reviews are very short on size anyway. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello to all. I would ask the community to check out (another) review process for the same article nomination gone awry. In case of my nomination of " Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača/GA2", it seem that reviewer acted in drive-by mode, and never took time to alert me of his willingness to do the job, nor did he stick to the prescribed methods, and left me any space for fixes if they are needed, and so on. Reviewer just made a surprisingly long list of alleged shortcomings, which contains some rather obvious nonsense along with some reasonable points, and some points that may or may not be (mis)understood. Reviewer also noted how article needs "a large copyedit", which seem pretty unreasonable since that job was already performed by one of the project's top copyeditors ( User:Twofingered Typist). At this point the nomination has been failed, but it seems to me that the matter is pretty straight forward and that this review should be annulled. (Please @ Buidhe:, if you don't mind, I would ask you to take a look at this situation, considering that in the case of Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača/GA1 your promptly reaction helped resolve the situation.) Thanks.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 20:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Shoot for the Stars has been indefinitely blocked per an ANI discussion here. I have taken the liberty of manually removing all of the GAN tags on the articles that they nominated, but they also have an open (albeit not started) review here. — Ghost River 12:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
In regard to broadness, the GA criteria states "(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."
I agree with the criteria, but shouldn't there be a minimum length requirement of a nominated article? Even DYK had 1500 character requirement. I recently came across a GA titled "
M-105 (Michigan highway)", which is just slightly above 1000 characters. Although I have no issues with that article (or the whole Michigan highway's topic,
in which many are GA), but shouldn't there be a minimum limit of characters? Please correct me if I missed something. –
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk) 17:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
addresses the main aspects of the topic, there's no reason to force the author to ramble on about superfluous and tangential material. For some topics, 1500 characters is too long; for others, 50000 is too short. It doesn't seem like a one-size-fits-all minimum would really help, which is why it's been rejected in the past. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, unfortunately Mikehawk10 ( talk · contribs) has not edited since 4 July. He was in the process of reviewing 4 GA nominations:
Doug Coldwell and The C of E have pinged him, but he has not showed up.
As far as I can tell, we have no indication about why he is absent or whether he will return to the project at some point — I hope he is doing well.
May I suggest relisting these nominations as needing a new reviewer? ( WP:GAN/I#N4) JBchrch talk 16:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
User:JPxG created a review page for Presidential transition of Richard Nixon ( nom) on July 1, the day when the backlog drive started. I pinged the reviewer on the review page on July 25, and gave also informed on their talk page on August 11. The article has not yet been reviewed (though only a review page is created). Should that be marked as an abandoned review? I noticed that the reviewer is actively contributing to other projects. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 04:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
{{db-G6|rationale=Abandoned good article review}}
, which should ensure that the article gets another reviewer. Cheers,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 05:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The article Early life and career of Joe Biden, currently a GAN, is also being nominated at DYK under Template:Did you know nominations/Early life and career of Joe Biden. That nomination cannot progress unless a GA review is conducted, since the only way the article is eligible for DYK is if it's improved to Good Article status. As the DYK nomination has been open for over a month, I'm bringing it up here in case anyone is interested in reviewing the page. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The article "
Electoral history of Bill Clinton" would most probably be on the main page on August 19 (75th birthday of President Bill Clinton) in the Did you know column. It is a GAN, and I'll appreciate if anyone can review the article before it hits the main page. –
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk) 10:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like AAW may be in the same situation as the editor in the section above this one. He was in the process of reviewing two nominations. I'd be happy to finish the review on Esther Lederberg (once the nominator returns from a brief wikibreak). Larry Hockett ( Talk) 15:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Any experienced reviewers able to look at closing Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Metroid Dread/1? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 11:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's a registered user,
3E1I5S8B9RF7. They have nominated many GANs, and I haven't checked for other reviews but this:
Talk:Ashes and Diamonds (film)/GA1, came to my attention through the film assessment taskforce. Obviously that needs undoing, and the IP who mentioned it at the film project doesn't seem to have nominated it for GA, so I wonder if 3E nommed and reviewed it themselves, and maybe it doesn't need to be relisted for review. It does seem to fit in 3E's broad area of editing interest which may have motivated the blank review.
Kingsif (
talk) 12:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@ WaddlesJP13: has nominated Virginia at WP:GAN, but it is already a Featured Article (and has been since 2009)! This is clearly a mistake by the nominator, but I am unsure of the best course of action. Could more experienced editors advise please? Thanks Mertbiol ( talk) 08:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/GA1 was started by HeartGlow30797 on July 3. Things seemed to be going along but they haven't made any substantial comments on the GAN/Review since July 27th. (They did comment on July 29th "will get to this tomorrow" and on August 8th "Sorry I'm busy will get to this soon".) They haven't edited WP since their last comment to the review. On August 6th I mentioned at the Review page that I had done some additional work and yesterday I left a comment on their user talk asking what their intentions were towards completing the GA Review. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 21:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Can someone else please take on finishing this Review? Life has gotten the original Reviewer - HeartGlow30797 - too busy to finish it up in a timely manner. Does the process have to start all over again? I hate to completely throw it back into the pool again if I don't have to... Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 16:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Since another editor hasn't stepped forward to complete the present Review, I am putting the article back into the GAN queue per the instructions at When a reviewer withdraws. Shearonink ( talk) 14:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Not sure if this is the right place to ask but I was hoping to get some advice / feedback for a few articles I submitted to WP:AFC last year, and how much work it would take to get them up to GA-class.
On a related note, there's two which were rejected due to WP:ESSAY but I don't understand how these articles violate this policy. I've already removed some quotes / text but I'm not sure else needs to be edited. If this were a GA-class article what info would need to be cut from these articles?
Thanks for your time. 173.162.220.17 ( talk) 19:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I didn't realize there were different places. Thanks. 173.162.220.17 ( talk) 18:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk subpages, there's a bunch of old GA subpages that are now orphaned. Just looked a couple, but it mostly seems to have been old GAN/GAR stuff where the article was later deleted, such as Talk:John Wasdin's perfect game/GA1 and Talk:2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game/GA1. Any value in keeping these around, or should they get the G8 treatment? Hog Farm Talk 18:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello all. What's the thinking on the following:
It's theoretical at the moment but I'm intending to do a bunch of GA reviews I've had a few experiences where (1) and (2) have happened and I just have to fail the nom rather than make the changes to improve Wikipedia. I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 08:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Ham House is currently up for GA. I should like to pick up the review as I have watched the article’s progress through PR, and it matches my interests. But I did make some contributions to the article at PR. These were mainly in relation to citing a bunch of pictures, but it does put me as the third contributor in the Authorship statistics. Can somebody advise as to whether this would prohibit me from undertaking the review? I’m confident I could do an objective review, but I also appreciate the importance of an appropriate process. Thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 17:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to ask is it acceptable to ask someone special to review my GA nominated articles? Honestly, I have nominated four songs articles for GA, but no one has reviewed for more than a month. I might be busy soon and not be able to have a good respond, so I wanted to know can I ask someone (for example the reviewers who had reviewed my previous nominated articles or similar articles recently) to review them? Or I must wait for the reviewers to choose. آرمین هویدایی ( talk) 17:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
For Talk:Bank of America Tower (Manhattan)/GA1, it appears that Robertgombos, the "reviewer" listed on the review page, wanted to make a suggestion rather than do a full review. I asked Robertgombos if he planned to add more comments or if that was merely a suggestion, to which he replied that it was just a suggestion. A. C. Santacruz has offered to take over the review if Robertgombos was not interested.
My question is should the comment from Robertgombos be moved to the primary talk page for the article, allowing the GA1 subpage to be recreated? Or should A. C. Santacruz leave her comments in the existing subpage? I don't know if this is covered in WP:GAN/I which is why I'm asking. Epicgenius ( talk) 22:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Am I missing something here, or are IP's allowed to nominate articles for GA now? REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 13:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Heads up: I just went through the results of this query and cleared out around 80 articles that appear to have been erroneously categorized as good articles (their talk page was in a GA-class category, but they did not have the {{ Article history}} or {{ GA}} templates giving evidence of a review). The category may repopulate again over time, so someone may wish to clear it out again in a year or so. To do so:
class=GA
and class = GA
to just class=
.There were two articles that actually were GAs but had substed the GA template. If you want to check against outliers like that, convert your sandbox list to articles, and then do another PetScan run to filter for pages that are missing {{ Good article}}. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
class=GA
to a project banner; some of the ones I found were years old. I wasn't aware of the mismatches page and I'm glad to have a more permanent place to put the instructions above. I'll copy them to the documentation there for now, and
GreenC, if you're able to modify your bot to include this type of error in the regular listings, that would be fantastic, as it'd help resolve them more quickly. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 22:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)The March and July backlog drives were clearly successes, taking the number of unreviewed nominations from 579 to 273 (-306) and from 464 to 245 (-219), respectively. We're currently at 259 nominations—not bad compared to where it has been before, but still with much room to go down. (It would be significantly higher, but The Rambling Man has reviewed 148 so far this month as part of the WikiCup.) The only reason I can see to wait longer would be to avoid burnout. While this is important to bear in mind, I think it makes sense to have a few drives packed more closely together, and then, assuming the backlog can be taken down to a more sustainable level, spread them further apart (e.g., with two to three drives in 2022). Meanwhile, October is the last month of the WikiCup, so nothing wrong with adding an incentive to gain those points through reviews here. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 06:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure a drive is needed at this time, the backlog easily hits more than 500 from time to time, and that's when we need the really strong focus on reducing it. The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 09:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I had multiple tabs opened and accidentally began a review of my own article Talk:Agrippa_Postumus/GA1, meant Talk:Hungarian nobility/GA1. Was checking if anyone looked at mine while starting the other and goofed. Pretty sure it doesn't affect anything but explaining in case it does. SpartaN ( talk) 16:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Would someone be able to pick up Talk:Pierson, Iowa/GA1? It was insta-failed with mostly easily fixable issues. There are also non-issues like a healthcare and transportation section which can't exist for this town of 337 people. The reviewer also wants everything stated within the article to also pass the GNG. I waited around a week and half for this after the reviewer picked it up. SL93 ( talk) 02:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay hang on, looking now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Right - @ SL93: - Sounderbruce's suggestiions are what I would have suggested largely. Also avoid one-sentence paras. Once you've done them all, renominate and I'll review. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Casliber passed my GA, but the bot removed it from the pending nomination list as failed and no GA icon was ever added. SL93 ( talk) 21:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I've just undone a large number of out-of-process nominations by User:Bangalamania on articles that are either clearly not ready for GAN (e.g. Helen Munro Ferguson, Viscountess Novar, which only has two references) and/or that they have not significantly edited (e.g. Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners). There are a number of other borderline cases with stability concerns ( Boris Johnson), quality issues ( Korean Englishman), or that this user created several years prior but have not recently touched Squirt.org. I think the rest of these are worth combing over for possible removal/autofail. — Ghost River 20:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Today, my GAN Cedar Hill Yard was mysteriously instantly passed to GA without any review. When I looked into things, it turns out that User:PedroC6586 improperly passed it to GA, along with several other GANs. There's possible socking going on with another account, User:Brothers1837, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PedroC6586. All of their GA activity should be reverted. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make FA and GA icons in articles more noticeable #2.
Dege31 (
talk) 23:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
You are requested to provide your opinions at Talk:Tuqaq/GA2 — an individual reassessment. Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that Tintinkien had opened a review (possibly by mistake?) of his own GAN for Hawker Tempest. I applied CSD to the nomination page as it's not allowed to review your own nomination. Also, the GAN would not pass as the article meets quickfail criteria due to having active cleanup tags. ( t · c) buidhe 08:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey all. BuySomeApples opened the review for Streets (Doja Cat song) on September 20 yet they haven't made a single edit since September 22. Should we close that or mark it so someone else can pick it up? – zmbro ( talk) 18:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
[12] This GAN was nominated by User:What am you are 7 and promoted by User:What am you are 8. The latter is an account created solely [13] to promote the former's GAN. The socking is so obvious it's funny, but the GA should be undone. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/What am you are 7 Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
An article I nominated for GA just passed, but Legobot processed the pass as maintenance and did not add the GA badge to the article. Should it just be added manually? Armadillo pteryx 06:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've been working to improve the article Blood donation in India and was wondering if are there any restrictions on certain categories of articles ineligible for GAN? Since this topic focuses around general medicine/public health and not core medicine, would WP:GAN#MED be the right category to nominate it? Thanks! MT Train Talk 14:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Are nominations by an IP editor typically permitted? The only edits User:2804:7F4:8280:BEC4:DB4:94E2:8B9B:4E37 have made are to nominate articles, or to add the GAN tag incorrectly to the article space and their own user talk. Rfl0216 ( talk) 23:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday I reviewed Edith Garrud for GAN and marked it as passed. On the article's talk page this looks good, but there is no GA icon on the article page. Perhaps the bot got confused because at nomination time the article was called Edith Margaret Garrud. Can I just fix the article page myself? I also see that Edith Garrud is not listed in the Sports and recreation GAs. Should I fix that manually as well? Edwininlondon ( talk) 09:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm almost done with a review over at Talk:Shirley Chisholm/GA1. However, the the article has a 98% copyvio similarity with this website's article. Much of the text is supported by the sources cited, is publicly available, or basic facts about the subject (comes with being known for government work I imagine). However, I've never seen such a high similarity. I'd appreciate if someone with more experience dealing with plagiarism on Wikipedia could take a look at the review and copyvio report and see if the article can still pass GA or if something must be done with the article due to copyright. Cheers. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I've just started a review for Android Debug Bridge, but keep worrying I'm going to screw something up and pass an inadequate article/fail a good one. Is it okay to leave a second opinion request on my first review(s) to make sure a more experienced reviewer takes a look at it?
Also, unrelated question: what does the "X reviews" parenthetical after mean on the nominations page? Rusalkii ( talk) 17:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am also a new reviewer. I have an article or two in mind that I'd like to nominate for review, but I figure I should contribute to your backlog to understand the process and contribute first. I'll do my best by following the instructions. Ruthgrace ( talk) 17:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I am concerned about this review, which appears to consist of a single sentence. That's not sufficient in my view; every GA at least has discussion points that can be raised, including ones where I am confident that the nominator has sufficient expertise and writing skills to not require many changes during a review (which, in the case of Kyle Peake's experience on writing pop music GAs, seems likely). The nominator was community banned a few months later.
My question therefore, is what should we do? We could relist the GA review, or we could trust that Kyle has done a sufficient job that it probably does meet the GA criteria. Any thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Two days after it sprang a leakis considered "clear and concise prose" per the GA standard. I don't expect there to be a huge amount to clean up, but enough that a real review needs doing so the article can be improved enough to get there (for example, in the Background and recording section). BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Skytheunicorn has just reviewed and passed
Talk:Paganism in Middle-earth/GA1, but it doesn't seem to have been done according to the
GA criteria. In particular, Needs One or two more sections; I feel like more evidence would be too much for the reader's experience, but adding per se an author testimony section would be good
seems to be saying that the article fails number 3, Broad in its coverage
, and the final conclusion, With slight tweaking, yes
, means that it isn't there yet.
While I appreciate their enthusiasm, at best, the article should have been put on hold for additional work to be done, but it isn't clear that all the criteria have been addressed by the reviewer in their review. In addition, Skytheunicorn nominated five articles for GA at around the same time, two in the hour prior to their review, and three in the hour after it. As they hadn't made any edits at all to these articles, much less significant ones, and had not consulted with those who had contributed on the talk pages prior to nominating these articles (as WP:GANI notes should be done), I will be reverting their nominations. If they wish to consult on those talk pages, with the usual seven days to see what the responses are to the idea that the articles are ready for GA review, then they can always renominate if consensus is that the particular article is indeed ready. However, it might be a good idea to get far more experience of Wikipedia in general and article writing in general before plunging into the world of GA reviewing and nominating. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I know there was a discussion about this last month, but the backlog's gone up by nearly a 100 since then, so perhaps a Dec backlog drive is in order? AryKun ( talk) 04:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I should probably get my own house in order before I start throwing stones, but I have noticed yet another overeager young reviewer who is quickfailing articles with almost no commentary. The two examples so far from User:Kpddg include:
There is also one quick pass, at Talk:Philippe Coutinho/GA1, but I am more concerned about the quickfails, both of which came on nominations from GAN veterans. — Ghost River 05:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, I am concerned about the quick-fails too ... The reason given for failing George H. W. Bush broccoli comments (my nomination) here was "repetitve (the quote where he says 'I dont like brocolli', etc; short article". Well, that quote is just two times in the article (first time in the lead and then in the prose). Moreover, I don't think that the article is too short, there is no minimum length for a GA except that it has to cover all major aspects. Have left a message on reviewer's talk page. Would it be possible to have both the quick-fails re-assessed without renominating? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 08:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination.I am inclined to challenge the review then. Would that be fine? Courtesy ping for BlueMoonset and Whiteguru. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 08:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I saw Pseudo-reorganization acquisitions was in backlog and made my 2nd review ever here. Am concerned my feedback is harsh/unfair and would love a confidence check at Talk:Pseudo-reorganization acquisitions/GA1. Feel free to respond here or in the review directly. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, long time no talk. Without flatly begging for a review, the article Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album is up for DYK for Christmas Day, and is just short of the 5x expansion requirement. I don't want to artificially bloat the article, and I would be GA nominating it anyway after spending working on its expansion, and since a new GA status is also suitable for DYK approval, I nominated it and have come to ask if anyone would be kind enough to review it before Christmas? Thanks, Kingsif ( talk) 03:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering why Legobot hasn't processed my review of Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album (from the section above) yet; it seems to be working for other nominations. It didn't increment my review count nor did it process the pass (i.e. sending a notice and marking the article and talk page.) Did I mess something up? (One thing is that I immediately placed the article on hold after starting my review, rather than initiating it and reviewing it after as I've done before, not sure if that's affected it...) eviolite (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
See discussion at WT:FAC SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey all. An IP editor who contributed greatly to Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington) nominated it for GAN back in July. I made this edit reverting it as that specific IP hadn't edited since July and I was under the impression IPs couldn't nominate GAs, but unknowingly they have been continuously improving the article through various IPs and also have an official account here. Would it be possible to reinstate the nom's position in the GAN list; since they have been waiting since July it would be very unfair if they had to wait significantly longer due to a mistake on my part. I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. – zmbro ( talk) 04:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if there's any way to know who did the most GA reviews this year? Perhaps we could start handing out barnstars to people who are contributing to GAN reviewing all year round to aid people's motivation even outside of backlog drives. NPP has a similar system of handing out year-end barnstars. ( t · c) buidhe 13:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
There was a drive-by GA pass by an inexperienced reviewer at Talk:Philippe Coutinho/GA1. I am able to re-review this. Can I just add my feedback on the GA1 review page? I'm sorry for the delay in following up on this. I volunteered to give a second opinion and then forgot about it for >10 days, but I will start this weekend. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 22:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Can someone delete Talk:BAP Carrasco (BOP-171)/GA1 as G6/housekeeping? Elelch, you can't review your own GA nomination. Wait for someone else to create the review page ( t · c) buidhe 01:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, a new user has passed my GA nomination Talk:1961 San Diego Chargers season/GA1 without comment. I'm not sure of the correct procedure with this?-- Harper J. Cole ( talk) 01:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
A review of my GAN Tietze syndrome seems to have been passed way too quickly, in roughly 20 minutes time. The reviewer does not seem to be experienced in GAN, or Wikipedia even. Their account is less than a month old. Not to mention there are a couple of suggestions another user commented on my talk page that I have yet to complete, which you can find here. If anyone would be willing to re-review my article, it would be greatly appreciated. — TheRibinator ( talk) 17:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. But, I do want to learn how to do a Good Article review someday. I can always come back every month, so this isn’t the end of the world, that I understand. Go ahead and delete the GANs with my permission, and if you have anything else to say, let me know on my talk page. I check everything daily. Thank you! BubbaDaAmogus ( talk) 00:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Aurochs/GA1 here the reviewer An anonymous username, not my real name requested a second opinion, but as nothing was actually reviewed (or at least nothing mentioned here), maybe the page should be deleted? Artem.G ( talk) 10:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
In responding to this discussion on the backlog-drive talk page, I came across a few reviews that seem exceptionally short. The first two were quick-passed, and the third passed after three comments.
At least to me (although contrary views are welcomed), these seem to fall short of the requirement that "an in-depth review must be performed to determine whether a nomination passes all of the good article criteria". The third article, too, seems to have potentially serious breadth issues, which were largely passed over in the review. Does anyone have suggestions for how to address these reviews? -- Usernameunique ( talk) 08:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason why when GAN pages are created they list only the reviewer, and not the nominator? A lot of times when I look at a past GAN it takes me longer than it should to see who the nominator is (because many people commented on the review). Of course, it is listed in the main GAN page, but if one goes from article history, it is unavailable if the GAN has already finished. FLC, FAC and PR list the nominator, why not GAN? Aza24 ( talk) 06:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I did remember we requested one a while back. I assumed it had not been worked on. That's fantastic news Firefly! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. Kosack hasn't edited since October 3rd. He left Talk:Thomas Tuchel/GA1 unfinished. I am interested in taking it up but am not sure what the procedure is when the previous reviewer is AWOL. Advice? REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I have left initial comments on the GAR page. I'll have a look over Kosack's comments over the next few days, although Paul seems to have covered them pretty well so far. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 13:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, guys & gals, I have placed GA icon on Stjepan Vukčić Kosača manually - there was some confusion about the reviews of that article in the first and second attempts, it is very possible that the editors who tried to review (1st and 2nd time) handled templates and its set-up incorrectly. The review was done properly in the third and last attempt. Now, in order to avoid new confusions, and possibly some problems with the manual placement of GA icon by me since I was the nominator, I would like someone to confirm that I acted correctly and within the constraints of our guidelines - I found under the Instructions that this is possibility when bot is malfunctioning for some reason(s). Thanks.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°
Q28 has been nominating bunch of articles without a single contribution on those. 180.194.213.114 ( talk) 05:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Could another editor please take a look at Talk:Golden Retriever/GA1? The nomination was speedily failed without any chance given to rectify any of the issues raised. The reviewer, Kpddg ( talk · contribs), has been the subject of several threads here already including the one above, WT:Good article nominations/Archive 25#Another new reviewer causing problems and WT:Good article nominations/Archive 25#Second opinion. I have attempted to engage with them on their TP [14] but they have not acknowledged my message despite editing elsewhere. Cavalryman ( talk) 13:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC).
the required experience and permission is gained[15]. If they abide by this then there should be no need to seek a TBAN, if behaviour continues then I would support a trip to ANI. Cavalryman ( talk) 00:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC).
As a heads up, three nominations—of Out of This Club (nominated 26 March 2021), Lie About Us (nominated 30 March 2021), and Nokia Lumia 800 (nominated 5 January 2022)—were incorrectly formatted on their talk pages, and thus did not show up on the nominations page. The problem was that the {{ GA nominee}} templates were placed within the {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}} templates: see the example here. The first two, now nearly a year old, were nominated by MrHyacinth, who has not edited since October. The third—which was nominated with the subtopic "It has decent writing, good references too!" (and so still does not show up on the nominations page)—was nominated by Yodas henchman, who has not made a single edit to the article. For these reasons among others, I'll remove the nominations.
This should resolve some, and perhaps all, of the discrepancy between the numbers in Category:Good article nominees awaiting review (which displays at the top of the nominations page) and the numbers in WP:Good article nominations/Report—which is why I was looking at the talk pages of articles in that category in the first place. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 03:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Just as it seemed we were finally finishing up the review, another user active in WP:MATH,(not the nominator, who I must say in this context has been nothing but helpful and cooperative these past two months), chose to be hostile and confrontational with me to the point that I no longer feel comfortable continuing the review as it has become impossible for me to do so if I have to interact with this editor as I now have great difficulty assuming his participation in this review is in good faith.
Can it be flagged as needing a new reviewer? (It's not just "second opinion") We were so close to finishing it up that it really wouldn't be fair to the nominator to have to fail it/withdraw the nom and make him have to put it through the whole process again (although with the current backlog elimination drive that probably won't take too long, but it should be said that I took the review on in late October when no one had touched it since April, so it has already been the better part of a year here). But if that's the only way to separate myself from this review then I absolutely will ... someone else can deal with this guy. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
After each article title there is a total for reviews in brackets. Surely this should be “views”?? Am I missing something obvious?
If there is some reason it should be “reviews” could we add some sort of key or explanatory note? Mark83 ( talk) 01:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
And that means…? Sorry, not trying to be difficult. I just think it isn’t clear at all and other readers would benefit from clarity. Mark83 ( talk) 05:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
a lot of this stuff is fine, but doesn't really help us without a new bot. I can't say the current style is all that ambiguous... But I would like a ratio of nominations to reviews to show up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm reviewing
PrOP-M. At my suggestion,
Artem.G wrote this sentence: Sources differ on the physical size of the rover. Some say it's 25 cm × 22 cm × 4 cm (9.8 in × 8.7 in × 1.6 in), others say 25 cm × 25 cm × 4 cm (9.8 in × 9.8 in × 1.6 in) or 21.5 cm × 16 cm × 6 cm (8.5 in × 6.3 in × 2.4 in)
. Between the 3 sets of data, 3 numbers per set, and units conversion, it's not easy to read. Any suggestions on how to represent the source disparity correctly while maximizing readability? --
RoySmith
(talk) 15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The size of the rover is disputed, with it being listed between 21.5x16x4cm and 25x25x6cm. [a]
I'm reviewing Basuto Gun War, which has large sections and no subsections. Is this an issue? Is there anything other than the vague statement at MOS:BODY ("sections over a certain length are generally divided into paragraphs; these divisions enhance the readability of the article") to help guide me on this one? 13:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Amitchell125 ( talk)
I just wanted to get a second opinion on
this review. The reviewer is a newer editor, and only left suggestions about two sections in the article, stating no sources, and they're really the only two sections in the article that aren't typically sourced. I've written numerous good articles, I know my writing is good but it isn't that good
. There's always things (typos, grammar and wording suggestions, etc.) the reviewer catches that I missed, that this review doesn't have. The reviewer seems to have good intentions and is in good faith but isn't quite ready to be reviewing yet. Thoughts?
TheDoctorWho
(talk) 21:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Article was promoted immediately, even there are several unsourced statements, citation overkill and citations at the lead. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:3DC2:ED5C:21B0:A6 ( talk) 02:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I am reviewing Elisabeth Dmitrieff and am not sure about how to address photographs which were taken in the early 20th century but perhaps never published, or not published until very recently. Could an experienced reviewer advise over at Talk:Elisabeth Dmitrieff/GA1? Thanks! ~ L 🌸 ( talk)|
The use of {{excerpts}} seems incompatible with GA status (or at least very problematic). I've looked at the archives of this page and other editors seem to agree. Could I get some advice please as this is a concern relevant to a live nomination? But more generally I wonder if we could/should bring this into the GA criteria? Mark83 ( talk) 18:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
As of the daily report, there are 195 unreviewed nominations. As Eddie891's great graph shows, that's the first time in nearly a decade there have been fewer than 200 unreviewed nominations. (Although it's been close three times in that span, and is possible that during the day the number of nominations slipped under that number, and then increased before the report ran.) It'll undoubtedly go back up after the current backlog drive ends if not before, but is nevertheless fun to see. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 02:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The review of Ryan Carter (American football) was opened by Hey man im josh, with the edit summary "Accidently submitted myself as a reviewer". Unless I'm missing something, it appears that the review should be deleted so someone else may claim it. Note also that the review is malformed (it has no "Reviewer: [reviewer] [date] (UTC)" line), such that Legobot has difficulty with it. The nominator is Sportswikiteer. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 21:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, the review of 2022 College Football Playoff National Championship was opened by ArsenalGhanaPartey, who later edited the article's talk page to attempt to close the review, saying "Withdrawing my review with regret". The edit did not have the effect of showing the review as closed, however, and the article still shows up as under review on the nominations page. Given that no substantive comments were made on the review page, it should probably just be deleted. The nominator is PCN02WPS. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 21:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This is sort of a philosophical question, but one with significant ramifications for this process. And I don't doubt that it's been agonized over in the past, so references to previous discussions would be an excellent starting point for me to educate myself. Basically, the question is whether it's potentially possible to write a "Good Article" about any topic, or whether there are topics that are so narrow or abstruse or mundane that there simply isn't an intersection in the venn-diagram of "comprehensive," "not too detailed to lose the interest of a general reader," and "longer than a few sentences?"
I ask because it feels like there are otaku who toil over an article, adding every possible abstruse detail, yet never putting forward a rationale for why the topic might be interesting to a general reader... If you remove the trivia, there's not much left, certainly not a "Good Article." If you try to beef it up by broadening the context, it loses focus. Yet the author/nominator feels very strongly about their topic, and isn't interested in making any changes at all, on the grounds that they know more about their chosen subject than you do. Which they do. That just seems orthogonal to "goodness."
If the consensus is that anything can potentially be the subject of a "Good Article" and hallmarks of Good Articles are that they are both comprehensive and do not descend into trivia, it seems like the implication is that there can be very short good articles. Ones of only a handful of sentences. Because there are topics that are defined so narrowly that comprehensive coverage can be achieved with brevity.
Thoughts? Bill Woodcock ( talk) 10:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Manistee Watch Company/GA2 was passed by User:Vice regent at 07:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC). Legobot sent me a message on my Talk Page that it had failed. It does not show up in the tool that counts passed nominations as the most current one as it should. I think somehow Legobot got confused, because GA1 had failed. Can this be corrected so that it shows as a successful nomination, so that https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans? picks it up correctly. Thanks.-- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 11:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The reviewer quickly failed the review for language being "too technical". Not sure what specifically was too technical about the language as many terms were linked. Also, reviewer had issues with terms like "scuttling" and "navy transport", which I'm certain are fairly well known. I believe the article was not given a proper and mature review. I ask that a different reviewer reviews the GA nomination. Thank you. Crook1 ( talk) 19:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
the absolute minimum is that all paragraphs should at least end with a citation. 1 The first section after the lede has no citation in paras 1 and 3 and no ending citation in paras 4 and 5. There are further instances of this in later sections as well. A close read of the lede also revealed quite a few grammar and MOS issues as well, for a few examples: compare
... Eurana together with several other ships was ...and
... she together with several other vessels were ...(indeed this latter sentence implies that all of the purchased ships were
renamed Alamar) ;
... the ship was released from the navy service ...- remove 'the navy' as it's stated that the ship was requisitioned in the preceding sentence ;
... she was acquired by Frank Duncan McPherson Strachan to operate in the Atlantic trade- this is the only individual mentioned in the lede and the reader is not provided an explanation (there) as to who this is ;
... to prevent her from becoming the menace to navigation- a, not the. I don't believe that any of this is quickfail worthy, but the article needs a thorough review to meet the GA criteria. Mr rnddude ( talk) 01:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations, which I don't think this meets either but gives a bit more room for interpretation than
the absolute minimum is that all paragraphs should at least end with a citation(which is, strictly speaking, tighter than the GA criteria as written). -- asilvering ( talk) 22:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Editors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria(FAQ) up to and including C-Class<- That's pretty explicit, at least for me. The same section is for requesting an assessment against the B-class criteria. It's all a moot point now though as the GA and FA review processes supersede Wikiprojects' internal review processes. Checking the member's list, Crook1 isn't listed so it's likely they didn't know about MILHIST's 'customs'. Mr rnddude ( talk) 02:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The review for Talk:First homosexual movement/GA1 has been open for a month, but unfortunately the reviewer has never posted the review. I would love it if they could do it, but they haven't responded to multiple pings. Should this review be deleted or should I ask for a second opinion? ( t · c) buidhe 05:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
On 1 January, Jburlinson opened reviews of Jans der Enikel ( nominated by ΟΥΤΙΣ) and William Chaney ( nominated by me). Since then, the reviewer has made only five edits on Wikipedia, and has not responded to a reminder (on 30 January) on the Jans der Enikel review page. The reviews suggest that a few metrics have been looked at (e.g., both say "I added a couple of references where they seemed appropriate"), but this appears to be boilerplate copied over from previous reviews, since no such edits have been made to either article.
Absent any objections, I would propose deleting the review pages and letting a new reviewer have a go. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 02:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Christianization of the Roman Empire is currently being reviewed ( link to review page), but is not showing as such in the main listing of GA nominations. Not sure what the bug is. Ganesha811 ( talk) 14:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I selected this for review while I was on my tablet but it hasn't attached the GA tools template. Could you please insert the tools or, if necessary, revert the selection and I will pick it up again? Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi! It appears that the review of Leonel Gómez Vides has been abandoned at Talk:Leonel Gómez Vides/GA1. The reviewer has not taken any action on the review since January 23rd and has not edited on en.wiki since February 9th. What is the right thing for me to do in this situation as the nominator - mark it as needing a second reviewer? Thanks. Ganesha811 ( talk) 01:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
On 1 January, Jburlinson opened reviews of Jans der Enikel ( nominated by ΟΥΤΙΣ) and William Chaney ( nominated by me). Since then, the reviewer has made only five edits on Wikipedia, and has not responded to a reminder (on 30 January) on the Jans der Enikel review page. The reviews suggest that a few metrics have been looked at (e.g., both say "I added a couple of references where they seemed appropriate"), but this appears to be boilerplate copied over from previous reviews, since no such edits have been made to either article.
Absent any objections, I would propose deleting the review pages and letting a new reviewer have a go. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 02:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Telex80 has picked up several nominations and "reviewed" them by adding the standard template and a comment or two without critical commentary. These should be reverted or reassessed as appropriate:
Sounder Bruce 06:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Mohammed Shami has been nominated for GA, however the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Was wondering if this GA nomination should therefore be reverted per WP:DENY, or allowed to continue? Is there a standard way of dealing with this? Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I recently have just approved the Aqua Aqua article as a GA, however it is still being rated in the WikiProject Video Game ranking as a B instead of GA, And its badge doesnt appear? PerryPerryD ( talk) 20:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I can't find any instructions on how to remove premature nominations, like Ghost of Kyiv, which was recently nominated. I've reverted the nomination, but I don't know if that is sufficient or if further steps are required. Mr rnddude ( talk) 10:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Can I ask, is there a process for a speedy close of a GAR? A user involved in a dispute on the article NATO elected to nominate the article for GAR on the basis of an edit war they were involved in. While I'm sure a real GAR would be beneficial, this may not be the best time for one. There's a lot of new editors due to the article lately being in Wikipedia's top 25 most visited for the last few weeks, which is generally welcome, but leads to a certain amount of instability which could make it difficult for reviewers.-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 01:15, 6 March 2022 (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.
Can we not let
PerryPerryD review articles again? He suspiciously passed the article easily on
Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle/GA2 including this bizarre review
Talk:Assassin's Creed Odyssey/GA1, and then quick failing
Talk:Warlocked/GA1. They are probably only making articles more worst.
110.67.38.99 (
talk) 23:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear expert-reviewers. I am an apprentice-reviewer and wondered about spot checks on text-source integrity. I have looked at archived GA discussions and consensus seems to be that such spot checks should be regular parts of reviews. They are, however, not directly mentioned in the GA criteria. The Note 3 of the criteria comes perhaps nearest to do so where it says "At a bare minimum, check that the sources ... support the content of the article". I wondered what to do when sources are difficult to access. I believe I have read somewhere in Wikipedia that reviewers can ask nominators to provide excerpts from such sources. Is this true in GA? Where is this specified? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 17:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Grood day @ User:Caeciliusinhorto and @ User:Chris troutman, thank you very much for the discussion. I stupidly forgot to add the page to my watch and missed out on your contributions when they were actually made. They help me very much. I think I will take your advice and just politely ask nominators for excerpts, when I feel a spot check would be needed on an inaccessible source. Thank you very much, best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 10:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, my apologies at first for requesting this. It appears the reviewer of Banjarmasin nomination ( Talk:Banjarmasin/GA1) has not been active and the last review was on 22 January 2022. The nomination itself is older, nominated since June 2021. As such, I as nominator want to request new reviewer. Im not sure if the procedure would be to build on top of previous reviews or starting all over again as I am not familiar with this.
Thank you very much~ Nyanardsan ( talk) 08:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
As I mentioned above opening and closing community GAR seems a hassle to me so I won't open or close any more.
I asked for one to be closed both at the most relevant project and at Wikipedia:Closure requests but it has not been done. Could somebody please close the other 2 I opened namely:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Congestion_pricing/1
Not a big deal but it keeps the article alerts tidy at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change
Thanks
Chidgk1 ( talk) 09:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello all, I am looking for some additional thoughts regarding what I see as a very poor close of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2. It was open for several months, with a number of editors providing significant criticism on the basis of fact-checking, sourcing, neutrality, and prose. Many of these concerns were not sufficiently addressed during the GAR. Two days after the GAR closure, the article snow-failed its third FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SpaceX Starship/archive3) for reasons that mirror those brought up at the GAR, again making it very clear that the GA criteria are not met.
The close itself is thin: in its totality, it reads "No consensus: so I studied the article for over an hour and decided to keep as although I think a little criticism from https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/05/01/nasa-identifies-risks-in-spacexs-starship-lunar-lander-proposal/ should be added for FA I think it is neutral enough for a good article". This implies that the closer opted to ignore the vast majority of the discussion and decided to keep the article as a GA on their own recognizance, rather than on the basis of the article meeting the GA criteria after editing. I have attempted to discuss the closure with Chidgk1 at their talk page (see User_talk:Chidgk1#GAR_for_Starship) and have found their responses dismissive and insulting. Their final response was to suggest an individual GAR after four weeks. I think it is absurd to suggest starting all over again given that there is an existing GAR with a great deal of unaddressed input from multiple editors.
Would it be reasonable to undo the close and reopen the GAR to allow for a more experienced closer who will assess the article per the GA criteria? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
History of Terrorism, Entick v Carrington, and Somerset v Stewart were all just nominated by 185.251.10.201. In none of these cases does the IP seem to have been a substantial contributor to the article before the nomination, nor have they consulted the regular editors as WP:GAI suggests that they should. A quick glance suggests that none of these articles are of the standard we would expect of a GA, though I haven't thoroughly reviewed them. What should be done here? Just revert the nomination? Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 18:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
You shouldn't discriminate and treat them like any other nomination, remember you don't own wikipedia its for everyone, and everyone is equal is don't be a bigot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.251.11.193 ( talk) 16:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style. Then read through the GA criteria, and if you think the article meets the criteria, nominate it. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 19:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if anyone would like to review Indian Space Research Organisation. It's been a nominee for almost a year now (March 25th 2021) and has no review started. This article is not by me. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 17:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
What happens to a GA Review when the Review is finished? How does the Review itself kind of "disappear" from the article's talk page?... I know the answer is simple or is governed by MOS or some automated/bot process or whatever, but I need some of you experienced hands around here to please give me an answer and cite the MOS/GA guideline or whatever that governs the GA afterparty. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 20:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, I've noticed that IP addresses keep removing the good article nomination tag on
Jersey. Now,
Jèrriais janne, looking at the article itself, it would be failed if it went through the GAN process, as there are large swatches that do not have references, such as the entire "Administrative divisions" section, as well as unaddressed citation needed tags in "Economy". That being said, obviously an IP removing the nomination with an insidious comment in the edit summary (such a lazy nom
) is out of process. We may need to codify under what circumstances an uninvolved party may remove a GAN tag as opposed to letting an actual review play out. —
Ghost
River 19:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
“ | Challenges should not be made frivolously or casually, and should never be made to be disruptive or to make a point. Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate. | ” |
— Wikipedia:When to cite#Challenging another user's edits |
. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Not going to comment on this nom in particular, but I'd say we have two reasons for removing a nomination -
In all of these, I'd really expect a talk page section opened up to explain, unless there is no chance that the instigator is going to respond (AWOL, blocked, etc). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I notice that someone has decided to nominate Queen for GA again. This has happened several times before by drive-by editors who have done next to no work on it. Although I am slowly working through the article with the eventual aim to make it roughly equivalent to a GA standard, it is not ready at its current time - there are numerous "references" to copyvio YouTube clips and unreliable websites, which will take time to resolve. While the instructions say "Articles may be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject", I think it's reasonable to decline a nomination where at least one significant contributor objects. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The IP 212.250.168.131 is reviewing the Hayes Theater page. It states in the instructions that reviewers must be registered, so could someone remove the review? Nonexistent User ( talk) 21:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Can this be deleted per WP:GAN/I#R2? An IP user picked this up, but the GAN criteria indicate that only registered users should review GA nominations. Thanks. – Epicgenius ( talk) 13:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, this is my very first GA review so I might probably be missing something but my knee jerk reaction is this simply can't pass in its current state. Some sentences are grammatically unsound and the entire article is much too short, I think. At the same time, the nominator seems to have many GAs and FAs under his belt so I'm puzzled. Would appreciate a second opinion or even a third! Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Amir Sjarifuddin Harahap was listed as GA this morning, but this does not appear to be a valid GA review. Ruбlov ( talk) 11:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I recently reviewed Whitburn, Tyne and Wear for GAN, and promoted it, but the review was not transcluded to the article talk page, the nominator did not get a message from the bot on his/her talk page, and the GA symbol has not appeared on the article page. Have I simply missed out one necessary action? I haven't had the same problem with other articles I've promoted to GA recently. Advice would be most welcome. Tim riley talk 09:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I've become bored with reviewing an article, after I wrote up a review but ended up not saving it. Do I just leave it? blueskies ( talk) 17:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Mover of molehills today gave up in the middle of a review of a technical article, Talk:Möbius strip/GA1, after getting to the technical bits, because they were technical, and quick-failed the review for no valid reason. Until that point the review had consisted only of minor copyedits to the first two (nontechnical) sections and of points where I disagreed with suggested copyedits because they would have introduced technical errors. I don't think there's much to do in the actual GA process besides immediately renominate (I didn't lose much time from the original nomination date, and the other alternative, community review, doesn't seem likely to work better), but I thought I would leave this here as a heads-up to others of what I consider to be really bad behavior by Mover of molehills. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Play nice Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I hope my first nomination, Nintendo Switch, will pass the review. Also, can a bot put my entry in the Video Games section? Thank you. I am Rjsb0192 ( talk) 06:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to add a co-nominator to an existing nomination. How could I do this? K.e.coffman ( talk) 14:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
note=
parameter of {{
GA nominee}} that someone is a co-nominator, but the bot doesn't recognise it as a formal thing and they won't e.g. automatically get the notifications about the review that the nominator gets.
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I started taking on a review of the Guadeloupe woodpecker article, but my workload has significantly changed. Because I wasn't going to have the time I had planned to work over the article (it's not a quick pass or quick fail), I decided to withdraw from the review to open it back up to someone else who could spend the time with the nominator on it. Following the instructions above, I put a {{ db-self}} tag on it and notified the nominator. The talk page of the article looks to be correct and invites someone else to create a review, but the GAN page still shows that a review has been started, but with a reviewer of "unknown". Is it ok to just go in and modify the GAN page, or do I need to give the bot a strategically-placed kick somewhere? RecycledPixels ( talk) 18:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Over the past year or so, I've been writing a lot about 1960s keyboard instruments and improving quite a few to GA. On that note, I think Fender Contempo Organ is about as good as I can get it. It's an obscure instrument that was commercially unsuccessful, in production for no more than two years, and has only one notable musician documented in reliable sources to ever use it, so I genuinely think it meets the "broad in coverage" criteria. However, it's only just over 3K of prose, and I've always felt nominating an article that short is a bit of a joke. What do other people think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed"(emphasis mine) and reviewers should not require
the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources. Also, for what it's worth, if that article passed in its current state, it wouldn't even rank among the 100 shortest GAs in terms of raw byte count. Colin M ( talk) 17:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I completed this GA review last night, but though the bot has correctly removed it from the list of open reviews, it hasn't added the GA icon to the article. Did I screw something up here, or is it just the bot being temperamental? And can I just manually add {{ good article}} to the top of the article page, or is there anything else I need to do to fix this? Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 08:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Eluike, with zero prior contributions, has begun Talk:Heilbronn triangle problem/GA1 and Talk:Möbius strip/GA2. Already they have made some mistakes, trying (in different ways) to mark both of them as having passed before providing any actual review. Perhaps, assuming good faith, someone more experienced would like to help guide them through this process? As the nominator of both articles it is difficult for me to take that role, although I did at least undo their passage of HTP and leave a comment on both review pages pointing to the relevant guidelines. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is being reviewed by someone who's not very active and I do not agree with his opinions. Can anyone else take his place? Dr Salvus 15:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I would ask for a second reviewer by setting the status to second opinion and leaving a note. ( t · c) buidhe 17:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Gatti is a right-footed centre-back who is strong in the air at 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in) tall[2][22] and who is also strong physically[9] and who has an eye for the goal.Has all sorts of according to whom? for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Gatti is a right-footed
centre-back who stands at 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in) tall.
[1]
[2] According to Mirco Vecchi, writing for I am calcio, he is a physically strong player with good technique, thanks to his previous play as a
midfielder.
[3]
or similar. Otherwise, you are just stringing together citations that say something about this person, and picking out vague information without attribution. Best Wishes,
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs) 15:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
:3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).:6
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I know I haven't been on Wikipedia long enough to do a review. But, I was wondering if there is a way for me to be a Co-reviewer? Thank You Finnish Idea ( talk) 22:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This is well written and passes Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Grammar/Spelling is correct.This is not accurate. The History section is unclear, largely due to the placement of "in 1960", and that date (echoed in the infobox) is clearly problematic: one of the sourced publications is dated 1 January 1960, which means that Windley, at least, had to make his discovery prior to that date in order to write his paper, have it accepted and peer reviewed, and then published as of the first day of 1960. Indeed, one of the other History sources itself references a number of sources to support the list of discoverers, one of which has a date of 1959. You also haven't addressed MOS:LEADLENGTH. It is clear that you aren't anywhere near ready to be reviewing this article, and should find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. It is doubly unfortunate that you should pick this one article out of hundreds to review, since it has been subject to several problematic review attempts by sockpuppet accounts over the past week. In an abundance of caution, since your account was created less than 30 hours after the sockpuppet accounts were blocked, I will be requesting a check to be sure you are not yet another username of the same editor who's been trying to review this article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I came across something I hadn't seen except in historical circumstance: the GA review of Janie Fricke was conducted entirely on the article's talk page rather than on its own review page.
What I have done is copied the review to its own page, Talk:Janie Fricke/GA1 (adding the proper boilerplate to the top of the review), and updated the GA template to point to that separate review page. What I was hoping is that an admin could move or copy the history of the review (starting March 31 and ending April 17, posts by reviewer User:TenPoundHammer and nominator User:ChrisTofu11961) to the new GA review page.
TenPoundHammer, thanks for taking on the review. The instructions page explains how to open a review so it creates its own page next time you review. Have you recently done any reviews on the article talk pages rather than on their own pages? I'm happy to make adjustments if so. (Not counting the pre-2010 reviews you did, when things worked differently.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Is it okay if I ask for a second reviewer to take a look at the GAN for this article? The original reviewer, Bluesunnyfox, hasn't edited in almost a week and noted that the GAN for the article was her first review. Would it be okay for another editor to either help her with the review, or take over if she doesn't return? Thanks! Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 12:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to bring up the article Penang, which was rated as a good article back in 2018. However, it has been discovered that the GA Review was helmed by Semi-auto, a confirmed sockpuppet of Vnonymous, who was the user who had made major contributions to the article and had placed the nomination themselves. BonjourPinang and ParfaitMauban are also other confirmed sockpuppets of theirs that has made contributions to the article. Furthermore, the article swiftly went from nomination > review > passed in less than a day, which should had definitely caused great suspicion at the time, not to mention that it was also passed by their own sockpuppet account. These actions are clearly inappropriate uses of alternative accounts ( WP:BADSOCK).
This person was literally reviewing their own content and pretending to be distinct personas. There is a whole lot of boosterism throughout this article added by this user that should be addressed. It's also hard to confirm how much of these sources correlate to the text, and with this sockmaster already known to engage in deception, it leads me to think that they may very well be engaging in the same thing when they were making major edits to the article, especially if one is not a native or knowledgeable to the city/region.
I initially brought this up to WP:ANI and was advised to bring it up here to see what the next steps should be. Some have responded to just merely remove the GA tag and disregard the bogus GA Review as actions of socks should be considered meaningless, while others think it should be left as is or reassessed. In my view, I suppose doing nothing may incentivize others to also attempt similar things, and that it may seem like it wouldn't matter at all for them even if they eventually get blocked for sockpuppetry, as long as they have already succeeded in promoting an article. Paul K. Sutton ( talk) 19:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Add: Added George Town, Penang as well. Same situation. While it has been reassessed, it was done without the foreknowledge that there were deceptive sockpuppetry involved that may had influenced their judgement. Tagging SounderBruce to let them know about it. Paul K. Sutton ( talk) 09:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
it now meets the minimum standard in the GA criteria. Ignoring the deception and other issues with socking, the main issue re GA's is that someone independent assesses the article. That has been done in this case, although I will concede that if the socking had been known the reassessment might have been more in depth. Aircorn (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Otherwise, it now meets... Looking back at how things stood, we have a sockmaster trying to save a sockpuppet's GA passage, showing just how inadequate their original self-review was. The article should never have been given GA status to begin with, the reassessment was withdrawn in part because of Vnonymous's continuing deception, and I agree with Paul K. Sutton, Colin M, buidhe, CMD, and ProcrastinatingReader that the status should be pulled. I'll be interested in hearing SounderBruce|'s thoughts four years on. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
In this situation, an immediate demotion is the only possible option. The GA process relies on independent assessment by editors who have not heavily edited the article (minor grammar/spelling corrections do not disqualify). That has clearly not happened. As for Talk:Penang/GA1, the best course of action is to keep the text, but strike it through. If a new GA nom is made, it can be at GA2. Mjroots ( talk) 06:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that we have a consensus that George Town, Penang should be delisted, which I have done. I checked back and of those editors I pinged, all but buidhe had originally commented after Paul K. Sutton had added that article to Penang as another with the same sockpuppet approving a GAN by the same sockmaster nominator.
I basically followed the process I proposed above: the Talk:George Town, Penang/GA2 page has been archived/hatted with a "Voided" notice (as I did with Talk:Penang/GA1); I added a section to Talk:George Town, Penang explaining the delisting, and added an entry to the Article history template for the delisting, using the closest analogue, GA reassessment, pointing to that new explanatory section on the talk page. I hope this creates enough of a trail for people to follow, and satisfies the needs of the situation. Should I also hat/archive the original withdrawn reassessment? BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Can I have two articles waiting for a review at the same moment? Dr Salvus 21:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
We're now up to 457 nominations outstanding; 391 not reviewed compared to the end of January where we were at 165(!) not reviewed. Time to run another backlog drive in May or June? ( t · c) buidhe 00:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone has already noticed this, but @ Will y theweatherguy473737: appears to be reviewing the article they nominated - Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory. Don't know what the protocol is here, so thought I'd point it out to those who know more before something dubious happens. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)