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. |
A day ago, an editor held Turkoman (ethnonym) to be a succesful GA notwithstanding my protestations. Today, among other things, I found a massive misrepresentation of a source. Though I urge all of you to evaluate the merits of my particular allegations as raised at the t/p, I have a larger concern which has nothing to do with either the nominator or the reviewer or even the review.
The nominator in question has (1) a history of misrepresenting sources, (2) using rare and old Soviet literature, perhaps to avoid scrutiny, and (3) machine-translating non-English sources until an admin threatened to block them. How shall an ideal GA reviewer proceed with any future nominations from such editors, balancing concern for content alongside AGF towards the editor? TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
At
Talk:Southern Railway 1401/GA1, a "review" was started, consisting entirely of Currency conversion needed... and technical copyedit. Once done, renominate.
This is obviously not anything approaching a real review, and as the reviewer appears uninterested in completing one, a second reviewer is needed.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 14:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I am reviewing Brian Bolland for GA. The nominator will be working on the excessive quotations and other issues. The article has a massive amount of information sourced to The Art of Brian Bolland which was written by the subject. I think that is way too much use of a primary source for an article and that it should be failed due to that if it can't be taken care of by the nominator. I'm looking for thoughts from more experienced GA contributors. SL93 ( talk) 13:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
well-known and significant award or honourare likely to be notable, but there does not appear to be any real guidance as to what constitutes "well known and signficant" in this case. His Eisner award wins are probably the best case there, but I don't know that even they are really well known outside of the comics industry and fandom. It doesn't look as though anybody has challenged Bolland's notability before now, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is notable! Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 14:57, 9 January 2023 (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.
Currently, it's possible to list an article for a community WP:GAR after a failed GAN. The preferred process if you disagree is to simply renominate the article, or bring it to the talk page here. The GAN instructions say (Step 5: After the review): "If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may ask for additional input on the discussion page." The GAN instructions do not mention the process described at WP:GAR: "Use the community reassessment process if: (...) You disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it)".
This process is rarely used (I can't find an example). I don't think the slow community GAR process is the best location for a controversial discussion. Drawn-out controversy is never good for the community. This talk page is better watched and can resolve these matters more quickly. I don't see why we need to complicate matters and have three different options for a failed GAN. To reduce WP:instruction creep and make the GAR process instructions easier, I propose we scrap this option. A smal 2021 discussion at WT:GAR did not reach a consensus. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 16:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
For a long time I've had a problem with the GAR system.
Sorry for being incredibly angry with the third reason but I have had this feeling for an incredibly long time. GARs need to be done faster or more efficiently. Especially since there are over 35000 GAs which makes it impossible to reassess all of them without a widespread community effort.
Proposals:
Now I'm not good with proposals so these ideas are just ideas but here are some of my main ideas.
There's likely more solutions (and problems) to GAR that I haven't identified yet. In order for GAs to be done well this NEEDS to change or else that stupid New Richmond tornado article will still be allowed as a GA for as long as it has. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I would propose that an editor should be able to WP:BOLDly delist an article from GA, if it is clear that the article no longer qualifies for GA. BD2412 T 02:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
SELECT * FROM s54328__goodarticles_p.nominators WHERE date BETWEEN DATE('2010-01-01') AND DATE('2011-01-01')
. –
SD0001 (
talk) 05:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)On a related note, I, Onegreatjoke, and others have been working our way through the GAR backlog. What is the general protocol for articles for which an individual reassessment was started, but which the nominator presumably forgot about, such as this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
So the article Roswell High School (Georgia) was a GA but was delisted yesterday. However, the good article icon still shows up on the article. I don't know how to get rid of it so if someone can do it that would be nice. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 14:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
{{
good article}}
from the source text.
TompaDompa (
talk) 14:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Humanism has some issues, that I do not have time to address- I will do it in a couple or months. How to proceed? Should I withdraw the nomination? I couldnt spot any instractions. Cinadon 36 10:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Step 3: Waiting; there's a lot of useful information on the GAN process to be found on that page. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Since a few proposals have passed, I've gone ahead and created a separate feedback page. I'll monitor it and add proposals as they come, once discussion is fully closed, I'll replace the Proposal Drive's tab with the Feedback tab. A tentative timeline is to stop accepting new proposals by the end of January. Discussion will hopefully be finished by about early-mid February, and feedback will be open to late February/Early March. This, obviously, is contingent on how long it takes to obtain consensus.
A special thanks to Mike Christie is in order for very quickly implementing proposal 7a into Christiebot. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 04:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Per here, Nathan Obral has yet to start any of three reviews on Better Call Saul articles that were opened a month ago ( Talk:Fun and Games (Better Call Saul)/GA1, Talk:Point and Shoot (Better Call Saul)/GA1, Talk:Breaking Bad (Better Call Saul)/GA1). They have been editing but haven't indicated a timescale for doing the reviews. Might it be best to delete the review pages and put them back in the queue? — Bilorv ( talk) 15:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I made the mistake of claiming these, thinking I’d be able to nominate three articles of my own. Unfortunately the review process is something I’m not qualified to do. I’m not an English professor or an expert on Wikipedia policies or standards. Plus my struggles in some GANs regarding image licensing makes me feel like I’d mess that up. It’s resulted in a mental block that cripples me and makes me feel unable to do them. I can’t.
As soon as my last GAN is reviewed, I will no longer pursue any GA nominations, as the need to review is something I cannot do. Sammi Brie has told me about a reform process to reviewing, and I hope it helps others. I’m just not able to do it in any way and I am at peace with it. Doesn’t make me feel any better, and I feel like a failure as an editor, but it is what it is.
I apologize for this. Even what should have been a series of simple enough articles feels like learning nuclear physics in less than 24 hours and being expected to remember it all perfectly. I can’t do them and I’ve let everyone down. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 18:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
FYI: ChristieBot reports an error if the review page doesn't exist and the status of the GA nominee template is set to "onreview". This is the error page. These errors aren't harmful and can *usually* be ignored; I decided to make this state of affairs report an error because in some cases it might indicate a real problem -- for example if the article and talk page are moved, but the review page isn't, this might be the result. So if any regulars happen to notice this error before I clean it up, it's worth taking a look at the pages it's complaining about. This is the necessary clean up edit. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 04:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Mike Christie, are you/ChristieBot able to see the average wait time, per GAN from date of nomination to the date it's claimed by a reviewer, for a nominator with 0–5 GAs vs. a nominator with 20–100 GANs? My hunch would be that reviewers are more likely to choose and close the experienced nominators' faster (even though there are more) because they're easier to address. But interested if you have some empirical data or if someone has run this analysis before. czar 01:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I didn't follow this while it was occurring, but it seems like there's a pretty serious issue where referencing and verifiability issues are not being caught by the Good Article process. The highest priority, even more than cleaning up, should be to make sure that this isn't a regular occurrence. Some sort of change needs to take place to make it clear what exactly is expected of a reviewer when considering criterion 2 and what steps the reviewer should take when evaluating an article for these things. I know that I for one feel particularly lost when doing this part of a review. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The article Taiwanese Mandarin has passed GA, but the bot did not add the GA icon, so I had to do it manually. Is there a bug on that bot? Is there any mistake I made? Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 05:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the bot seriously bugging out right now? I mostly work in music, and went to check how GANs were looking overall for albums - but I find my own nomination ( The Ghost Inside (album)) which I placed in December, at number six, while I'm finding nominations from August at the bottom ( Handcream for a Generation). It's seemingly random - fifth on the list that I saw was one from September, and fourth was just this past Wednesday morning (18 January). What is going on? Do I have some setting enabled that I don't notice? Is there a new sorting method? dannymusiceditor oops 23:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Could someone have a look and take over this GAN? The nominator has been inactive for a few weeks now and was somewhat inactive prior to that, so I wound up making the changes myself in the interest of not holding up the passing of a well-written and well-researched article. I feel I'm a bit too involved at this point to pass it. It just needs another set of eyes, the actual review portion is done and (well, imo, lol) fully implemented. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
See here; I evidently failed to take good notes about how I get the bot authentication working. I will be running the bot by hand until this is fixed, at least once an hour when I'm at the computer and as often as I can otherwise. I will post here again when the problem is fixed. If anyone reading this has the relevant technical knowledge please ping me. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Reference: Talk:1995 Quebec referendum/GA2
This reassessment has been open for a couple months, with disagreement about if the article currently meets the GA criteria. I want to list it at community reassessment to potentially get more opinions on this, but am unsure of the procedure. What is the best path to convert an individual reassessment into a community reassessment? Or would it be better to close the individual reassessment and create a new assessment page? Thanks for your help. Z1720 ( talk) 23:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
While reviewing a nomination, I came across the passage
He finds it fitting that Tuor, "Tolkien's early quest-hero", escapes from the wreck of an old kingdom and creates new ones, just as Aeneas does, while his late quest-heroes in The Lord of the Rings, the hobbits of the Shire, are made to return to their home, ravaged while they were away, and are obliged to scour it clean, just as Odysseus does in Homer's Odyssey.
This has since been rephrased as
He finds it fitting that Tuor escapes from the wreck of an old kingdom and creates new ones, just as Aeneas does in Virgil's Aeneid, while his late heroes, the four Hobbits, are made to return to their home, ravaged while they were away, and are obliged to scour it clean, just as Odysseus does in Homer's Odyssey.
The source says
There is a certain chronological fittingness, I think, in the fact that Tolkien's early quest-hero, Tuor, escapes, like Aeneas, from the ruins of an old kingdom and goes on to establish new lands, while his late quest-heroes, four hobbits from the Shire, return, like Odysseus, to their original homeland which has been desecrated in their absence and which must be made free of enemy invaders before a reign of peace can be established.
I'm unsure which side of WP:Close paraphrasing this falls on, so I figured I'd ask here to get some input from others and hopefully learn something in the process. TompaDompa ( talk) 09:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The bot is reporting two malformed nominations; see User talk:ChristieBot/GAN errors. I have to go to work shortly or I'd talk to the nominator, who evidently hasn't seen or understood the instructions. Is the error page sufficiently prominent/well enough watched for others to notice and follow up on situations like this? There's also an error section on the GAN page and a note in the edit summary that errors were found; again I don't know how noticeable that is. If there's a better way or page to write errors, please let me know. I'll deal with the malformed nominations tonight if nobody else gets around to it.
FYI on the new GANentry format: the short description will now show up as part of the entry on GAN if anything changes regarding the nomination so that it has to be updated. E.g. if it's put on hold, or the subtopic changed, or a review is started, it will start showing the subtopic short description. All new nominations will also start showing the subtopic short description. Eventually this means every nomination will show the subtopic short descriptionif there is one.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 12:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Edited to fix my error.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 00:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I've created User talk:ChristieBot/Bug messages to record bugs, and will watch that. User talk:ChristieBot/GAN errors should now contain only reports of issues that the bot finds as it traverses the category. Anything that says "malformed nomination" should be something obvious. The other possible errors on that page are (with comments for the non-self-explanatory ones):
Anything that's an error that doesn't trigger one of these (or a "malformed" message) is probably going to trigger a complaint to the bugs page.
As for transcluding it onto Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches, that should be easy to do; GreenC operates the bot that writes that page; GreenC, can a section be created to transclude User talk:ChristieBot/GAN errors? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I've been looking into scraping old contributions to get a list of historical GA reviews, partly to get the stats more accurate and partly to allow analysis of the data. Pinging Ovinus, who I know also has this on their to-do list, as an FYI. I would like to check numbers against User:GA bot/Stats, but the first revision of that page is here, dated August 2012, with many thousands of reviews already recorded. Does anyone know where those stats were before that date? Also pinging Chris G, who was the one who created that page, in case they remember. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, going through the list of GA nominations, I found an article page and opted to review it. During this course, I researched on the verifiable sources for the topic to find if there's anything more that can be used to improve and expand the article. It turns out that there's quite a good amount of content that can be added.
The criteria of reviewer to not have contributed significantly to the article has put me in dilemma. Now my question is, since I have taken up the task of reviewing the GA nomination, what will be the best course of action - ask & wait for other editors to improve the article or go ahead with my contributions to article? Anand2202 ( talk) 06:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to point this out, but in the last sentence of the Nominations section, shouldn't the last "nomination" be "nominator"? Findingmoney100 ( talk) 16:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
{{ GANentry}} has a parameter for short description, but for most of the nominations, it hasn't been filled out. Is it possible/worth while to have this default to the short description of the article unless overwritten? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB ( talk) 10:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Back in 2013, QatarStarsLeague reviewed Hu Zhengyan, and when they passed it they accidentally left the nominee template on the talk page. This confused GA bot (the precursor to Legobot) and over the next 36 hours it incremented QatarStarsLeague's review count from 65 to 268. Nobody noticed and the stats page has had the increased number ever since.
There are also some stranger bugs in GA bot -- for example (again for QatarStarsLeague, since I happened to be tracking down their discrepancy) see the GA for Yeovil Town F.C.. This diff shows GA bot deciding that QatarStarsLeague was the reviewer for the newly nominated Yeovil Town F.C., but their contributions for that day show they never touched the article.
I also suspect that whatever method was used for counting the original stats in the first version of the stats page, it did not include any reviews from before the time subpages started to be used in late March 2008. Some early GAs consisted only of a user stopping by and decided that an article was a GA, saying so on the talk page, and adding the star. I don't think it's worth counting these early reviews in the statistics. Aside from anything else, those reviews are over fifteen years old, and I would rather use an accurate count from the last fifteen years than continue with inaccurate numbers for which I can't explain the provenance.
When I've finished extracting the data from various sources, I'll put together a temporary statistics page and will calculate the differences for everyone on the list -- i.e. how much their reviewing count will change. Unless there are objections I propose to switch to the revised statistics. It will be a few days till I have the data ready -- the extraction will be done some time tomorrow, but there are some special cases I need to clean up (e.g. for some reason I'm not yet getting data for blocked users) FYI, here's what the revised top of the table would look like, excluding Eric Corbett whose data I don't have yet. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Reviewer | Now | Revised |
---|---|---|
Sturmvogel 66 | 918 | 878 |
The Rambling Man | 813 | 773 |
Jezhotwells | 762 | 752 |
Wizardman | 741 | 745 |
Jaguar | 743 | 742 |
Pyrotec | 552 | 537 |
Kyle Peake | 517 | 516 |
J Milburn | 462 | 474 |
Dana boomer | 456 | 464 |
Hog Farm | 375 | 386 |
Khazar2 | 373 | 377 |
Mike Christie | 385 | 367 |
ThinkBlue | 368 | 367 |
Casliber | 363 | 358 |
12george1 | 421 | 203 |
QatarStarsLeague | 385 | 154 |
Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I am going to request that a new reviewer takes on the review at Talk:John Green/GA1, and suggest that the same be done for Benji man's review at Talk:Nabataean Aramaic/GA1. Feetfeet 341 picked them both up, but seems to be a relatively inexperienced editor who has made several edits and nominations recently that show they aren't quite ready to be reviewing GA's: [1] [2] [3]. It seems that the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4a will be helpful for this, but wanted to start a discussion before I take any actions since this seems a bit unusual. Cerebral726 ( talk) 20:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I may have time to review the Garry Kasparov article. I note it relies heavily on web sources. If neither a link nor archived version exist, then may I regard that as equating to a "citation needed"? Also, what does one do about the significant number of foreign-language sources cited? Thanks Billsmith60 ( talk) 12:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, where do I find the previous GA assessment from June 2021? Billsmith60 ( talk) 12:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I did the Kasparov review (a fail but getting there from the last time). However, I've messed up the presentation of results a bit – sincere apologies. Still, my findings are clear enough to be acted on, I trust Billsmith60 ( talk) 16:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Mike, fortunately my making a b***s-up of the assessment templates has allowed the review to stay open, and I've let the nominator know accordingly. I see they've made a start already. All the best Billsmith60 ( talk) 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Can someone with the relevant permissions delete the above? The nominator 'Dallavid' has made some edits to the article (mainly small web links) but has not contributed significantly to it. Thanks Billsmith60 ( talk) 20:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
In Talk:Pro-EU leaflet/GA1 I criticize not the reliability of the sources, not the bibliographical or other description of what/where the sources are, but instead the relationship between what the article attributes to a source and what that source actually says. I've done this for two (multiply cited) sources so far. This took me some time, and the result is prolix. Three questions (from a relative noob in GA matters): (1) Do my comments seem to be mere hair-splitting? (2) Should I continue and also examine the use of a third, fourth, fifth source? (3) When I come to writing up my ratings (via template), where does (in)accuracy of citation fit among 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. / a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I wrote a script to mark unreferenced passages. This script may be useful to GA reviewers to get a first quick impression of whether a nomination lacks references and where the problems may be. Nominators may use it to make ensure that their nomination is well-sourced. More information can be found at
User:Phlsph7/MarkUnreferencedPassages
User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages, including instructions on how to install and use it as well as information on its limitations. Questions and feedback about problems or new ideas are welcome.
Phlsph7 (
talk) 09:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Mark unreferenced passages is a user script to mark passages that lack references with a red background. Its main purpose is to help users quickly identify unreferenced passages, paragraphs, and sections in mainspace articles and drafts.The mark implied to me it was actually adding the citation needed tag, different from, for example, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt which merely highlights them so the user can use that info in improvements or content review processes. Can you address that? Maybe change mark to highlight or some such ? I also urge you to post this at WT:FAC, where you will get a different audience and may get useful feedback. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I will need to be off Wikipedia for a while. I have two open reviews ( Talk:East Timor/GA1 and Talk:Education policy of the United States/GA1, I totally forgot about this one and it is empty) and am not sure of the best way to deal with them. Usually I see abandoned reviews being brought up here so I thought this would be best. Sorry about this; poor planning on my part. Ovinus ( talk) 07:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I've figure out how to attach the nominator to the reviewer data, and will be looking at adding the outcome data next. However, the bot is turning up a lot of odd situations. The great majority seem to be the result of page moves that did not drag along the GA subpages with them. I don't know what the expectation is in those cases. Here's an example: Talk:24 Hours of Le Mans Virtual/GA1 has the name the article had at the time the review was done. If you go to Talk:24 Hours of Le Mans Virtual you are redirected to Talk:2020 24 Hours of Le Mans Virtual, which has an articlehistory template that points to the wrong place. What's the correct way to fix these? Judging from Talk:About Love (Marina song)/GA1, the right answer is to move these to the same name as the parent article. If so I think there are going to be more than I can move by hand, and ChristieBot doesn't have approval for moving pages; I can produce a list of these if there's a bot or AWB operation that could do the moves. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I thought you were saying that a system like you guys had back in the day would work; I pointed out why it wouldn't. At the end of the day, I can't see why a Coldwell reviewer (such as, well, me) would be any more likely to go to a coord over the GAN talk page. I thought he had been contributing GAs since 2007—my mistake, apologies. Perhaps sleep? You do so much good work for the project, I think we can survive without you for a bit. Actually, on second thoughts I take that back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
With a bit more work I can probably figure out the target and add a column for that, but here's what I have at the moment. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Article | Page | Review date |
---|---|---|
Somerset Towers | 1 | 2008-06-10 16:41:10 |
Arise (album) | 1 | 2008-06-25 00:45:58 |
GAR/link | 1 | 2008-07-05 13:59:18 |
Halloween Horror Nights (Orlando) | 1 | 2008-09-15 18:08:52 |
SS West Caruth | 1 | 2008-09-16 16:51:56 |
Tropical Storm Norma (2005) | 1 | 2008-12-27 19:09:54 |
Sultan Iskandar of Johor | 1 | 2009-02-27 09:45:08 |
White Dog (book) | 1 | 2009-04-13 11:59:33 |
Partington, Greater Manchester | 1 | 2009-05-03 12:53:46 |
Call Center Industry in the Philippines | 1 | 2009-05-11 16:24:28 |
Being There (album) | 1 | 2009-08-14 19:35:53 |
Kõpu lighthouse | 1 | 2009-08-17 12:54:22 |
White Dog (book) | 2 | 2009-09-08 22:01:08 |
Send It On (song) | 1 | 2009-09-09 09:05:12 |
Complete icosahedron | 1 | 2009-12-20 21:41:29 |
Procar | 1 | 2009-12-31 19:30:34 |
Battle of Old Trafford (2003) | 1 | 2010-01-20 12:57:15 |
Outrageous | 1 | 2010-04-17 06:36:15 |
Freshman fifteen | 1 | 2010-04-29 02:56:05 |
Evergreen (album) | 1 | 2010-12-04 16:08:06 |
Homework (album) | 1 | 2010-12-07 02:43:18 |
True Blue (album) | 1 | 2010-12-11 02:57:41 |
Somebody (song) | 1 | 2010-12-30 14:28:43 |
Louis Clément Ngwat-Mahop | 1 | 2011-03-12 16:57:37 |
Muhammad and slavery | 1 | 2011-04-13 21:04:22 |
Blow (song) | 1 | 2011-05-30 23:46:35 |
Breakout (album) | 1 | 2011-07-03 13:14:44 |
Emotions (album) | 1 | 2011-07-17 21:30:53 |
Make It Happen (song) | 1 | 2011-07-17 22:16:42 |
I Want You (album) | 2 | 2011-08-06 20:44:57 |
Music Box (album) | 1 | 2011-08-27 23:28:41 |
Reckless (album) | 1 | 2011-10-08 12:29:56 |
The Experiment (album) | 1 | 2011-10-23 18:01:42 |
Labyrinth (film) | 1 | 2012-01-24 18:45:31 |
Dan Leno discography | 1 | 2012-02-10 23:37:05 |
Field Trip | 1 | 2012-04-07 23:30:49 |
The Famous Five (series) | 1 | 2012-06-16 22:03:16 |
Jai Ho | 1 | 2012-07-15 17:49:24 |
Tea & Sympathy | 1 | 2012-07-27 13:46:37 |
One nation conservatism | 1 | 2012-08-11 08:32:51 |
Ki (album) | 1 | 2012-08-26 19:43:44 |
Prometheus (film) | 1 | 2012-09-12 08:06:24 |
Eugénie Fougère/GATalk:Eugénie Fougère | 1 | 2012-10-07 15:28:18 |
Take It Off (song) | 1 | 2012-11-07 22:50:56 |
Boletus badius | 1 | 2013-04-04 21:08:45 |
Sesame Workshop funding sources | 1 | 2013-04-17 18:32:18 |
Lost (2004 TV series) | 1 | 2013-04-30 20:35:41 |
Lost (2004 TV series) | 2 | 2013-04-30 20:35:41 |
Lost (2004 TV series) | 3 | 2013-04-30 20:35:42 |
Can't Stop Won't Stop (song) | 1 | 2013-06-18 17:51:53 |
Listen (song) | 1 | 2013-07-10 00:24:19 |
Yellow (song) | 1 | 2013-07-13 00:26:35 |
Shiloh (novel) | 1 | 2013-07-27 18:01:09 |
Shiloh (novel) | 2 | 2013-07-27 18:01:10 |
Pure (novel) | 1 | 2013-07-28 00:44:02 |
The Fear (song) | 1 | 2013-07-28 16:49:41 |
The Divine Comedy (album) | 1 | 2013-08-10 11:59:10 |
One Day at Horrorland | 1 | 2013-08-12 21:11:43 |
Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty | 1 | 2013-08-21 07:58:45 |
Homeless (song) | 1 | 2013-10-16 17:32:44 |
Contact (film) | 1 | 2013-11-04 18:44:08 |
New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary | 1 | 2014-01-18 06:22:56 |
Conan (TV series) | 1 | 2014-05-14 10:10:45 |
Do or Die (song) | 1 | 2014-05-26 18:28:02 |
This Too Shall Pass (song) | 1 | 2014-05-31 17:42:47 |
Typhoon Hal | 1 | 2014-06-24 20:45:31 |
Bookends | 1 | 2014-10-22 09:21:24 |
Jesus Piece | 1 | 2014-11-08 21:29:58 |
Breaking Point (song) | 1 | 2014-11-28 19:29:40 |
Devil May Care (novel) | 1 | 2015-01-17 20:06:41 |
Jumper (film) | 1 | 2015-02-22 18:43:44 |
Haumea (dwarf planet) | 1 | 2015-02-28 04:55:03 |
Makemake (dwarf planet) | 1 | 2015-02-28 05:08:25 |
Grey Wolves | 1 | 2015-06-20 02:31:36 |
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport | 1 | 2015-09-21 03:27:20 |
Hud (film) | 1 | 2015-09-24 12:06:36 |
Hud (film) | 2 | 2015-09-24 12:06:36 |
HMS Natal (1905) | 1 | 2015-10-09 12:22:47 |
Doomsday (film) | 1 | 2015-11-14 01:53:40 |
George Bailey (cricketer) | 1 | 2015-12-20 05:46:12 |
Yours (song) | 1 | 2017-04-22 00:22:37 |
Synthpop | 1 | 2017-04-27 20:49:46 |
Dreaming of You (album) | 1 | 2017-05-29 00:18:57 |
Dreaming of You (album) | 2 | 2017-05-29 00:18:57 |
Dreaming of You (album) | 3 | 2017-05-29 00:18:57 |
Dreaming of You (album) | 4 | 2017-05-29 00:18:57 |
French minelaying cruiser Pluton | 1 | 2018-04-24 12:42:34 |
Basil II the Bulgar Slayer | 1 | 2018-07-11 06:04:42 |
The J's With Jamie | 1 | 2019-04-04 03:52:10 |
Beyond the Sea (film) | 1 | 2019-04-27 19:04:25 |
Contagion (film) | 1 | 2019-04-28 18:33:29 |
Ghost Rider (film) | 1 | 2019-05-04 20:14:53 |
Greed (film) | 1 | 2019-05-05 17:55:15 |
Relapse (album) | 1 | 2019-05-14 19:05:16 |
Players (film) | 1 | 2019-05-26 23:36:20 |
No Sleep (album) | 1 | 2019-08-31 20:39:58 |
Statue of Lenin, Seattle | 1 | 2019-09-16 02:40:07 |
Time Out of Mind (album) | 1 | 2019-09-29 19:27:00 |
General Philip Sheridan | 1 | 2020-02-24 21:22:13 |
Tom Hawkins (footballer) | 1 | 2020-05-16 14:09:31 |
Polish Righteous among the Nations | 1 | 2020-07-28 20:00:08 |
Voodoo (album) | 2 | 2020-09-09 04:33:58 |
Geoff Smith (footballer) | 1 | 2020-10-25 15:39:34 |
Ken Barnes (footballer) | 1 | 2020-11-05 19:17:43 |
Nuno Mendes (footballer) | 1 | 2020-11-10 19:14:22 |
Company (film) | 1 | 2021-04-10 23:03:30 |
Booty (song) | 1 | 2021-05-23 16:26:15 |
Endless Night (song) | 1 | 2021-05-23 18:15:17 |
Headline News (song) | 1 | 2021-05-23 19:25:15 |
Problem (song) | 1 | 2021-05-27 15:53:50 |
David Lewis (politician) | 1 | 2021-06-30 17:53:46 |
The Beyond (film) | 1 | 2021-11-29 21:07:25 |
Golden Years (song) | 1 | 2021-12-03 17:27:22 |
Joseph R. Fisher | 1 | 2022-02-05 15:34:24 |
John Douglas (architect) | 1 | 2022-03-12 18:25:07 |
Danny Williams (politician) | 1 | 2022-04-09 00:05:31 |
Eskimo (film) | 1 | 2022-10-14 00:03:16 |
Bad Idea (song) | 1 | 2023-01-22 22:27:12 |
1 | 2023-01-22 22:54:06 |
Ack. Mike, maybe as this effort advances, you can follow what Gimmetrow did with {{ Article history}} and set up a category that tracks errors, so everyone can pitch in. See how Category:Article history templates with errors works. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I am working on subdividing these into finer distinctions. I've just realized the ones listed above are the particularly difficult ones -- if the talk page doesn't exist at all it was probably something like a move to a dab page where the source talk page was deleted (as in Procar). There are many more that should be simpler -- GAs with a parent talk page that is a redirect are the easiest; those should go to a subpage of wherever the parent talk page redirects to. I should have that list in a bit but it's going to be long -- I think over 5,000, but I'm still digging. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's a revised sample of ones that I think need to be moved, with the source and target pages listed and linked. It's not as bad as I thought; most of what I had thought was going to end up in this category turned out to be just plain redirects, meaning those GA subpage have already been moved. (There will be a few dozen more where the target page already exists; those will need more analysis.) I can post the full list if necessary (looks like it will be about 2,000 pages). How should this be validated before we look for a bot operator to do these moves? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, so I may be almost ready to bring a global proposal to the ANI thread, which would point the GA proposal back to this forum. But I think we have a broad plan on the way forward here now, with a recommendation to wait for the merge etc. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you all think a subpage should be set up for the Coldwell GAs? Asking before I launch formal proposal ... something like Wikipedia:Good Article Doug Coldwell GA reassessment ?? If so, might this discussion be copied to wherever you put it ? And the list at User:Iazyges/Doug GA Rewrite Claims could go there as well ... ?? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I spent five hours today on only three articles, finding mostly failed verification, along with a bit of cut-and-paste and too close paraphrasing. What is time-consuming is the need to first locate the sources, some of which are actually available although not linked (eg archive.org). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Doug Coldwell. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I am holding off on moving my sandbox to a GA subpage to resolve the following:
Meanwhile, my sandbox will have to suffice for anyone seeking info at this stage. Let's hope we never have to go through this again ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Pages for February 2023 GAR reassessment and Copyright contributor investigation |
---|
Main pages
Lists Notices Scripts and bots |
See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023
Editors here should note that the subpage for indicating which editors intended to pursue an independent GAR ( User:Iazyges/Doug GA Rewrite Claims) was not being used as intended, so was archived. All editors should re-read this page and see new instructions. I have gotten no response on some pings regarding the former page, so we will need to individually check with those editors as the time for the bot run approaches, and to remind them to review the project subpage.
If you were a GA reviewer of one of DC's GAs, you will be on the mailing list for notifications already; if you were not a DC GA reviewer, and want to be kept informed anyway, you can sign up at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023/GA reviewer MMStargets.
I will probably shortly unwatch this (very busy) page, so please place all followup on the GAR Feb 2023 page, or ping me here as needed.
Thanks to all who have helped out; this was a complex endeavor, never before attempted, made even harder as it came during a GAR revamping, so I appreciate everyone's patience and diligence as we got all the pieces in the right place. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Unwatching now; please post any questions to the DC GAR talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Please feel free to join in the conversation at: [ |Did you know# Making GAs stand out?]] Thank you for any input you might have. — Maile ( talk) 20:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The above-noted GAN has been open for well over six months and appears to have completely stalled. CMD attempted to get some movement going in November, BlueMoonset reminded the participants in December, and still nothing has changed. I attempted to get some movement going and suggested that the reviewer close it as failed as he does not believe it meets GA standards at this time, but was rebuffed by the reviewer today with the suggestion "let's wait a bit" to see if the nom comes back (nom hasn't edited since Jan 25, and hasn't touched the actual article since Dec 27).
Now, I'm not sure what the relationship was like between the nominator and the reviewer when the GAN was opened, but at this point it appears to have deteriorated badly. The last edits Cukrakalnis made were to ANI, to a dispute about the reviewer, Marcelus, in the same topic area (Lithuania), during which he suggested that Marcelus be TBANned from the area. There's also continued arguing between the two of them on each others' talk pages during that ANI. There's also a newly-opened DR request for another dispute between the two of them, again in the Lithuania topic area. I cannot possibly see how this contentious relationship could lead to a fruitful GA review.
I'm considering IAR closing it but would like to see some other opinions just in case I'm somehow being too hasty here. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
CAT:GAR lists 45, WP:GAR lists 37. Where's the difference, what are the eight that aren't on the page ? A Coord is needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I've done as much as I can towards extracting data from the GA subpages, and have come up with two lists of pages that need attention.
About fifty pages are on both lists. I am still running code to extract the outcome, outcome date, nomination date, and subtopic where possible, but that will take a while longer. The nominator has been extracted in almost every case. In a few cases it will be reported as a blank, or "None"; this generally means there's something weird about the original nomination template.
If anyone is willing to go through the unparseable pages and add article_history, even for just a few of them, that would be very helpful. I suspect it's not a particularly quick job -- generally speaking eveyrthing left over has something weird about it so it might take a bit of poking around in the histories in each case. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to parse the GAR templates on talk pages to get the timestamp. Checking a couple of current GARs I see {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=|GARpage=|status=}} as the format; is this going to continue to be the case after the merge of the individual and community GAR processes? Are there other GAR templates I might need to parse? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Some time ago I helped to promote the article Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to good article. It is currently tagged as outdated. And, unfortunately, that is correct: I had left wikipedia for a time, and focused more on astronomy than on politics since I came back, and this article about an active politician got outdated. Both the "Legal charges" mentioned in the lead template, and the "Vice presidency" section (currently only reporting than she was elected, but not any of the things she did during that time). It should cease to be a GA, it should be worked on to be updated (that would be a big work, not just add a pair of lines) and then proposed and evaluated again.
But that would mean I should start a GAR that would have to be contested by... me. Which should be the procedure? Can I unilaterally remove the GA status at this point? Should I start and close a GAR explaining the reasons? Should I simply open it and let it be closed by someone else? Cambalachero ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Some weeks ago user SeeAlsoPolice started a GAR over Mauricio Macri at Talk:Mauricio Macri/GA3. It did not appear to be a reasonable GAR: he placed maintenance templates to the article, with no rationale, and then started a GAR right away, with the sole argument that there were "Numerous maintenance templates". He never shows up to continue the discussion he started, and when I was about to remind him of it I noticed that he has been indefinitely blocked.
What should happen now? Is it fine if I close this, or should someone else do it? Cambalachero ( talk) 21:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Per Proposal 13 of the Drive, see Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#GAR coordinators. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
After trying to add their nomination for the above article directly to WP:GAN, The Emperor of Byzantium has once again completely ignored the instructions. They have apparently created a GAR page (again, without following the instructions there). Can someone fix this mess? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I've been scraping all GA reviews that are on a subpage with "/GAn" at the end, starting with users at the top of User:GA bot/Stats and working down. I have written a tool which lets me take a user name and quickly create a subpage of ChristieBot that lists all the reviews performed by that person. See User:Mike Christie/GA review lists/Iazyges, User:Mike Christie/GA review lists/Lee Vilenski, and User:Mike Christie/GA review lists/Chiswick Chap for examples.
Caveats and notes:
As of right now, the bot has data for anyone with 140 reviews or more. Over the next day or two it should get quite a long way further down the list, so even if you have fewer reviews than that, if you would like me to create a subpage with your reviews listed, let me know, and I'll create it as soon as there's data. I may eventually set this up so users can request the list for themselves. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm gradually working through some of the GAs that are resistant to being automatically categorized via article history and so on. I am baffled by this one and wonder if it should perhaps be deleted, or if not, if a FailedGA or articlehistory template should be added.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
How should Talk:Batik/GA1 be dealt with? It seems a good-faith error on the part of the nominator; they just didn't understand the instructions -- they added the nomination template after creating the GAN page. It was reviewed properly a short time after that (GA2) and passed. The talk page linked to GA1 for the passed review; I've fixed that. Do we delete GA1 (via G6, I guess, though it does have a sentence or two of (self)-assessment? And if so do we leave GA2 where it is or move it to GA1, where it technically should be? If we leave GA1 in place I will mark it as a "not listed" GA nomination in article history. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I think Talk:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company/GA1 is a nominator error too. Guywelch2000, did you mean to nominate this for GA? What you actually did was open a review page, which is what the reviewer should do, not the nominator. The instructions are at WP:GAN/I. If that's your intention, we can delete the review page and you can nominate it if you still want to. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
An individual reassessment for Russia has been open for 4 months. Given the fact this should not have been opened as an individual reassessment and that User:Xx236 does not seem to want to close this, I propose it is closed by somebody else. I closed the previous GAR on the topic as 'no consensus', so I'd rather have somebody else close this one. However, I'm willing to close if there are no other volunteers/no objections. The concrete objections have been addressed, but the discussion about neutrality requires some uninvolved eyes. Femke (alt) ( talk) 08:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
There are only 3 open discussions left at the Proposal Drive. I'd appreciate a bit of traffic to the last three discussions so we can get this all closed down and the focus can move to implementation and feedback. I'll swap out the Proposal Drive tab for the Feedback page once I've wrapped it all up. If nothing else, I'll give the discussions a week from their most recent comment should no one pick them up. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 02:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd ask at the proposal drive, but it is now "closed". Would there be appetite for collecting more statistics on how long pages wait for review, how long these reviews take, and how many reviews are closed as successful or unsuccessful? Could be as simple as a monthly report "This month, 25 GA reviews were closed, 19 passed, 6 failed. The longest time to wait for review was 180 days and the average was 33." or similar. Or is this useless/would there be better things to report on? Of course, all would depend on whether @ Mike Christie thinks it is worthwhile to code :) — Kusma ( talk) 13:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I have detailed and complete information from the point ChristieBot took over (17 November) and a bit before. I can provide that as a wiki table (which will cut and paste neatly into Excel) if anyone wants that data now; you could get quite a bit of information from that already. Separately I have about 55,000 records in a table for every subpage of the form "Talk:.../GAn". 46,000 of those are GANs; another 3,000 are unclassified at the moment but most of those will be taken care of when the moves are done. For that table I have reviewer and review timestamp; in most cases I have the outcome (pass/fail), the timestamp of the outcome, the nominator and nomination timestamp, and the subtopic, but it's a bit patchy -- I have very good data for the more recent years but malformed nominations were commoner further back in the past. Again I'm happy to give the data in its current state to anyone interested. That's a bit too big for a Wikipedia page, but I could email a csv file. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm putting together some scripts to extract stats for the two completed months since ChristieBot took over maintaining the GAN page. I'll post results here as I come up with them.
Here's the total number of passes and fails, plus the average wait time in days (nomination date to review date, not to pass/fail date). Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
GAN pass/fail and wait time | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
YYYYMM | pass | fail | avg_wait | Total |
2022-12 | 143 | 58 | 50.2 | 201 |
2023-01 | 265 | 61 | 56.2 | 326 |
This is the average wait time for December and January combined, by subtopic, again for articles passed/failed in those months.
Wait time by subtopic | ||
---|---|---|
Subtopic | avg wait | # GANs |
Agriculture, food and drink | 5.8 | 5 |
Albums | 85.1 | 11 |
Art and architecture | 47.0 | 34 |
Biology and medicine | 63.2 | 25 |
Chemistry and materials science | 7.0 | 1 |
Computing and engineering | 34.7 | 7 |
Culture, sociology and psychology | 30.0 | 14 |
Earth sciences | 89.5 | 8 |
Economics and business | 74.6 | 10 |
Education | 89.1 | 8 |
Film | 88.8 | 19 |
Geography | 8.2 | 6 |
Language and literature | 55.9 | 37 |
Law | 68.5 | 10 |
Magazines and print journalism | 64.7 | 3 |
Mathematics and mathematicians | 12.3 | 3 |
Media and drama | 69.3 | 13 |
Other music articles | 120.3 | 10 |
Philosophy and religion | 47.4 | 7 |
Physics and astronomy | 73.0 | 6 |
Places | 64.4 | 9 |
Politics and government | 88.8 | 21 |
Royalty, nobility and heraldry | 27.7 | 10 |
Songs | 39.2 | 38 |
Sports and recreation | 77.1 | 36 |
Television | 83.8 | 21 |
Transport | 58.2 | 54 |
Video games | 11.4 | 17 |
Warfare | 8.2 | 44 |
World history | 34.8 | 40 |
How many different reviewers does each subtopic attract?
Subtopic | # reviewers | # reviews |
---|---|---|
Agriculture, food and drink | 5 | 5 |
Albums | 8 | 11 |
Art and architecture | 21 | 34 |
Biology and medicine | 15 | 25 |
Chemistry and materials science | 1 | 1 |
Computing and engineering | 6 | 7 |
Culture, sociology and psychology | 13 | 14 |
Earth sciences | 2 | 8 |
Economics and business | 7 | 10 |
Education | 6 | 8 |
Film | 9 | 19 |
Geography | 5 | 6 |
Language and literature | 17 | 37 |
Law | 10 | 10 |
Magazines and print journalism | 3 | 3 |
Mathematics and mathematicians | 3 | 3 |
Media and drama | 10 | 13 |
Other music articles | 9 | 10 |
Philosophy and religion | 6 | 7 |
Physics and astronomy | 4 | 6 |
Places | 9 | 9 |
Politics and government | 16 | 21 |
Royalty, nobility and heraldry | 10 | 10 |
Songs | 11 | 38 |
Sports and recreation | 21 | 36 |
Television | 16 | 21 |
Transport | 20 | 54 |
Video games | 11 | 17 |
Warfare | 13 | 44 |
World history | 29 | 40 |
Thanks Mike! A quite weak correlation for height on page against longer review time (R² = 0.0469), although this is substantially pulled down by Video games and Warfare (without them, R² = 0.2156). It's even weaker looking at just lv 2 headers. No relation at all between #GANs and time to review. (Both observations may be different for in-topic order.) This does suggest particularly long wait times should result in targeted efforts to recruit editors from those areas (although some of the current reviewers:review ratios are 1:1!). CMD ( talk) 02:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
This is interesting but we'll need a longer sample. Mathematics shows three reviews at an average wait of 12.3 days, but there are a few nominations that have been waiting for more than four months. So in Dec/Jan, all that were reviewed were done quickly, but that doesn't mean articles usually get reviewed quickly. — Kusma ( talk) 16:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I can't tell if help with WP:GAN/I#PASS is needed at Talk:Bit House Saloon/GA1 or not.
Anyone want to take a look? Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Per the closure of proposal 16, a new table has been added to the backlog; you can see it here. I've set the links to go to the articles themselves, but then realized that the other half of the backlog links to the GAN page. I recall complaints about this in the past. Should I change the links to go to the GAN page, or leave them as they are? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I was looking through the list, and found that Saturn V, Falcon Heavy, Artemis 1 and Harrison Schmitt were all nominated by QuicksmartTortoise513. The editor is not a major contributor to these articles, so these nominations can be a drive-bys, which community decided to ban per Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023#Proposal 11: Ban drive-by nominations. Do anybody have any thoughts on this? QuicksmartTortoise513, I don't want to discourage you and I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but the articles look quite complex for GAN, and if you are not very familiar with sources it will just be failed nominations that can waste time of several reviewers. Artem.G ( talk) 18:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I apologize, I didn't see the policies on drive-by nominations. If I caused any inconvenience, please forgive me. I simply meant for the articles to be given improved worthwhile ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuicksmartTortoise513 ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I want to take a moment to thank everyone here for their work in making the 2023 Proposal Drive a success. I have swapped out the Proposal Drive for the Feedback page in the tab header. Once everything has been implemented, we can finally close it down as well (hopefully by the end of February).
I'll start preparing a 'Coordinator Elections' tab when I find the time for it. Are there any ideas on how to handle the RFC per Proposal 21? 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 20:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:GA § Should everything be cited?. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
There's still more clean up to do, but I think I now have the history clean enough that additional data gathering won't change the look of the data by more than a couple of percentage points. Here's two years worth of promotion stats -- looks like there must have been a couple of backlog drives? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Month of review | Listed | Not found | Not listed | Under review |
---|---|---|---|---|
2021-01 | 238 | 4 | 36 | |
2021-02 | 173 | 4 | 26 | |
2021-03 | 506 | 14 | 101 | |
2021-04 | 170 | 1 | 27 | |
2021-05 | 203 | 4 | 21 | |
2021-06 | 150 | 5 | 26 | |
2021-07 | 488 | 18 | 76 | |
2021-08 | 192 | 1 | 29 | |
2021-09 | 315 | 2 | 20 | |
2021-10 | 190 | 1 | 11 | |
2021-11 | 143 | 17 | ||
2021-12 | 103 | 4 | 19 | |
2022-01 | 549 | 6 | 101 | |
2022-02 | 124 | 2 | 20 | |
2022-03 | 151 | 3 | 33 | |
2022-04 | 144 | 3 | 21 | |
2022-05 | 130 | 1 | 16 | |
2022-06 | 316 | 4 | 63 | |
2022-07 | 112 | 34 | 1 | |
2022-08 | 255 | 1 | 58 | 1 |
2022-09 | 205 | 1 | 45 | |
2022-10 | 147 | 1 | 27 | |
2022-11 | 141 | 4 | 43 | 2 |
2022-12 | 144 | 3 | 43 | 4 |
2023-01 | 244 | 42 | 15 | |
Grand Total | 5533 | 87 | 955 | 23 |
I've made no effort here to clean up the odd subtopics -- these are usually taken from either article history, or the GA nominee template on the talk page, or the section of GAN they were in. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Subtopic | Wait (days) | # GANs |
---|---|---|
Agriculture, food and drink | 11.8 | 60 |
Albums | 38.6 | 197 |
Art | 1.0 | 1 |
Art and architecture | 49.7 | 430 |
Biology and medicine | 31.0 | 350 |
Chemistry and materials science | 50.8 | 24 |
Computing and engineering | 48.1 | 106 |
Culture, sociology and psychology | 42.1 | 120 |
Culture, sociology, and psychology | 53.5 | 4 |
Earth sciences | 37.0 | 97 |
Economics and business | 85.3 | 88 |
Education | 79.9 | 70 |
Engtech | 1.0 | 1 |
Film | 38.3 | 168 |
Films | 0.0 | 1 |
Geography | 35.5 | 106 |
Geography and places | 0.0 | 1 |
History | 4.5 | 2 |
Language and literature | 50.6 | 390 |
Law | 58.6 | 95 |
Magazines and print journalism | 61.9 | 46 |
Mathematics and mathematicians | 33.7 | 59 |
Media and drama | 62.4 | 143 |
Miscellaneous | 35.3 | 4 |
Music | 67.4 | 253 |
Other music articles | 26.0 | 1 |
Philosophy and religion | 45.1 | 111 |
Physics and astronomy | 51.4 | 64 |
Places | 57.7 | 119 |
Politics and government | 67.9 | 265 |
Royalty, nobility and heraldry | 40.6 | 134 |
socsci | 1.0 | 1 |
Songs | 25.4 | 502 |
Sports and recreation | 52.8 | 823 |
Television | 31.9 | 242 |
Transport | 47.4 | 417 |
Video games | 22.3 | 281 |
Warfare | 16.0 | 452 |
World history | 40.6 | 369 |
y | 13.0 | 1 |
Grand Total | 1517.1 | 6598 |
Here's a histogram of the five most heavily populated nomination subtopics since 1/1/21. The horizontal axis is weeks between nomination and review start; the vertical axis is the percentage of all nominations in that subtopic. For example, over 50% of Warfare nominations were picked up in under a week. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's the data in tabular form. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
% picked up in (weeks) | Topics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weeks | Art and architecture | Songs | Sports and recreation | Transport | Warfare |
0 | 22.7% | 32.0% | 21.8% | 21.7% | 52.7% |
1 | 10.9% | 16.6% | 8.4% | 7.5% | 13.5% |
2 | 9.5% | 12.6% | 6.1% | 8.0% | 10.0% |
3 | 3.1% | 7.1% | 6.4% | 4.4% | 4.8% |
4 | 2.8% | 5.5% | 4.6% | 6.1% | 2.7% |
5 | 6.4% | 3.8% | 3.5% | 6.3% | 3.7% |
6 | 4.0% | 4.5% | 4.0% | 6.6% | 3.2% |
7 | 2.1% | 5.3% | 4.6% | 4.6% | 1.4% |
8 | 2.4% | 2.4% | 3.1% | 4.1% | 0.9% |
9 | 3.3% | 2.4% | 4.0% | 2.9% | 1.4% |
10 | 3.3% | 2.4% | 3.5% | 3.2% | 1.4% |
11 | 1.4% | 1.4% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 0.9% |
12 | 3.1% | 0.6% | 3.3% | 3.4% | 0.5% |
13 | 5.9% | 0.8% | 3.3% | 3.2% | 0.5% |
14 | 2.1% | 0.6% | 1.9% | 2.9% | 0.2% |
15 | 3.1% | 0.4% | 3.0% | 3.6% | 0.5% |
16 | 1.9% | 0.6% | 2.4% | 0.5% | 0.2% |
17 | 3.1% | 0.2% | 3.5% | 2.4% | 0.2% |
18 | 3.6% | 1.9% | 0.7% | 0.7% | |
19 | 1.4% | 1.1% | 1.0% | 0.2% | |
20 | 1.4% | 0.2% | 1.2% | 1.0% | |
>20 | 2.4% | 0.6% | 5.4% | 2.7% | 0.5% |
Given the change in the sort order, I recommend changing the length of Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog from 5 to somewhere in the 10 to 20 range like Wikipedia:Good articles/recent in order to give some visibility to the older nominations. User:Mike Christie has encouraged me to open a discussion in this regard.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Another thing that you might do to give low priority articles some hope of review is instituting a QPQ like DYK has. I am frustrated seeing my (260 reviews, 336 GAs) ratio has my article at 42nd in the Sports queue. Even worse is to think that if I did 75 reviews immediately it would still be at 42nd and if I did 150 it would only move up to 41st. Suppose you made a policy that people can reprioritize a nomination by doing reviews. Suppose I do 2 reviews I could double the ratio for any nomination. If I do 3, I could triple the ratio. This would encourage low ratio people to do more review than they nominate and reduce the backlog.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The idea behind the change in sort order was to reward frequent reviewers by placing their nominations nearer the top of the list where they would get reviewed more quickly. That works if being at the top of the list increases your chance of getting reviewed. A concern raised above is that some nominations will never make it to the top of the list under this sort order. We know from experience that reviewers pick from all over the lists, not just from the top, but we don't actually know how much more likely it is that a nomination at the top will get reviewed. Per Gog's comments it might well be that the newest articles are quickly scanned for interest and many are picked up right away, which is the reverse -- what's left over are nominations that aren't especially interesting to any active reviewer, so they have to wait. That would imply many get picked from the bottom of the list in the old sort order.
I could start recording at the time a review is begun where in the list for each subtopic that nomination stood. E.g. if World War II is picked up for review and it stands 10th of 20 in the Warfare subtopic, I would record that, along with the sort order used at the time. That would start to gather data that we could use to answer these questions.
Some comments on the various ideas to change the way the nominations are presented, plus an extra idea or two. I think it would be best if we had the data on position when reviewed, but we may not want to wait till we get a meaningful amount of data. (Theoretically I have the data already and can try to calculate it but it's not stored explicitly and would be tricky to calculate.) Update: I just checked and it can be done with existing data so I do have history for this.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
GAN | Action taken | Notes |
---|---|---|
Talk:108 Leonard/GA1 | None | |
Talk:Canyon View High School (Arizona)/GA1 | None | |
Talk:2022 South Lanarkshire Council election/GA1 | None | |
Talk:Proposed new South Shore Line station in South Bend/GA1 | None | |
Talk:2014 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship game/GA1 | None | |
Talk:Ontario Highway 11/GA1 | None | |
Talk:Capri-Sun/GA1 | New GAN created | |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999/GA1 | None | Review opened but not started |
Talk:Bayfront MRT station/GA1 | None | More evidence of individual commentary, but nominator has requested a second opinion |
Talk:Gardens by the Bay MRT station/GA1 | None | More evidence of individual commentary, but nominator has requested a second opinion |
Talk:Total Drama Island/GA1 | Deleted | |
Talk:Yella Hertzka/GA1 | New GAN created | |
Talk:Cora Slocomb di Brazza/GA1 | New GAN created | |
Talk:Competitive debate in the United States/GA1 | None | Was put on hold for insufficient lead before passing |
Talk:Educationally subnormal/GA1 | None | Currently on hold for "lead could be bigger" and "Needs images" |
Talk:Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford/GA1 | None | Currently on hold for "lead could be bigger" and "Images need alt text" |
Talk:Education in Wales/GA1 | None | Currently on hold for "some references need page numbers" and "Images need alt text". |
Talk:Winchester College/GA1 | None | Currently on hold for "Images need alt text", and the nominator has added this |
Talk:Schooling and the Struggle for Public Life/GA1 | None | Was put on hold for "Images need alt text" before passing after alt text added |
Talk:Magdalena Cajías/GA1 | None | Currently on hold for "images (with alt text) would be very helpful"/"Needs images" |
Given we have three separate discussions on similar topics, I created this table to help keep track. Please add if I have missed any. To be clear, appearance on this table means it is related to the discussions above, it does not mean action has to be taken. CMD ( talk) 02:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron and I recently put Capri-Sun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) up for GAN. Not long thereafter, Shawn Teller conducted a review; they soon passed the article after a series of comments that were quite flattering but not very informative and, in at least a few places, factually incorrect ("fully adheres to MoS"; "doesn't cite any primary sources"). Now of course, leek and I would not have nominated Capri-Sun if we did not think it was GA material, so we don't dispute Shawn's conclusion, but we do worry that perhaps their review did not meet the expectations outlined at WP:GANI. Looking at their seven previous reviews and Mujinga's comments in a similar situation in October, I think it may be necessary for someone to have a word with Shawn about what is required for a GAN review. Since this isn't a user conduct board, I haven't pinged Shawn yet, in hopes I can find someone willing to explain the issue to them and give them some advice for the future, since I see in them someone who clearly wants to help a great bit. If not, I can try having that conversation, but I've only done one review myself, so it might be better to come from someone more experienced.
It also may be necessary to reässess their past reviews. In the case of Capri-Sun, leek and I are happy to resubmit it (essentially treating /GA1 as a no-fault quickfail), or, since we do intend to bring it to FAC in the near-ish future, to submit it for a peer review to buttress this GAN. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 04:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I propose to change the high-priority backlog box at the top of WP:GAN (added per the recent proposal drive) to only display one nomination per user. At the moment the highest priority nominator happens to have five nominations, so all five of the top priority spots are taken by the same nominator. I propose that it should display the oldest nomination by that user, followed by the oldest nomination by the second-highest priority user, and so on. If there are no objections I'll make the change in the next couple of days. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Lots of quick agreement, so done. I made one additional tweak which I hope will be uncontroversial: if a nominator has any nomination under review, none of their nominations will appear in the high priority box, regardless of their age and priority. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Never had this happen before, but I had 2 articles approved after nominating them for GA within 18 minutes of each other. That seemed impossible to me and when I went to the editor's page, I saw that 9 articles had been reviewed in the space of about 4 hours. I queried that, but don't know exactly what to do to have Yella Hertzka and Cora Slocomb di Brazza reviewed by someone else. Can someone please ping me and tell me what to do here? SusunW ( talk) 22:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
That said, getting zero feedback to me doesn't improve the article at all, so it is as if I didn't nominate it at all. I would rather have someone review it thoroughly and help with improving it.I am not misrepresenting her request for a more thorough review commentary, thank you. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
we can't exactly disqualify reviews... no matter how lightweight those reviews are., of course we can. The purpose of a GA review is to check the article against the criteria – and secondarily to SusunW's point, to suggest ways to improve the article. If we have reason to believe a review hasn't done that, we can undo it and move on. I'm assuming this is just a case of someone new to GA reviewing misunderstanding the norms here, and trying with best intentions to help out. I've left a message at their talk page suggesting they build trust by explaining their thinking more thoroughly.
It was just affirmed... has no sayreferring to? Ajpolino ( talk) 02:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Mike Christie. I am still pondering, but what I am reading in all of this is way different than the philosophy the seasoned editors who walked me through my first good articles had. I take almost all articles to GA (unless they are too short/not detailed enough to meet my standard), or did to this point and now think maybe I should stop doing that. Reading the above gives me no confidence that (most?) reviewers are approaching the process with the goal of improvement; thus, it does seem that I have been wasting other people's time. Realistically, most of what I write could pass FAC, but I find the process very intimidating (and time consuming, which takes away from my ability to write.) When I find a particularly spectacular subject, I venture there, but my standards are high, (possibly too high). I am not interested in validation or accolades, my goals are simply to write the best article that I can that fills gaps in our knowledge and that other people can easily understand. Clearly, I am an outlier. SusunW ( talk) 18:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I always make sure to note that anything in my review is a suggestion, unless is it specifically required as part of the criteria, and open for discussion– I think this right here is the answer. A GA review can be both a certification of the criteria and a staging ground for improvement, and this is what lets them coexist in the same process. Doing a bare minimum review does the article and the nominator a disservice, but enforcing things beyond the explicitly written GA criteria is unfair to nominators; this strikes the happy medium that we need, and it's what I try to do when I review. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 15:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Just ran into Talk:The Clean Tech Revolution, which has had an open GAR for the last twelve years. Obviously this should be closed as keep, but I left it open for the moment because I wondered if there's some way to find these. Shouldn't these be in a category that makes them findable? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
It turned out to be quick to do so here's the list. I'm not familiar with how the GAR templates work but the first couple I checked don't seem to be open still. Should the GAR/link template still be on the page though?
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 running GARcloser at Talk:Imelda Marcos resulted in several errors; that should have been a manual close to avoid a duplicate entry in articlehistory, and stripping of the C-class the article already was. COuld you doublecheck that you haven't run GARcloser on any others that needed to be manually closed as they were already entered in articlehistory? Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Most of these errors could have been avoided by the way were it not for that old bugger of transcluding GAs to talk rather than on their own subpage. The errors are everywhere because of that practice, and are only now being uncovered because of Mike's work. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Y'all are going to need a pingie thingie like at FAC, FAR and TFA. Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/February 2023#Deletion of GARs; I am quite concerned that CCI work not be held up by GA bookkeeping issues, after having done everything in my power to make this run smoothly, and eliminate copyvio while respecting the GA process. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Are Reviewers supposed to give nominating editors time to respond to their criticisms of an article that is nominated for GA status before they Fail it? Sure, the article I worked on - Robert Todd Lincoln - could stand with improvements. I know it isn't perfect but I am flummoxed that the Reviewer failed it within 2 hours of starting their review. Didn't give me a chance to respond before they failed it either - doesn't seem very collegial/collaborative/fair to me. Oh well, I'll GA Nom it again at some point I guess... Shearonink ( talk) 19:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
So I asked a question regarding one of the points raised by User:LunaEatsTuna on my GA for Splatoon 3 (see Talk:Splatoon 3/GA1) and was told that these shouldn't be things I have to do for a GA and was told to bring it here. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I am seeing a GAN page that is not rendering nominations in chronological order. I just nominated an article and it is showing as the 42nd listing among 67 nominees for sports and recreation. The nominees are listed in no logical order (expecially not chronological order).-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Femke why does Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Failing not mention the oldid parameter, so that when I'm cleaning (multiple other) GA issues on talk pages, I also have to look up the oldid like this, before I can roll the fail in to articlehistory? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
This thread isn’t clear. Why was I pinged? I believe I followed the instructions? Mark83 ( talk) 13:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
The user script GANReviewTool can perform most of these steps automatically, with no indication of which steps it may not perform and no indication that its use is recommended (if it is, I certainly didn't know that!) I have added mention of the oldid parameter to the instructions. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 14:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I've manually merged all the recent FailedGAs to AH, and will leave this list here for someone else to finish. I was watching this to make sure the NovemBot run didn't generate any issues, and we're good there. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello. A user has just been passing my GAs without giving a comprehensive review. May I ask for second opinions for the following?
Talk:Gardens by the Bay MRT station/GA1
Thank you. ZKang123 ( talk) 04:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Total Drama Island should be nominated as a good article because of its well-written to readers in most regions, especially its mention of the regional variations of the winners and the conversion of Canadian dollars into USA dollars. It is two-sided between different groups of regions, especially in who won in which region, as it explains how the endings are made, and where they are telecasted to prevent any drama between people from different regions watching the show from arguing who won Total Drama Island. It is generally stable as there are no recent history of strings of reverted edits or edit wars. The media of the article are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions to explain what they're talking about. The article is well-sourced, and archived just in case the information is deleted already. |
Since reviews which need to be redone tend to be by new reviewers, would it be useful if ChristieBot posted a note to this page whenever a review is begun by a first-time reviewer? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
GAR has seen an increase in articles nominated, but there's not much to incentivize editors who save articles from demotion. The idea would be for this to be overseen by the GAR coordinators in pretty much the same way it's done at WP:Featured Article Save Award. Copying the language from there:
Version 1
|
---|
|
Since the FASA mimics the FA promotion message, the GASA could in turn mimic ChristieBot's GA promotion message and symbol .
Any thoughts? Perhaps the above process, which was intended for FAR, could be streamlined further for GAR? Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 09:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC) (updated 02:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC))
This proposal tries to equalize the official recognition for a GAN pass and a GAR save, while also equalizing the bureaucracy.
GAN pass (current) | GAR save (proposed) | |
---|---|---|
Talk page message | == Your
GA nomination of
Example ==
The article Example you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Example for comments about the article. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. |
== Your GA save of
Example ==
Your work on the article Example has allowed it to retain its good article status following a GAR, earning you this Good Article Save Award . If you wish, you may display this GA rescue upon your userpage. Well done! |
Eligibility | Nominators must have contributed significantly to the article. | Editors must have made significant improvements to the article while it was at GAR. (This is not given to reviewers.) |
Who can confer it | The nomination may be reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article. | Any uninvolved editor may assess eligibility for the GAR save. |
Thoughts? Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 02:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) (upd 14:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC))
{{
The Rescue Barnstar 3}}
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 12:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
While cleaning up old GA subpages I found these three:
These GAs can't easily be accessed from anywhere. Yesterday I dealt with Talk:Crucibulum laeve/GA1, for which the parent article was merged to Crucibulum, by moving the GA to Talk:Crucibulum/GA1 so it could be indexed from Talk:Crucibulum. I left a note at the top giving the reasoning. Is that the best way to handle this situation? That is, move Talk:(I've Just Begun) Having My Fun/GA1 to Talk:Greatest Hits: My Prerogative/GA1 and so on, with an explanatory note? Alternatively each of the parent page talk pages could be returned to talk page state, with an article history template; I think I've seen this approach taken a couple of times though I can't bring an example to mind. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
A quick note to say that the above has passed - my first GA review. Once the nominator had done the hard work, I mucked in to lend a hand. Regards Billsmith60 ( talk) 15:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
This evening, or possibly tomorrow morning if I run into any issues with the change, I'll be updating the reviewing statistics to match the history I've found by scanning the GA subpages. I've posted earlier about this, and nobody objected, so I'm going to go ahead with the change; I'm absolutely certain it's more accurate than the numbers we have now, but it won't be perfect. For reference here are the parameters:
The total number of reviews in the database, including reviews excluded for one of the reasons given above, is 49,406.
The historical database tracks the following fields:
I'll be enhancing the reports I've already made avaiable so that you can query this database for an individual or a date range, and will see if I can automate some statistics. However, some things are unavoidably missing. The most common omission (over 600) is the outcome: if the GAN has been superseded by a later GAN, I can't tell the outcome by looking to see if the article is currently a GA because that's ascribable to the most recent GAN. If the article history template is on the talk page I can use that, but it's not always present.
In a few cases the nomination information is also missing. I extract it from the history of the article's talk page and from the history of the GAN page where I can, but if that doesn't work the various templates don't record the nominator -- {{ article history}}, {{ failedGA}}, and {{ GA}} all show outcome and date but not the nominator or reviewer. I would like to change article history to add parameters to show nominator and reviewer, but I haven't gotten agreement for that change (and I can see arguments against it, to be fair). So 95 records have no nominator information, and another 125 have no nomination timestamp information.
Another occasional error is that some editors had a habit of moving old pre-subpage GAs to subpages. Bungle did quite a few of these. They then show up as the reviewer, since they created the page. If I can detect that the nomination predates the May 2008 cutoff, I don't include it, but a few have probably slipped through.
I've fixed (with a great deal of help from others, in particular Qwerfjkl's bot) the most egregious errors I found in the various GA subpages -- you can trawl my contributions history if you want to see samples of the messes that I found -- merges, redirects, deletions, disambiguations, and multiple moves. Qwerfjkl's bot moved over 2,000 subpages to their correct locations. I will post links on ChristieBot's user page to lists of the various remaining problems -- in most cases the recommended fix will be "add article history", though there's a small risk that in some cases that will actually remove nomination information. I'm not expecting anyone to go through those and fix them, but they could be a reference for any bot that can automatically build article history. And if anyone is wondering why their personal lists of reviews or nominations doesn't match, those pages may give the answer.
CMD just mentioned on my talk page that page moves that fail to move the associated GA subpages are still going on now. I don't have a way to detect those, but will see if I can come up with something. Perhaps if we report those and notify the movers in each case as we fix them, the volume won't be too high to keep up with, and we might end up educating the people making the mistake. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I was preparing to start my first review of an article when I noticed that the article in question was nominated by someone who was not a significant contributor (1 edit and 0.5% authorship). Seeing as how this violates "If you are not a significant contributor to the article, you must secure the assent of the significant contributors before nominating." in Step 1 of the GAN instructions, does that meet the bar for a quick-fail? Or would this be considered a "drive-by nomination" and would I be permitted to just directly remove the nomination? If so, do I just delete the entry manually from the nominations list or is there some automated process that's supposed to be started by ChristieBot? Thanks, Horserice ( talk) 01:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Proposal 30 passed and I have been looking at what could be done to implement it. (This would require a BRFA, so this is just to clarify before I make any request.) The goal is to have categories such as "Good articles listed in February 2023" and "Good articles delisted in February 2023". Good articles can cease being good articles for other reasons than being delisted -- they can be merged or redirected or deleted or promoted to FA. I don't think there's much value in trying to track those exceptions, so I propose that these categories are interpreted to mean just what they say -- an article is in category "Good articles listed in February 2023" if it passed a GAN that month, regardless of what happened afterwards; and it's in category "Good articles delisted in February 2023" only if it was delisted that month. So an article that is now a former featured article, and was GA before it became FA, is not now a GA but would not be in any "delisted" category.
If that all sounds OK, then I can do the following:
This will omit completely the following:
There are some possible ways around some of these -- for example by checking every single article that uses article history, I might find some more records. But some will definitely be missed.
The categories would not be complete and there's no easy way to complete them, and maintaining them would add manual labour, at least for the delisting categories. I'm not sure this is worth doing with these caveats. Any opinions? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:GA § Should everything be cited?. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 02:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
After Proposal 13 of the GA Proposal Drive was passed, some discussion has taken place on the GAR talk page ( here), in regards to the actual utility of the GAR Coordinators, and a call for self-nomination went out. After something of a slowdown has taken place at the GAR talk page, a suggestion was made to open a discussion here regarding the confirmation of coordinators, and their roles; in part due to the larger number of people active here, and because much of the activity taken place has involved a relatively small number of parties, most of whom have been active together in the recent WP:DCGAR, GA proposal drive, and GAR talk page discussions, forming something of a majority of "those who show up", rather than a necessarily representative consensus. Based on the discussion involved in the recent overhaul of GAN, including unanimous support for the merging of individual and community reassessment (Proposal 14) users @ Premeditated Chaos, Femke, and AirshipJungleman29: have worked to craft and implement new guidelines for GAN which would seem to open the closing of GARs to uninvolved experienced editors in most cases, the GAR nominator themselves if there is a silent consensus, or, in the case of contentious discussion, the GAR coordinators. From this, we have a rough outline of the coordinators' roles, insofar as they help to manage the administrative work, and assist in the case of contentious discussions. But again, the role is not strictly defined, although what has been implemented thus far after active discussion seems to align with the spirit of the proposal quite well. A call went out to numerous editors to self-nominate, and recommendations were made, which resulted in a slew of @ Trainsandotherthings and Etriusus: and myself, with @ Chipmunkdavis: putting himself forward as a possibility, and @ Aircorn: suggested (but he has been inactive recently and therefore was not available for comment). The thinking of some, including @ SandyGeorgia:, who has spearheaded much of the movement, appears to be to open this to a wider discussion, where the nominees can be confirmed by the community here as reliable, and, during or after this process, the exact role of the coordinators in nailed down. I personally favor what appears to be our working model, of administrative work and decisive closers of contentious reviews; as well as the general slew of guidance and help that might be expected of coordinators. If people agree with this, I think the next step would be to open a poll for each of the various nominees, probably on a support/oppose basis, and a poll for the expectations and responsibilities of the coordinators. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I propose we open a poll here (higher viewers than WT:GAR) with the following procedure:
Happy with four coords as well.. Nominees, feel free to add names below. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:17, 21 February 2023 (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.
Candidates, feel free to nominate yourselves. Polling will open on February 27.
I am not a regular part of the GA process, so won't be voting when voting opens tomorrow, but I would be voting for all five based on my experience of each of them so far, even though GAR does not need this many Coords. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, it's definitely been over a week now. I don't know whether people want four or six coords, but I do know that there's a controversial GAR over at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hannah Arendt/1 that seems to have mostly halted, and as I and Etriusus have been involved, could I ask one of @ Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings: to close it as their first act in the role? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 02:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:GAN currently includes a NOTOC directive, meaning that the only way to navigate to specific sections is to manually scroll or jump up to the top of the page, scroll down a page to reach the listing of headings, and then jump from there to the section you are looking for. The new Vector2022 default skin for Wikipedia (at least) puts a persistent table of contents in the sidebar, allowing more convenient navigation, but only for pages that do not explicitly disable contents using NOTOC. Can we maybe remove the NOTOC from WP:GAN, so that more convenient navigation is possible? — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
toc
class, anyone who has custom css to format the table of contents loses out on that. Conceivably also losing the semantic information that it is a table of contents does some harm from an accessibility point of view?
Caeciliusinhorto-public (
talk) 15:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Discussion on GA categorisation sometimes pops up, most recently at Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023. During that discussion (@ Joe Roe, AirshipJungleman29, Kusma, Mike Christie, WhatamIdoing, BlueMoonset, and Ganesha811: courtesy ping) I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Topic Values/Subtopics to show the current topic (coded as h2) and sub-topic (coded as h3) divisions.
I have now collected the number of articles for those, as well as for their further divisions (there are h4 h5 and even some h6 scattered around, very ad-hoc no real system to speak of) at User:Chipmunkdavis/GA category stats. This gives some insight into the sorts of articles GA handles, and might be useful for discussion if there is still a desire to adjust the system. (The number of current GAs may not be exactly the same as the proportion of articles entering GAN, which Mike has been able to collect separately, but I assume it is roughly similar.) Some very full categories, some perhaps slightly too forward-thinking splits (shout out to Natural sciences#Types of chemical transformations with 0 entries). Please let me know if you spot any issues with the numbers (the overall number for example is not the same as the one generated by counting category entries, for some reason). Best, CMD ( talk) 04:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Just an FYI that WT:GA now redirects here as discussed. I added a separate archive box above to enable searching (if anyone can create a single button to search across all the archives, that would be more ideal but I couldn't figure out a way to do it). There are some old subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia talk:Good articles that I wasn't sure what to do with, like for example WT:Good articles/iconmockups, and so I left those untouched. Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 22:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
It's been several weeks since we've formalized the informal rule against drive-by nominations. I recall that there was talk about a way to detect or flag drive-by nominations, but has there been any progress on this? I skimmed through some of the current nominations from nominators with 0 GAs, and a bunch of them are drive-by noms or the nominators are otherwise minimal contributors to the article. Catching these automatically is probably the most efficient step we can take to keep the backlog manageable. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 00:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I just tried some timing tests. Getting the contributors for an article is very slow; a second or two for an article without much history, but more like a minute for an article like Donald Trump. Getting the edit count for a user is much quicker. I think the best way to do this would be to append a bullet list item to the report page when the nomination is first added to the GAN page, if the nominator has 1 or fewer GAs and an edit count under 1,000. Or is that too high? The report would stay there until someone deleted it.
User talk:ChristieBot/Incompletely moved pages is the same -- whoever cleans it up will have to delete the report records manually. CMD commented on my talk page that we are accumulating quite a few reports now, of different types; in addition to these two and GANR, there is Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches and User talk:ChristieBot/GAN errors (which is self-clearing). Is there a better page architecture that would make these easier to track and deal with? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 09:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
GA criteria 2 only explicitly requires citations for:
That's also echoed in WP:GACN, though the latter heavily implies that anything not cited inline should still come from listed WP:GENREF. While general references used to be acceptable (a while ago), that now mostly seen as a relic of the early-Wikipedia era.
However, the "state-of-the-art" practice seems to have shifted to requiring everything to be cited inline. That's reasonable to me. I've also seen quite a few GA articles delisted for lacking citations (and even seen B-class articles demoted to C-class for not being fully cited). Indeed, it's very hard for anyone to know whether something is original research unless it's cited. Given that there seems to have been a shift in accepted practice, shouldn't we update the GA criteria to reflect this? DFlhb ( talk) 17:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
[[Charles, Prince of Wales]] (later King Charles III) attended the event.<ref>Prince of Wales attends ship's christening</ref>
would be an example of a sentence permissibly containing verifiable but unverified information. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 19:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Initial proposal, withdrawn 04:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
Proposal: Change criterion 2b
2b currently states: Proposal: Change to:
If adding an option, please do so below the existing ones. Survey
|
Proposal 12 in the proposal drive was to include GARs on the GAN page. It passed, and I'm starting to look at implementing it. I have a couple of questions, and would like feedback on layout.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
GANs require a reviewer to pick them up, GARs require a content creator to pick them up. It would be nice if this GAN page listing leads to more "GA saves", which is the priority of the process per the bold text on WP:GAR. The text there is a mirror of the wording on FAR: "the ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status", which is what we should be promoting. Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 22:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
would adding GARs impact the GA report?Probably not. As long as you don't re-use GANentry the bot should ignore it. — Wug· a·po·des 02:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Dost Mohammad Khan has recently been nominated as a good article, and I don't know where a reviewer is supposed to start with this. I think someone more experienced than myself needs to intervene. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 06:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm in the middle of my first GA review here and was just wondering what the best way to check for copyright/plagiarism is. I think the article is fine, but I want to make sure. -- Zoo ( talk) 00:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Thomas Johnston (engraver) is one of the WP:DCGAR bunch. I've taken it completely apart and put it all back together again, see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thomas Johnston (engraver)/1, Talk:Thomas Johnston (engraver)#Working through this article's refs per the individual GAR, Article's state when I started in February and article's present state. Can someone else please take a look at it and close the GAR? I can't do it because it's a DCGAR and I worked on it too much - COI and all that. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 14:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I got some beginner questions I would like to ask:
Thanks in advance! Vestigium Leonis ( talk) 12:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rs chen 7754 15:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Briefly, the question is: can we remove the NOTOC from WP:GAN, so that its table of contents becomes usable for navigation, and if we do that, should we also remove the pseudo-table-of-contents near the start of GAN?
In more detail:
— David Eppstein ( talk) 00:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, is there any way to delete my error? I nominated Pachysentis. Mattximus ( talk) 17:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
On the report page, the links for each "old nomination" go to the relevant section of the main WP:GAN page. This was fine when the nominations were sorted by date, as the old ones were near the top. After the re-sorting, it has become hard to find the noms without browser ctrl-F. Shouldn't the report page also use {{ GANentry}}, just preceded by the symbol (if applicable) and followed by the age of the nom? — Kusma ( talk) 08:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I started a review of the Rhina Aguirre article. Are the sources via the blogs there suitable for a GA? (See review page). Pinging Krisgabwoosh, as the nominator. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 09:58, 22 March 2023 (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. |
A day ago, an editor held Turkoman (ethnonym) to be a succesful GA notwithstanding my protestations. Today, among other things, I found a massive misrepresentation of a source. Though I urge all of you to evaluate the merits of my particular allegations as raised at the t/p, I have a larger concern which has nothing to do with either the nominator or the reviewer or even the review.
The nominator in question has (1) a history of misrepresenting sources, (2) using rare and old Soviet literature, perhaps to avoid scrutiny, and (3) machine-translating non-English sources until an admin threatened to block them. How shall an ideal GA reviewer proceed with any future nominations from such editors, balancing concern for content alongside AGF towards the editor? TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
At
Talk:Southern Railway 1401/GA1, a "review" was started, consisting entirely of Currency conversion needed... and technical copyedit. Once done, renominate.
This is obviously not anything approaching a real review, and as the reviewer appears uninterested in completing one, a second reviewer is needed.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 14:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I am reviewing Brian Bolland for GA. The nominator will be working on the excessive quotations and other issues. The article has a massive amount of information sourced to The Art of Brian Bolland which was written by the subject. I think that is way too much use of a primary source for an article and that it should be failed due to that if it can't be taken care of by the nominator. I'm looking for thoughts from more experienced GA contributors. SL93 ( talk) 13:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
well-known and significant award or honourare likely to be notable, but there does not appear to be any real guidance as to what constitutes "well known and signficant" in this case. His Eisner award wins are probably the best case there, but I don't know that even they are really well known outside of the comics industry and fandom. It doesn't look as though anybody has challenged Bolland's notability before now, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is notable! Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 14:57, 9 January 2023 (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.
Currently, it's possible to list an article for a community WP:GAR after a failed GAN. The preferred process if you disagree is to simply renominate the article, or bring it to the talk page here. The GAN instructions say (Step 5: After the review): "If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may ask for additional input on the discussion page." The GAN instructions do not mention the process described at WP:GAR: "Use the community reassessment process if: (...) You disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it)".
This process is rarely used (I can't find an example). I don't think the slow community GAR process is the best location for a controversial discussion. Drawn-out controversy is never good for the community. This talk page is better watched and can resolve these matters more quickly. I don't see why we need to complicate matters and have three different options for a failed GAN. To reduce WP:instruction creep and make the GAR process instructions easier, I propose we scrap this option. A smal 2021 discussion at WT:GAR did not reach a consensus. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 16:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
For a long time I've had a problem with the GAR system.
Sorry for being incredibly angry with the third reason but I have had this feeling for an incredibly long time. GARs need to be done faster or more efficiently. Especially since there are over 35000 GAs which makes it impossible to reassess all of them without a widespread community effort.
Proposals:
Now I'm not good with proposals so these ideas are just ideas but here are some of my main ideas.
There's likely more solutions (and problems) to GAR that I haven't identified yet. In order for GAs to be done well this NEEDS to change or else that stupid New Richmond tornado article will still be allowed as a GA for as long as it has. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I would propose that an editor should be able to WP:BOLDly delist an article from GA, if it is clear that the article no longer qualifies for GA. BD2412 T 02:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
SELECT * FROM s54328__goodarticles_p.nominators WHERE date BETWEEN DATE('2010-01-01') AND DATE('2011-01-01')
. –
SD0001 (
talk) 05:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)On a related note, I, Onegreatjoke, and others have been working our way through the GAR backlog. What is the general protocol for articles for which an individual reassessment was started, but which the nominator presumably forgot about, such as this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
So the article Roswell High School (Georgia) was a GA but was delisted yesterday. However, the good article icon still shows up on the article. I don't know how to get rid of it so if someone can do it that would be nice. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 14:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
{{
good article}}
from the source text.
TompaDompa (
talk) 14:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Humanism has some issues, that I do not have time to address- I will do it in a couple or months. How to proceed? Should I withdraw the nomination? I couldnt spot any instractions. Cinadon 36 10:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Step 3: Waiting; there's a lot of useful information on the GAN process to be found on that page. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Since a few proposals have passed, I've gone ahead and created a separate feedback page. I'll monitor it and add proposals as they come, once discussion is fully closed, I'll replace the Proposal Drive's tab with the Feedback tab. A tentative timeline is to stop accepting new proposals by the end of January. Discussion will hopefully be finished by about early-mid February, and feedback will be open to late February/Early March. This, obviously, is contingent on how long it takes to obtain consensus.
A special thanks to Mike Christie is in order for very quickly implementing proposal 7a into Christiebot. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 04:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Per here, Nathan Obral has yet to start any of three reviews on Better Call Saul articles that were opened a month ago ( Talk:Fun and Games (Better Call Saul)/GA1, Talk:Point and Shoot (Better Call Saul)/GA1, Talk:Breaking Bad (Better Call Saul)/GA1). They have been editing but haven't indicated a timescale for doing the reviews. Might it be best to delete the review pages and put them back in the queue? — Bilorv ( talk) 15:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I made the mistake of claiming these, thinking I’d be able to nominate three articles of my own. Unfortunately the review process is something I’m not qualified to do. I’m not an English professor or an expert on Wikipedia policies or standards. Plus my struggles in some GANs regarding image licensing makes me feel like I’d mess that up. It’s resulted in a mental block that cripples me and makes me feel unable to do them. I can’t.
As soon as my last GAN is reviewed, I will no longer pursue any GA nominations, as the need to review is something I cannot do. Sammi Brie has told me about a reform process to reviewing, and I hope it helps others. I’m just not able to do it in any way and I am at peace with it. Doesn’t make me feel any better, and I feel like a failure as an editor, but it is what it is.
I apologize for this. Even what should have been a series of simple enough articles feels like learning nuclear physics in less than 24 hours and being expected to remember it all perfectly. I can’t do them and I’ve let everyone down. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 18:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
FYI: ChristieBot reports an error if the review page doesn't exist and the status of the GA nominee template is set to "onreview". This is the error page. These errors aren't harmful and can *usually* be ignored; I decided to make this state of affairs report an error because in some cases it might indicate a real problem -- for example if the article and talk page are moved, but the review page isn't, this might be the result. So if any regulars happen to notice this error before I clean it up, it's worth taking a look at the pages it's complaining about. This is the necessary clean up edit. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 04:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Mike Christie, are you/ChristieBot able to see the average wait time, per GAN from date of nomination to the date it's claimed by a reviewer, for a nominator with 0–5 GAs vs. a nominator with 20–100 GANs? My hunch would be that reviewers are more likely to choose and close the experienced nominators' faster (even though there are more) because they're easier to address. But interested if you have some empirical data or if someone has run this analysis before. czar 01:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I didn't follow this while it was occurring, but it seems like there's a pretty serious issue where referencing and verifiability issues are not being caught by the Good Article process. The highest priority, even more than cleaning up, should be to make sure that this isn't a regular occurrence. Some sort of change needs to take place to make it clear what exactly is expected of a reviewer when considering criterion 2 and what steps the reviewer should take when evaluating an article for these things. I know that I for one feel particularly lost when doing this part of a review. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The article Taiwanese Mandarin has passed GA, but the bot did not add the GA icon, so I had to do it manually. Is there a bug on that bot? Is there any mistake I made? Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 05:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the bot seriously bugging out right now? I mostly work in music, and went to check how GANs were looking overall for albums - but I find my own nomination ( The Ghost Inside (album)) which I placed in December, at number six, while I'm finding nominations from August at the bottom ( Handcream for a Generation). It's seemingly random - fifth on the list that I saw was one from September, and fourth was just this past Wednesday morning (18 January). What is going on? Do I have some setting enabled that I don't notice? Is there a new sorting method? dannymusiceditor oops 23:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Could someone have a look and take over this GAN? The nominator has been inactive for a few weeks now and was somewhat inactive prior to that, so I wound up making the changes myself in the interest of not holding up the passing of a well-written and well-researched article. I feel I'm a bit too involved at this point to pass it. It just needs another set of eyes, the actual review portion is done and (well, imo, lol) fully implemented. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
See here; I evidently failed to take good notes about how I get the bot authentication working. I will be running the bot by hand until this is fixed, at least once an hour when I'm at the computer and as often as I can otherwise. I will post here again when the problem is fixed. If anyone reading this has the relevant technical knowledge please ping me. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Reference: Talk:1995 Quebec referendum/GA2
This reassessment has been open for a couple months, with disagreement about if the article currently meets the GA criteria. I want to list it at community reassessment to potentially get more opinions on this, but am unsure of the procedure. What is the best path to convert an individual reassessment into a community reassessment? Or would it be better to close the individual reassessment and create a new assessment page? Thanks for your help. Z1720 ( talk) 23:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
While reviewing a nomination, I came across the passage
He finds it fitting that Tuor, "Tolkien's early quest-hero", escapes from the wreck of an old kingdom and creates new ones, just as Aeneas does, while his late quest-heroes in The Lord of the Rings, the hobbits of the Shire, are made to return to their home, ravaged while they were away, and are obliged to scour it clean, just as Odysseus does in Homer's Odyssey.
This has since been rephrased as
He finds it fitting that Tuor escapes from the wreck of an old kingdom and creates new ones, just as Aeneas does in Virgil's Aeneid, while his late heroes, the four Hobbits, are made to return to their home, ravaged while they were away, and are obliged to scour it clean, just as Odysseus does in Homer's Odyssey.
The source says
There is a certain chronological fittingness, I think, in the fact that Tolkien's early quest-hero, Tuor, escapes, like Aeneas, from the ruins of an old kingdom and goes on to establish new lands, while his late quest-heroes, four hobbits from the Shire, return, like Odysseus, to their original homeland which has been desecrated in their absence and which must be made free of enemy invaders before a reign of peace can be established.
I'm unsure which side of WP:Close paraphrasing this falls on, so I figured I'd ask here to get some input from others and hopefully learn something in the process. TompaDompa ( talk) 09:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The bot is reporting two malformed nominations; see User talk:ChristieBot/GAN errors. I have to go to work shortly or I'd talk to the nominator, who evidently hasn't seen or understood the instructions. Is the error page sufficiently prominent/well enough watched for others to notice and follow up on situations like this? There's also an error section on the GAN page and a note in the edit summary that errors were found; again I don't know how noticeable that is. If there's a better way or page to write errors, please let me know. I'll deal with the malformed nominations tonight if nobody else gets around to it.
FYI on the new GANentry format: the short description will now show up as part of the entry on GAN if anything changes regarding the nomination so that it has to be updated. E.g. if it's put on hold, or the subtopic changed, or a review is started, it will start showing the subtopic short description. All new nominations will also start showing the subtopic short description. Eventually this means every nomination will show the subtopic short descriptionif there is one.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 12:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Edited to fix my error.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 00:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I've created User talk:ChristieBot/Bug messages to record bugs, and will watch that. User talk:ChristieBot/GAN errors should now contain only reports of issues that the bot finds as it traverses the category. Anything that says "malformed nomination" should be something obvious. The other possible errors on that page are (with comments for the non-self-explanatory ones):
Anything that's an error that doesn't trigger one of these (or a "malformed" message) is probably going to trigger a complaint to the bugs page.
As for transcluding it onto Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches, that should be easy to do; GreenC operates the bot that writes that page; GreenC, can a section be created to transclude User talk:ChristieBot/GAN errors? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I've been looking into scraping old contributions to get a list of historical GA reviews, partly to get the stats more accurate and partly to allow analysis of the data. Pinging Ovinus, who I know also has this on their to-do list, as an FYI. I would like to check numbers against User:GA bot/Stats, but the first revision of that page is here, dated August 2012, with many thousands of reviews already recorded. Does anyone know where those stats were before that date? Also pinging Chris G, who was the one who created that page, in case they remember. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, going through the list of GA nominations, I found an article page and opted to review it. During this course, I researched on the verifiable sources for the topic to find if there's anything more that can be used to improve and expand the article. It turns out that there's quite a good amount of content that can be added.
The criteria of reviewer to not have contributed significantly to the article has put me in dilemma. Now my question is, since I have taken up the task of reviewing the GA nomination, what will be the best course of action - ask & wait for other editors to improve the article or go ahead with my contributions to article? Anand2202 ( talk) 06:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to point this out, but in the last sentence of the Nominations section, shouldn't the last "nomination" be "nominator"? Findingmoney100 ( talk) 16:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
{{ GANentry}} has a parameter for short description, but for most of the nominations, it hasn't been filled out. Is it possible/worth while to have this default to the short description of the article unless overwritten? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB ( talk) 10:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Back in 2013, QatarStarsLeague reviewed Hu Zhengyan, and when they passed it they accidentally left the nominee template on the talk page. This confused GA bot (the precursor to Legobot) and over the next 36 hours it incremented QatarStarsLeague's review count from 65 to 268. Nobody noticed and the stats page has had the increased number ever since.
There are also some stranger bugs in GA bot -- for example (again for QatarStarsLeague, since I happened to be tracking down their discrepancy) see the GA for Yeovil Town F.C.. This diff shows GA bot deciding that QatarStarsLeague was the reviewer for the newly nominated Yeovil Town F.C., but their contributions for that day show they never touched the article.
I also suspect that whatever method was used for counting the original stats in the first version of the stats page, it did not include any reviews from before the time subpages started to be used in late March 2008. Some early GAs consisted only of a user stopping by and decided that an article was a GA, saying so on the talk page, and adding the star. I don't think it's worth counting these early reviews in the statistics. Aside from anything else, those reviews are over fifteen years old, and I would rather use an accurate count from the last fifteen years than continue with inaccurate numbers for which I can't explain the provenance.
When I've finished extracting the data from various sources, I'll put together a temporary statistics page and will calculate the differences for everyone on the list -- i.e. how much their reviewing count will change. Unless there are objections I propose to switch to the revised statistics. It will be a few days till I have the data ready -- the extraction will be done some time tomorrow, but there are some special cases I need to clean up (e.g. for some reason I'm not yet getting data for blocked users) FYI, here's what the revised top of the table would look like, excluding Eric Corbett whose data I don't have yet. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Reviewer | Now | Revised |
---|---|---|
Sturmvogel 66 | 918 | 878 |
The Rambling Man | 813 | 773 |
Jezhotwells | 762 | 752 |
Wizardman | 741 | 745 |
Jaguar | 743 | 742 |
Pyrotec | 552 | 537 |
Kyle Peake | 517 | 516 |
J Milburn | 462 | 474 |
Dana boomer | 456 | 464 |
Hog Farm | 375 | 386 |
Khazar2 | 373 | 377 |
Mike Christie | 385 | 367 |
ThinkBlue | 368 | 367 |
Casliber | 363 | 358 |
12george1 | 421 | 203 |
QatarStarsLeague | 385 | 154 |
Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I am going to request that a new reviewer takes on the review at Talk:John Green/GA1, and suggest that the same be done for Benji man's review at Talk:Nabataean Aramaic/GA1. Feetfeet 341 picked them both up, but seems to be a relatively inexperienced editor who has made several edits and nominations recently that show they aren't quite ready to be reviewing GA's: [1] [2] [3]. It seems that the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4a will be helpful for this, but wanted to start a discussion before I take any actions since this seems a bit unusual. Cerebral726 ( talk) 20:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I may have time to review the Garry Kasparov article. I note it relies heavily on web sources. If neither a link nor archived version exist, then may I regard that as equating to a "citation needed"? Also, what does one do about the significant number of foreign-language sources cited? Thanks Billsmith60 ( talk) 12:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, where do I find the previous GA assessment from June 2021? Billsmith60 ( talk) 12:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I did the Kasparov review (a fail but getting there from the last time). However, I've messed up the presentation of results a bit – sincere apologies. Still, my findings are clear enough to be acted on, I trust Billsmith60 ( talk) 16:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Mike, fortunately my making a b***s-up of the assessment templates has allowed the review to stay open, and I've let the nominator know accordingly. I see they've made a start already. All the best Billsmith60 ( talk) 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Can someone with the relevant permissions delete the above? The nominator 'Dallavid' has made some edits to the article (mainly small web links) but has not contributed significantly to it. Thanks Billsmith60 ( talk) 20:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
In Talk:Pro-EU leaflet/GA1 I criticize not the reliability of the sources, not the bibliographical or other description of what/where the sources are, but instead the relationship between what the article attributes to a source and what that source actually says. I've done this for two (multiply cited) sources so far. This took me some time, and the result is prolix. Three questions (from a relative noob in GA matters): (1) Do my comments seem to be mere hair-splitting? (2) Should I continue and also examine the use of a third, fourth, fifth source? (3) When I come to writing up my ratings (via template), where does (in)accuracy of citation fit among 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. / a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I wrote a script to mark unreferenced passages. This script may be useful to GA reviewers to get a first quick impression of whether a nomination lacks references and where the problems may be. Nominators may use it to make ensure that their nomination is well-sourced. More information can be found at
User:Phlsph7/MarkUnreferencedPassages
User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages, including instructions on how to install and use it as well as information on its limitations. Questions and feedback about problems or new ideas are welcome.
Phlsph7 (
talk) 09:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Mark unreferenced passages is a user script to mark passages that lack references with a red background. Its main purpose is to help users quickly identify unreferenced passages, paragraphs, and sections in mainspace articles and drafts.The mark implied to me it was actually adding the citation needed tag, different from, for example, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt which merely highlights them so the user can use that info in improvements or content review processes. Can you address that? Maybe change mark to highlight or some such ? I also urge you to post this at WT:FAC, where you will get a different audience and may get useful feedback. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I will need to be off Wikipedia for a while. I have two open reviews ( Talk:East Timor/GA1 and Talk:Education policy of the United States/GA1, I totally forgot about this one and it is empty) and am not sure of the best way to deal with them. Usually I see abandoned reviews being brought up here so I thought this would be best. Sorry about this; poor planning on my part. Ovinus ( talk) 07:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I've figure out how to attach the nominator to the reviewer data, and will be looking at adding the outcome data next. However, the bot is turning up a lot of odd situations. The great majority seem to be the result of page moves that did not drag along the GA subpages with them. I don't know what the expectation is in those cases. Here's an example: Talk:24 Hours of Le Mans Virtual/GA1 has the name the article had at the time the review was done. If you go to Talk:24 Hours of Le Mans Virtual you are redirected to Talk:2020 24 Hours of Le Mans Virtual, which has an articlehistory template that points to the wrong place. What's the correct way to fix these? Judging from Talk:About Love (Marina song)/GA1, the right answer is to move these to the same name as the parent article. If so I think there are going to be more than I can move by hand, and ChristieBot doesn't have approval for moving pages; I can produce a list of these if there's a bot or AWB operation that could do the moves. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I thought you were saying that a system like you guys had back in the day would work; I pointed out why it wouldn't. At the end of the day, I can't see why a Coldwell reviewer (such as, well, me) would be any more likely to go to a coord over the GAN talk page. I thought he had been contributing GAs since 2007—my mistake, apologies. Perhaps sleep? You do so much good work for the project, I think we can survive without you for a bit. Actually, on second thoughts I take that back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
With a bit more work I can probably figure out the target and add a column for that, but here's what I have at the moment. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Article | Page | Review date |
---|---|---|
Somerset Towers | 1 | 2008-06-10 16:41:10 |
Arise (album) | 1 | 2008-06-25 00:45:58 |
GAR/link | 1 | 2008-07-05 13:59:18 |
Halloween Horror Nights (Orlando) | 1 | 2008-09-15 18:08:52 |
SS West Caruth | 1 | 2008-09-16 16:51:56 |
Tropical Storm Norma (2005) | 1 | 2008-12-27 19:09:54 |
Sultan Iskandar of Johor | 1 | 2009-02-27 09:45:08 |
White Dog (book) | 1 | 2009-04-13 11:59:33 |
Partington, Greater Manchester | 1 | 2009-05-03 12:53:46 |
Call Center Industry in the Philippines | 1 | 2009-05-11 16:24:28 |
Being There (album) | 1 | 2009-08-14 19:35:53 |
Kõpu lighthouse | 1 | 2009-08-17 12:54:22 |
White Dog (book) | 2 | 2009-09-08 22:01:08 |
Send It On (song) | 1 | 2009-09-09 09:05:12 |
Complete icosahedron | 1 | 2009-12-20 21:41:29 |
Procar | 1 | 2009-12-31 19:30:34 |
Battle of Old Trafford (2003) | 1 | 2010-01-20 12:57:15 |
Outrageous | 1 | 2010-04-17 06:36:15 |
Freshman fifteen | 1 | 2010-04-29 02:56:05 |
Evergreen (album) | 1 | 2010-12-04 16:08:06 |
Homework (album) | 1 | 2010-12-07 02:43:18 |
True Blue (album) | 1 | 2010-12-11 02:57:41 |
Somebody (song) | 1 | 2010-12-30 14:28:43 |
Louis Clément Ngwat-Mahop | 1 | 2011-03-12 16:57:37 |
Muhammad and slavery | 1 | 2011-04-13 21:04:22 |
Blow (song) | 1 | 2011-05-30 23:46:35 |
Breakout (album) | 1 | 2011-07-03 13:14:44 |
Emotions (album) | 1 | 2011-07-17 21:30:53 |
Make It Happen (song) | 1 | 2011-07-17 22:16:42 |
I Want You (album) | 2 | 2011-08-06 20:44:57 |
Music Box (album) | 1 | 2011-08-27 23:28:41 |
Reckless (album) | 1 | 2011-10-08 12:29:56 |
The Experiment (album) | 1 | 2011-10-23 18:01:42 |
Labyrinth (film) | 1 | 2012-01-24 18:45:31 |
Dan Leno discography | 1 | 2012-02-10 23:37:05 |
Field Trip | 1 | 2012-04-07 23:30:49 |
The Famous Five (series) | 1 | 2012-06-16 22:03:16 |
Jai Ho | 1 | 2012-07-15 17:49:24 |
Tea & Sympathy | 1 | 2012-07-27 13:46:37 |
One nation conservatism | 1 | 2012-08-11 08:32:51 |
Ki (album) | 1 | 2012-08-26 19:43:44 |
Prometheus (film) | 1 | 2012-09-12 08:06:24 |
Eugénie Fougère/GATalk:Eugénie Fougère | 1 | 2012-10-07 15:28:18 |
Take It Off (song) | 1 | 2012-11-07 22:50:56 |
Boletus badius | 1 | 2013-04-04 21:08:45 |
Sesame Workshop funding sources | 1 | 2013-04-17 18:32:18 |
Lost (2004 TV series) | 1 | 2013-04-30 20:35:41 |
Lost (2004 TV series) | 2 | 2013-04-30 20:35:41 |
Lost (2004 TV series) | 3 | 2013-04-30 20:35:42 |
Can't Stop Won't Stop (song) | 1 | 2013-06-18 17:51:53 |
Listen (song) | 1 | 2013-07-10 00:24:19 |
Yellow (song) | 1 | 2013-07-13 00:26:35 |
Shiloh (novel) | 1 | 2013-07-27 18:01:09 |
Shiloh (novel) | 2 | 2013-07-27 18:01:10 |
Pure (novel) | 1 | 2013-07-28 00:44:02 |
The Fear (song) | 1 | 2013-07-28 16:49:41 |
The Divine Comedy (album) | 1 | 2013-08-10 11:59:10 |
One Day at Horrorland | 1 | 2013-08-12 21:11:43 |
Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty | 1 | 2013-08-21 07:58:45 |
Homeless (song) | 1 | 2013-10-16 17:32:44 |
Contact (film) | 1 | 2013-11-04 18:44:08 |
New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary | 1 | 2014-01-18 06:22:56 |
Conan (TV series) | 1 | 2014-05-14 10:10:45 |
Do or Die (song) | 1 | 2014-05-26 18:28:02 |
This Too Shall Pass (song) | 1 | 2014-05-31 17:42:47 |
Typhoon Hal | 1 | 2014-06-24 20:45:31 |
Bookends | 1 | 2014-10-22 09:21:24 |
Jesus Piece | 1 | 2014-11-08 21:29:58 |
Breaking Point (song) | 1 | 2014-11-28 19:29:40 |
Devil May Care (novel) | 1 | 2015-01-17 20:06:41 |
Jumper (film) | 1 | 2015-02-22 18:43:44 |
Haumea (dwarf planet) | 1 | 2015-02-28 04:55:03 |
Makemake (dwarf planet) | 1 | 2015-02-28 05:08:25 |
Grey Wolves | 1 | 2015-06-20 02:31:36 |
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport | 1 | 2015-09-21 03:27:20 |
Hud (film) | 1 | 2015-09-24 12:06:36 |
Hud (film) | 2 | 2015-09-24 12:06:36 |
HMS Natal (1905) | 1 | 2015-10-09 12:22:47 |
Doomsday (film) | 1 | 2015-11-14 01:53:40 |
George Bailey (cricketer) | 1 | 2015-12-20 05:46:12 |
Yours (song) | 1 | 2017-04-22 00:22:37 |
Synthpop | 1 | 2017-04-27 20:49:46 |
Dreaming of You (album) | 1 | 2017-05-29 00:18:57 |
Dreaming of You (album) | 2 | 2017-05-29 00:18:57 |
Dreaming of You (album) | 3 | 2017-05-29 00:18:57 |
Dreaming of You (album) | 4 | 2017-05-29 00:18:57 |
French minelaying cruiser Pluton | 1 | 2018-04-24 12:42:34 |
Basil II the Bulgar Slayer | 1 | 2018-07-11 06:04:42 |
The J's With Jamie | 1 | 2019-04-04 03:52:10 |
Beyond the Sea (film) | 1 | 2019-04-27 19:04:25 |
Contagion (film) | 1 | 2019-04-28 18:33:29 |
Ghost Rider (film) | 1 | 2019-05-04 20:14:53 |
Greed (film) | 1 | 2019-05-05 17:55:15 |
Relapse (album) | 1 | 2019-05-14 19:05:16 |
Players (film) | 1 | 2019-05-26 23:36:20 |
No Sleep (album) | 1 | 2019-08-31 20:39:58 |
Statue of Lenin, Seattle | 1 | 2019-09-16 02:40:07 |
Time Out of Mind (album) | 1 | 2019-09-29 19:27:00 |
General Philip Sheridan | 1 | 2020-02-24 21:22:13 |
Tom Hawkins (footballer) | 1 | 2020-05-16 14:09:31 |
Polish Righteous among the Nations | 1 | 2020-07-28 20:00:08 |
Voodoo (album) | 2 | 2020-09-09 04:33:58 |
Geoff Smith (footballer) | 1 | 2020-10-25 15:39:34 |
Ken Barnes (footballer) | 1 | 2020-11-05 19:17:43 |
Nuno Mendes (footballer) | 1 | 2020-11-10 19:14:22 |
Company (film) | 1 | 2021-04-10 23:03:30 |
Booty (song) | 1 | 2021-05-23 16:26:15 |
Endless Night (song) | 1 | 2021-05-23 18:15:17 |
Headline News (song) | 1 | 2021-05-23 19:25:15 |
Problem (song) | 1 | 2021-05-27 15:53:50 |
David Lewis (politician) | 1 | 2021-06-30 17:53:46 |
The Beyond (film) | 1 | 2021-11-29 21:07:25 |
Golden Years (song) | 1 | 2021-12-03 17:27:22 |
Joseph R. Fisher | 1 | 2022-02-05 15:34:24 |
John Douglas (architect) | 1 | 2022-03-12 18:25:07 |
Danny Williams (politician) | 1 | 2022-04-09 00:05:31 |
Eskimo (film) | 1 | 2022-10-14 00:03:16 |
Bad Idea (song) | 1 | 2023-01-22 22:27:12 |
1 | 2023-01-22 22:54:06 |
Ack. Mike, maybe as this effort advances, you can follow what Gimmetrow did with {{ Article history}} and set up a category that tracks errors, so everyone can pitch in. See how Category:Article history templates with errors works. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I am working on subdividing these into finer distinctions. I've just realized the ones listed above are the particularly difficult ones -- if the talk page doesn't exist at all it was probably something like a move to a dab page where the source talk page was deleted (as in Procar). There are many more that should be simpler -- GAs with a parent talk page that is a redirect are the easiest; those should go to a subpage of wherever the parent talk page redirects to. I should have that list in a bit but it's going to be long -- I think over 5,000, but I'm still digging. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's a revised sample of ones that I think need to be moved, with the source and target pages listed and linked. It's not as bad as I thought; most of what I had thought was going to end up in this category turned out to be just plain redirects, meaning those GA subpage have already been moved. (There will be a few dozen more where the target page already exists; those will need more analysis.) I can post the full list if necessary (looks like it will be about 2,000 pages). How should this be validated before we look for a bot operator to do these moves? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, so I may be almost ready to bring a global proposal to the ANI thread, which would point the GA proposal back to this forum. But I think we have a broad plan on the way forward here now, with a recommendation to wait for the merge etc. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you all think a subpage should be set up for the Coldwell GAs? Asking before I launch formal proposal ... something like Wikipedia:Good Article Doug Coldwell GA reassessment ?? If so, might this discussion be copied to wherever you put it ? And the list at User:Iazyges/Doug GA Rewrite Claims could go there as well ... ?? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I spent five hours today on only three articles, finding mostly failed verification, along with a bit of cut-and-paste and too close paraphrasing. What is time-consuming is the need to first locate the sources, some of which are actually available although not linked (eg archive.org). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Doug Coldwell. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I am holding off on moving my sandbox to a GA subpage to resolve the following:
Meanwhile, my sandbox will have to suffice for anyone seeking info at this stage. Let's hope we never have to go through this again ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Pages for February 2023 GAR reassessment and Copyright contributor investigation |
---|
Main pages
Lists Notices Scripts and bots |
See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023
Editors here should note that the subpage for indicating which editors intended to pursue an independent GAR ( User:Iazyges/Doug GA Rewrite Claims) was not being used as intended, so was archived. All editors should re-read this page and see new instructions. I have gotten no response on some pings regarding the former page, so we will need to individually check with those editors as the time for the bot run approaches, and to remind them to review the project subpage.
If you were a GA reviewer of one of DC's GAs, you will be on the mailing list for notifications already; if you were not a DC GA reviewer, and want to be kept informed anyway, you can sign up at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023/GA reviewer MMStargets.
I will probably shortly unwatch this (very busy) page, so please place all followup on the GAR Feb 2023 page, or ping me here as needed.
Thanks to all who have helped out; this was a complex endeavor, never before attempted, made even harder as it came during a GAR revamping, so I appreciate everyone's patience and diligence as we got all the pieces in the right place. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Unwatching now; please post any questions to the DC GAR talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Please feel free to join in the conversation at: [ |Did you know# Making GAs stand out?]] Thank you for any input you might have. — Maile ( talk) 20:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The above-noted GAN has been open for well over six months and appears to have completely stalled. CMD attempted to get some movement going in November, BlueMoonset reminded the participants in December, and still nothing has changed. I attempted to get some movement going and suggested that the reviewer close it as failed as he does not believe it meets GA standards at this time, but was rebuffed by the reviewer today with the suggestion "let's wait a bit" to see if the nom comes back (nom hasn't edited since Jan 25, and hasn't touched the actual article since Dec 27).
Now, I'm not sure what the relationship was like between the nominator and the reviewer when the GAN was opened, but at this point it appears to have deteriorated badly. The last edits Cukrakalnis made were to ANI, to a dispute about the reviewer, Marcelus, in the same topic area (Lithuania), during which he suggested that Marcelus be TBANned from the area. There's also continued arguing between the two of them on each others' talk pages during that ANI. There's also a newly-opened DR request for another dispute between the two of them, again in the Lithuania topic area. I cannot possibly see how this contentious relationship could lead to a fruitful GA review.
I'm considering IAR closing it but would like to see some other opinions just in case I'm somehow being too hasty here. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
CAT:GAR lists 45, WP:GAR lists 37. Where's the difference, what are the eight that aren't on the page ? A Coord is needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I've done as much as I can towards extracting data from the GA subpages, and have come up with two lists of pages that need attention.
About fifty pages are on both lists. I am still running code to extract the outcome, outcome date, nomination date, and subtopic where possible, but that will take a while longer. The nominator has been extracted in almost every case. In a few cases it will be reported as a blank, or "None"; this generally means there's something weird about the original nomination template.
If anyone is willing to go through the unparseable pages and add article_history, even for just a few of them, that would be very helpful. I suspect it's not a particularly quick job -- generally speaking eveyrthing left over has something weird about it so it might take a bit of poking around in the histories in each case. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to parse the GAR templates on talk pages to get the timestamp. Checking a couple of current GARs I see {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=|GARpage=|status=}} as the format; is this going to continue to be the case after the merge of the individual and community GAR processes? Are there other GAR templates I might need to parse? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Some time ago I helped to promote the article Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to good article. It is currently tagged as outdated. And, unfortunately, that is correct: I had left wikipedia for a time, and focused more on astronomy than on politics since I came back, and this article about an active politician got outdated. Both the "Legal charges" mentioned in the lead template, and the "Vice presidency" section (currently only reporting than she was elected, but not any of the things she did during that time). It should cease to be a GA, it should be worked on to be updated (that would be a big work, not just add a pair of lines) and then proposed and evaluated again.
But that would mean I should start a GAR that would have to be contested by... me. Which should be the procedure? Can I unilaterally remove the GA status at this point? Should I start and close a GAR explaining the reasons? Should I simply open it and let it be closed by someone else? Cambalachero ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Some weeks ago user SeeAlsoPolice started a GAR over Mauricio Macri at Talk:Mauricio Macri/GA3. It did not appear to be a reasonable GAR: he placed maintenance templates to the article, with no rationale, and then started a GAR right away, with the sole argument that there were "Numerous maintenance templates". He never shows up to continue the discussion he started, and when I was about to remind him of it I noticed that he has been indefinitely blocked.
What should happen now? Is it fine if I close this, or should someone else do it? Cambalachero ( talk) 21:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Per Proposal 13 of the Drive, see Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#GAR coordinators. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
After trying to add their nomination for the above article directly to WP:GAN, The Emperor of Byzantium has once again completely ignored the instructions. They have apparently created a GAR page (again, without following the instructions there). Can someone fix this mess? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I've been scraping all GA reviews that are on a subpage with "/GAn" at the end, starting with users at the top of User:GA bot/Stats and working down. I have written a tool which lets me take a user name and quickly create a subpage of ChristieBot that lists all the reviews performed by that person. See User:Mike Christie/GA review lists/Iazyges, User:Mike Christie/GA review lists/Lee Vilenski, and User:Mike Christie/GA review lists/Chiswick Chap for examples.
Caveats and notes:
As of right now, the bot has data for anyone with 140 reviews or more. Over the next day or two it should get quite a long way further down the list, so even if you have fewer reviews than that, if you would like me to create a subpage with your reviews listed, let me know, and I'll create it as soon as there's data. I may eventually set this up so users can request the list for themselves. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm gradually working through some of the GAs that are resistant to being automatically categorized via article history and so on. I am baffled by this one and wonder if it should perhaps be deleted, or if not, if a FailedGA or articlehistory template should be added.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
How should Talk:Batik/GA1 be dealt with? It seems a good-faith error on the part of the nominator; they just didn't understand the instructions -- they added the nomination template after creating the GAN page. It was reviewed properly a short time after that (GA2) and passed. The talk page linked to GA1 for the passed review; I've fixed that. Do we delete GA1 (via G6, I guess, though it does have a sentence or two of (self)-assessment? And if so do we leave GA2 where it is or move it to GA1, where it technically should be? If we leave GA1 in place I will mark it as a "not listed" GA nomination in article history. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I think Talk:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company/GA1 is a nominator error too. Guywelch2000, did you mean to nominate this for GA? What you actually did was open a review page, which is what the reviewer should do, not the nominator. The instructions are at WP:GAN/I. If that's your intention, we can delete the review page and you can nominate it if you still want to. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
An individual reassessment for Russia has been open for 4 months. Given the fact this should not have been opened as an individual reassessment and that User:Xx236 does not seem to want to close this, I propose it is closed by somebody else. I closed the previous GAR on the topic as 'no consensus', so I'd rather have somebody else close this one. However, I'm willing to close if there are no other volunteers/no objections. The concrete objections have been addressed, but the discussion about neutrality requires some uninvolved eyes. Femke (alt) ( talk) 08:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
There are only 3 open discussions left at the Proposal Drive. I'd appreciate a bit of traffic to the last three discussions so we can get this all closed down and the focus can move to implementation and feedback. I'll swap out the Proposal Drive tab for the Feedback page once I've wrapped it all up. If nothing else, I'll give the discussions a week from their most recent comment should no one pick them up. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 02:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd ask at the proposal drive, but it is now "closed". Would there be appetite for collecting more statistics on how long pages wait for review, how long these reviews take, and how many reviews are closed as successful or unsuccessful? Could be as simple as a monthly report "This month, 25 GA reviews were closed, 19 passed, 6 failed. The longest time to wait for review was 180 days and the average was 33." or similar. Or is this useless/would there be better things to report on? Of course, all would depend on whether @ Mike Christie thinks it is worthwhile to code :) — Kusma ( talk) 13:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I have detailed and complete information from the point ChristieBot took over (17 November) and a bit before. I can provide that as a wiki table (which will cut and paste neatly into Excel) if anyone wants that data now; you could get quite a bit of information from that already. Separately I have about 55,000 records in a table for every subpage of the form "Talk:.../GAn". 46,000 of those are GANs; another 3,000 are unclassified at the moment but most of those will be taken care of when the moves are done. For that table I have reviewer and review timestamp; in most cases I have the outcome (pass/fail), the timestamp of the outcome, the nominator and nomination timestamp, and the subtopic, but it's a bit patchy -- I have very good data for the more recent years but malformed nominations were commoner further back in the past. Again I'm happy to give the data in its current state to anyone interested. That's a bit too big for a Wikipedia page, but I could email a csv file. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm putting together some scripts to extract stats for the two completed months since ChristieBot took over maintaining the GAN page. I'll post results here as I come up with them.
Here's the total number of passes and fails, plus the average wait time in days (nomination date to review date, not to pass/fail date). Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
GAN pass/fail and wait time | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
YYYYMM | pass | fail | avg_wait | Total |
2022-12 | 143 | 58 | 50.2 | 201 |
2023-01 | 265 | 61 | 56.2 | 326 |
This is the average wait time for December and January combined, by subtopic, again for articles passed/failed in those months.
Wait time by subtopic | ||
---|---|---|
Subtopic | avg wait | # GANs |
Agriculture, food and drink | 5.8 | 5 |
Albums | 85.1 | 11 |
Art and architecture | 47.0 | 34 |
Biology and medicine | 63.2 | 25 |
Chemistry and materials science | 7.0 | 1 |
Computing and engineering | 34.7 | 7 |
Culture, sociology and psychology | 30.0 | 14 |
Earth sciences | 89.5 | 8 |
Economics and business | 74.6 | 10 |
Education | 89.1 | 8 |
Film | 88.8 | 19 |
Geography | 8.2 | 6 |
Language and literature | 55.9 | 37 |
Law | 68.5 | 10 |
Magazines and print journalism | 64.7 | 3 |
Mathematics and mathematicians | 12.3 | 3 |
Media and drama | 69.3 | 13 |
Other music articles | 120.3 | 10 |
Philosophy and religion | 47.4 | 7 |
Physics and astronomy | 73.0 | 6 |
Places | 64.4 | 9 |
Politics and government | 88.8 | 21 |
Royalty, nobility and heraldry | 27.7 | 10 |
Songs | 39.2 | 38 |
Sports and recreation | 77.1 | 36 |
Television | 83.8 | 21 |
Transport | 58.2 | 54 |
Video games | 11.4 | 17 |
Warfare | 8.2 | 44 |
World history | 34.8 | 40 |
How many different reviewers does each subtopic attract?
Subtopic | # reviewers | # reviews |
---|---|---|
Agriculture, food and drink | 5 | 5 |
Albums | 8 | 11 |
Art and architecture | 21 | 34 |
Biology and medicine | 15 | 25 |
Chemistry and materials science | 1 | 1 |
Computing and engineering | 6 | 7 |
Culture, sociology and psychology | 13 | 14 |
Earth sciences | 2 | 8 |
Economics and business | 7 | 10 |
Education | 6 | 8 |
Film | 9 | 19 |
Geography | 5 | 6 |
Language and literature | 17 | 37 |
Law | 10 | 10 |
Magazines and print journalism | 3 | 3 |
Mathematics and mathematicians | 3 | 3 |
Media and drama | 10 | 13 |
Other music articles | 9 | 10 |
Philosophy and religion | 6 | 7 |
Physics and astronomy | 4 | 6 |
Places | 9 | 9 |
Politics and government | 16 | 21 |
Royalty, nobility and heraldry | 10 | 10 |
Songs | 11 | 38 |
Sports and recreation | 21 | 36 |
Television | 16 | 21 |
Transport | 20 | 54 |
Video games | 11 | 17 |
Warfare | 13 | 44 |
World history | 29 | 40 |
Thanks Mike! A quite weak correlation for height on page against longer review time (R² = 0.0469), although this is substantially pulled down by Video games and Warfare (without them, R² = 0.2156). It's even weaker looking at just lv 2 headers. No relation at all between #GANs and time to review. (Both observations may be different for in-topic order.) This does suggest particularly long wait times should result in targeted efforts to recruit editors from those areas (although some of the current reviewers:review ratios are 1:1!). CMD ( talk) 02:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
This is interesting but we'll need a longer sample. Mathematics shows three reviews at an average wait of 12.3 days, but there are a few nominations that have been waiting for more than four months. So in Dec/Jan, all that were reviewed were done quickly, but that doesn't mean articles usually get reviewed quickly. — Kusma ( talk) 16:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I can't tell if help with WP:GAN/I#PASS is needed at Talk:Bit House Saloon/GA1 or not.
Anyone want to take a look? Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Per the closure of proposal 16, a new table has been added to the backlog; you can see it here. I've set the links to go to the articles themselves, but then realized that the other half of the backlog links to the GAN page. I recall complaints about this in the past. Should I change the links to go to the GAN page, or leave them as they are? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I was looking through the list, and found that Saturn V, Falcon Heavy, Artemis 1 and Harrison Schmitt were all nominated by QuicksmartTortoise513. The editor is not a major contributor to these articles, so these nominations can be a drive-bys, which community decided to ban per Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023#Proposal 11: Ban drive-by nominations. Do anybody have any thoughts on this? QuicksmartTortoise513, I don't want to discourage you and I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but the articles look quite complex for GAN, and if you are not very familiar with sources it will just be failed nominations that can waste time of several reviewers. Artem.G ( talk) 18:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I apologize, I didn't see the policies on drive-by nominations. If I caused any inconvenience, please forgive me. I simply meant for the articles to be given improved worthwhile ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuicksmartTortoise513 ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I want to take a moment to thank everyone here for their work in making the 2023 Proposal Drive a success. I have swapped out the Proposal Drive for the Feedback page in the tab header. Once everything has been implemented, we can finally close it down as well (hopefully by the end of February).
I'll start preparing a 'Coordinator Elections' tab when I find the time for it. Are there any ideas on how to handle the RFC per Proposal 21? 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 20:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:GA § Should everything be cited?. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
There's still more clean up to do, but I think I now have the history clean enough that additional data gathering won't change the look of the data by more than a couple of percentage points. Here's two years worth of promotion stats -- looks like there must have been a couple of backlog drives? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Month of review | Listed | Not found | Not listed | Under review |
---|---|---|---|---|
2021-01 | 238 | 4 | 36 | |
2021-02 | 173 | 4 | 26 | |
2021-03 | 506 | 14 | 101 | |
2021-04 | 170 | 1 | 27 | |
2021-05 | 203 | 4 | 21 | |
2021-06 | 150 | 5 | 26 | |
2021-07 | 488 | 18 | 76 | |
2021-08 | 192 | 1 | 29 | |
2021-09 | 315 | 2 | 20 | |
2021-10 | 190 | 1 | 11 | |
2021-11 | 143 | 17 | ||
2021-12 | 103 | 4 | 19 | |
2022-01 | 549 | 6 | 101 | |
2022-02 | 124 | 2 | 20 | |
2022-03 | 151 | 3 | 33 | |
2022-04 | 144 | 3 | 21 | |
2022-05 | 130 | 1 | 16 | |
2022-06 | 316 | 4 | 63 | |
2022-07 | 112 | 34 | 1 | |
2022-08 | 255 | 1 | 58 | 1 |
2022-09 | 205 | 1 | 45 | |
2022-10 | 147 | 1 | 27 | |
2022-11 | 141 | 4 | 43 | 2 |
2022-12 | 144 | 3 | 43 | 4 |
2023-01 | 244 | 42 | 15 | |
Grand Total | 5533 | 87 | 955 | 23 |
I've made no effort here to clean up the odd subtopics -- these are usually taken from either article history, or the GA nominee template on the talk page, or the section of GAN they were in. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Subtopic | Wait (days) | # GANs |
---|---|---|
Agriculture, food and drink | 11.8 | 60 |
Albums | 38.6 | 197 |
Art | 1.0 | 1 |
Art and architecture | 49.7 | 430 |
Biology and medicine | 31.0 | 350 |
Chemistry and materials science | 50.8 | 24 |
Computing and engineering | 48.1 | 106 |
Culture, sociology and psychology | 42.1 | 120 |
Culture, sociology, and psychology | 53.5 | 4 |
Earth sciences | 37.0 | 97 |
Economics and business | 85.3 | 88 |
Education | 79.9 | 70 |
Engtech | 1.0 | 1 |
Film | 38.3 | 168 |
Films | 0.0 | 1 |
Geography | 35.5 | 106 |
Geography and places | 0.0 | 1 |
History | 4.5 | 2 |
Language and literature | 50.6 | 390 |
Law | 58.6 | 95 |
Magazines and print journalism | 61.9 | 46 |
Mathematics and mathematicians | 33.7 | 59 |
Media and drama | 62.4 | 143 |
Miscellaneous | 35.3 | 4 |
Music | 67.4 | 253 |
Other music articles | 26.0 | 1 |
Philosophy and religion | 45.1 | 111 |
Physics and astronomy | 51.4 | 64 |
Places | 57.7 | 119 |
Politics and government | 67.9 | 265 |
Royalty, nobility and heraldry | 40.6 | 134 |
socsci | 1.0 | 1 |
Songs | 25.4 | 502 |
Sports and recreation | 52.8 | 823 |
Television | 31.9 | 242 |
Transport | 47.4 | 417 |
Video games | 22.3 | 281 |
Warfare | 16.0 | 452 |
World history | 40.6 | 369 |
y | 13.0 | 1 |
Grand Total | 1517.1 | 6598 |
Here's a histogram of the five most heavily populated nomination subtopics since 1/1/21. The horizontal axis is weeks between nomination and review start; the vertical axis is the percentage of all nominations in that subtopic. For example, over 50% of Warfare nominations were picked up in under a week. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's the data in tabular form. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
% picked up in (weeks) | Topics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weeks | Art and architecture | Songs | Sports and recreation | Transport | Warfare |
0 | 22.7% | 32.0% | 21.8% | 21.7% | 52.7% |
1 | 10.9% | 16.6% | 8.4% | 7.5% | 13.5% |
2 | 9.5% | 12.6% | 6.1% | 8.0% | 10.0% |
3 | 3.1% | 7.1% | 6.4% | 4.4% | 4.8% |
4 | 2.8% | 5.5% | 4.6% | 6.1% | 2.7% |
5 | 6.4% | 3.8% | 3.5% | 6.3% | 3.7% |
6 | 4.0% | 4.5% | 4.0% | 6.6% | 3.2% |
7 | 2.1% | 5.3% | 4.6% | 4.6% | 1.4% |
8 | 2.4% | 2.4% | 3.1% | 4.1% | 0.9% |
9 | 3.3% | 2.4% | 4.0% | 2.9% | 1.4% |
10 | 3.3% | 2.4% | 3.5% | 3.2% | 1.4% |
11 | 1.4% | 1.4% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 0.9% |
12 | 3.1% | 0.6% | 3.3% | 3.4% | 0.5% |
13 | 5.9% | 0.8% | 3.3% | 3.2% | 0.5% |
14 | 2.1% | 0.6% | 1.9% | 2.9% | 0.2% |
15 | 3.1% | 0.4% | 3.0% | 3.6% | 0.5% |
16 | 1.9% | 0.6% | 2.4% | 0.5% | 0.2% |
17 | 3.1% | 0.2% | 3.5% | 2.4% | 0.2% |
18 | 3.6% | 1.9% | 0.7% | 0.7% | |
19 | 1.4% | 1.1% | 1.0% | 0.2% | |
20 | 1.4% | 0.2% | 1.2% | 1.0% | |
>20 | 2.4% | 0.6% | 5.4% | 2.7% | 0.5% |
Given the change in the sort order, I recommend changing the length of Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog from 5 to somewhere in the 10 to 20 range like Wikipedia:Good articles/recent in order to give some visibility to the older nominations. User:Mike Christie has encouraged me to open a discussion in this regard.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Another thing that you might do to give low priority articles some hope of review is instituting a QPQ like DYK has. I am frustrated seeing my (260 reviews, 336 GAs) ratio has my article at 42nd in the Sports queue. Even worse is to think that if I did 75 reviews immediately it would still be at 42nd and if I did 150 it would only move up to 41st. Suppose you made a policy that people can reprioritize a nomination by doing reviews. Suppose I do 2 reviews I could double the ratio for any nomination. If I do 3, I could triple the ratio. This would encourage low ratio people to do more review than they nominate and reduce the backlog.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The idea behind the change in sort order was to reward frequent reviewers by placing their nominations nearer the top of the list where they would get reviewed more quickly. That works if being at the top of the list increases your chance of getting reviewed. A concern raised above is that some nominations will never make it to the top of the list under this sort order. We know from experience that reviewers pick from all over the lists, not just from the top, but we don't actually know how much more likely it is that a nomination at the top will get reviewed. Per Gog's comments it might well be that the newest articles are quickly scanned for interest and many are picked up right away, which is the reverse -- what's left over are nominations that aren't especially interesting to any active reviewer, so they have to wait. That would imply many get picked from the bottom of the list in the old sort order.
I could start recording at the time a review is begun where in the list for each subtopic that nomination stood. E.g. if World War II is picked up for review and it stands 10th of 20 in the Warfare subtopic, I would record that, along with the sort order used at the time. That would start to gather data that we could use to answer these questions.
Some comments on the various ideas to change the way the nominations are presented, plus an extra idea or two. I think it would be best if we had the data on position when reviewed, but we may not want to wait till we get a meaningful amount of data. (Theoretically I have the data already and can try to calculate it but it's not stored explicitly and would be tricky to calculate.) Update: I just checked and it can be done with existing data so I do have history for this.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
GAN | Action taken | Notes |
---|---|---|
Talk:108 Leonard/GA1 | None | |
Talk:Canyon View High School (Arizona)/GA1 | None | |
Talk:2022 South Lanarkshire Council election/GA1 | None | |
Talk:Proposed new South Shore Line station in South Bend/GA1 | None | |
Talk:2014 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship game/GA1 | None | |
Talk:Ontario Highway 11/GA1 | None | |
Talk:Capri-Sun/GA1 | New GAN created | |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999/GA1 | None | Review opened but not started |
Talk:Bayfront MRT station/GA1 | None | More evidence of individual commentary, but nominator has requested a second opinion |
Talk:Gardens by the Bay MRT station/GA1 | None | More evidence of individual commentary, but nominator has requested a second opinion |
Talk:Total Drama Island/GA1 | Deleted | |
Talk:Yella Hertzka/GA1 | New GAN created | |
Talk:Cora Slocomb di Brazza/GA1 | New GAN created | |
Talk:Competitive debate in the United States/GA1 | None | Was put on hold for insufficient lead before passing |
Talk:Educationally subnormal/GA1 | None | Currently on hold for "lead could be bigger" and "Needs images" |
Talk:Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford/GA1 | None | Currently on hold for "lead could be bigger" and "Images need alt text" |
Talk:Education in Wales/GA1 | None | Currently on hold for "some references need page numbers" and "Images need alt text". |
Talk:Winchester College/GA1 | None | Currently on hold for "Images need alt text", and the nominator has added this |
Talk:Schooling and the Struggle for Public Life/GA1 | None | Was put on hold for "Images need alt text" before passing after alt text added |
Talk:Magdalena Cajías/GA1 | None | Currently on hold for "images (with alt text) would be very helpful"/"Needs images" |
Given we have three separate discussions on similar topics, I created this table to help keep track. Please add if I have missed any. To be clear, appearance on this table means it is related to the discussions above, it does not mean action has to be taken. CMD ( talk) 02:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron and I recently put Capri-Sun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) up for GAN. Not long thereafter, Shawn Teller conducted a review; they soon passed the article after a series of comments that were quite flattering but not very informative and, in at least a few places, factually incorrect ("fully adheres to MoS"; "doesn't cite any primary sources"). Now of course, leek and I would not have nominated Capri-Sun if we did not think it was GA material, so we don't dispute Shawn's conclusion, but we do worry that perhaps their review did not meet the expectations outlined at WP:GANI. Looking at their seven previous reviews and Mujinga's comments in a similar situation in October, I think it may be necessary for someone to have a word with Shawn about what is required for a GAN review. Since this isn't a user conduct board, I haven't pinged Shawn yet, in hopes I can find someone willing to explain the issue to them and give them some advice for the future, since I see in them someone who clearly wants to help a great bit. If not, I can try having that conversation, but I've only done one review myself, so it might be better to come from someone more experienced.
It also may be necessary to reässess their past reviews. In the case of Capri-Sun, leek and I are happy to resubmit it (essentially treating /GA1 as a no-fault quickfail), or, since we do intend to bring it to FAC in the near-ish future, to submit it for a peer review to buttress this GAN. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 04:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I propose to change the high-priority backlog box at the top of WP:GAN (added per the recent proposal drive) to only display one nomination per user. At the moment the highest priority nominator happens to have five nominations, so all five of the top priority spots are taken by the same nominator. I propose that it should display the oldest nomination by that user, followed by the oldest nomination by the second-highest priority user, and so on. If there are no objections I'll make the change in the next couple of days. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Lots of quick agreement, so done. I made one additional tweak which I hope will be uncontroversial: if a nominator has any nomination under review, none of their nominations will appear in the high priority box, regardless of their age and priority. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Never had this happen before, but I had 2 articles approved after nominating them for GA within 18 minutes of each other. That seemed impossible to me and when I went to the editor's page, I saw that 9 articles had been reviewed in the space of about 4 hours. I queried that, but don't know exactly what to do to have Yella Hertzka and Cora Slocomb di Brazza reviewed by someone else. Can someone please ping me and tell me what to do here? SusunW ( talk) 22:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
That said, getting zero feedback to me doesn't improve the article at all, so it is as if I didn't nominate it at all. I would rather have someone review it thoroughly and help with improving it.I am not misrepresenting her request for a more thorough review commentary, thank you. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
we can't exactly disqualify reviews... no matter how lightweight those reviews are., of course we can. The purpose of a GA review is to check the article against the criteria – and secondarily to SusunW's point, to suggest ways to improve the article. If we have reason to believe a review hasn't done that, we can undo it and move on. I'm assuming this is just a case of someone new to GA reviewing misunderstanding the norms here, and trying with best intentions to help out. I've left a message at their talk page suggesting they build trust by explaining their thinking more thoroughly.
It was just affirmed... has no sayreferring to? Ajpolino ( talk) 02:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Mike Christie. I am still pondering, but what I am reading in all of this is way different than the philosophy the seasoned editors who walked me through my first good articles had. I take almost all articles to GA (unless they are too short/not detailed enough to meet my standard), or did to this point and now think maybe I should stop doing that. Reading the above gives me no confidence that (most?) reviewers are approaching the process with the goal of improvement; thus, it does seem that I have been wasting other people's time. Realistically, most of what I write could pass FAC, but I find the process very intimidating (and time consuming, which takes away from my ability to write.) When I find a particularly spectacular subject, I venture there, but my standards are high, (possibly too high). I am not interested in validation or accolades, my goals are simply to write the best article that I can that fills gaps in our knowledge and that other people can easily understand. Clearly, I am an outlier. SusunW ( talk) 18:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I always make sure to note that anything in my review is a suggestion, unless is it specifically required as part of the criteria, and open for discussion– I think this right here is the answer. A GA review can be both a certification of the criteria and a staging ground for improvement, and this is what lets them coexist in the same process. Doing a bare minimum review does the article and the nominator a disservice, but enforcing things beyond the explicitly written GA criteria is unfair to nominators; this strikes the happy medium that we need, and it's what I try to do when I review. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 15:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Just ran into Talk:The Clean Tech Revolution, which has had an open GAR for the last twelve years. Obviously this should be closed as keep, but I left it open for the moment because I wondered if there's some way to find these. Shouldn't these be in a category that makes them findable? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
It turned out to be quick to do so here's the list. I'm not familiar with how the GAR templates work but the first couple I checked don't seem to be open still. Should the GAR/link template still be on the page though?
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 running GARcloser at Talk:Imelda Marcos resulted in several errors; that should have been a manual close to avoid a duplicate entry in articlehistory, and stripping of the C-class the article already was. COuld you doublecheck that you haven't run GARcloser on any others that needed to be manually closed as they were already entered in articlehistory? Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Most of these errors could have been avoided by the way were it not for that old bugger of transcluding GAs to talk rather than on their own subpage. The errors are everywhere because of that practice, and are only now being uncovered because of Mike's work. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Y'all are going to need a pingie thingie like at FAC, FAR and TFA. Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/February 2023#Deletion of GARs; I am quite concerned that CCI work not be held up by GA bookkeeping issues, after having done everything in my power to make this run smoothly, and eliminate copyvio while respecting the GA process. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Are Reviewers supposed to give nominating editors time to respond to their criticisms of an article that is nominated for GA status before they Fail it? Sure, the article I worked on - Robert Todd Lincoln - could stand with improvements. I know it isn't perfect but I am flummoxed that the Reviewer failed it within 2 hours of starting their review. Didn't give me a chance to respond before they failed it either - doesn't seem very collegial/collaborative/fair to me. Oh well, I'll GA Nom it again at some point I guess... Shearonink ( talk) 19:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
So I asked a question regarding one of the points raised by User:LunaEatsTuna on my GA for Splatoon 3 (see Talk:Splatoon 3/GA1) and was told that these shouldn't be things I have to do for a GA and was told to bring it here. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I am seeing a GAN page that is not rendering nominations in chronological order. I just nominated an article and it is showing as the 42nd listing among 67 nominees for sports and recreation. The nominees are listed in no logical order (expecially not chronological order).-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Femke why does Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Failing not mention the oldid parameter, so that when I'm cleaning (multiple other) GA issues on talk pages, I also have to look up the oldid like this, before I can roll the fail in to articlehistory? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
This thread isn’t clear. Why was I pinged? I believe I followed the instructions? Mark83 ( talk) 13:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
The user script GANReviewTool can perform most of these steps automatically, with no indication of which steps it may not perform and no indication that its use is recommended (if it is, I certainly didn't know that!) I have added mention of the oldid parameter to the instructions. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 14:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I've manually merged all the recent FailedGAs to AH, and will leave this list here for someone else to finish. I was watching this to make sure the NovemBot run didn't generate any issues, and we're good there. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello. A user has just been passing my GAs without giving a comprehensive review. May I ask for second opinions for the following?
Talk:Gardens by the Bay MRT station/GA1
Thank you. ZKang123 ( talk) 04:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Total Drama Island should be nominated as a good article because of its well-written to readers in most regions, especially its mention of the regional variations of the winners and the conversion of Canadian dollars into USA dollars. It is two-sided between different groups of regions, especially in who won in which region, as it explains how the endings are made, and where they are telecasted to prevent any drama between people from different regions watching the show from arguing who won Total Drama Island. It is generally stable as there are no recent history of strings of reverted edits or edit wars. The media of the article are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions to explain what they're talking about. The article is well-sourced, and archived just in case the information is deleted already. |
Since reviews which need to be redone tend to be by new reviewers, would it be useful if ChristieBot posted a note to this page whenever a review is begun by a first-time reviewer? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
GAR has seen an increase in articles nominated, but there's not much to incentivize editors who save articles from demotion. The idea would be for this to be overseen by the GAR coordinators in pretty much the same way it's done at WP:Featured Article Save Award. Copying the language from there:
Version 1
|
---|
|
Since the FASA mimics the FA promotion message, the GASA could in turn mimic ChristieBot's GA promotion message and symbol .
Any thoughts? Perhaps the above process, which was intended for FAR, could be streamlined further for GAR? Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 09:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC) (updated 02:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC))
This proposal tries to equalize the official recognition for a GAN pass and a GAR save, while also equalizing the bureaucracy.
GAN pass (current) | GAR save (proposed) | |
---|---|---|
Talk page message | == Your
GA nomination of
Example ==
The article Example you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Example for comments about the article. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. |
== Your GA save of
Example ==
Your work on the article Example has allowed it to retain its good article status following a GAR, earning you this Good Article Save Award . If you wish, you may display this GA rescue upon your userpage. Well done! |
Eligibility | Nominators must have contributed significantly to the article. | Editors must have made significant improvements to the article while it was at GAR. (This is not given to reviewers.) |
Who can confer it | The nomination may be reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article. | Any uninvolved editor may assess eligibility for the GAR save. |
Thoughts? Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 02:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) (upd 14:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC))
{{
The Rescue Barnstar 3}}
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 12:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
While cleaning up old GA subpages I found these three:
These GAs can't easily be accessed from anywhere. Yesterday I dealt with Talk:Crucibulum laeve/GA1, for which the parent article was merged to Crucibulum, by moving the GA to Talk:Crucibulum/GA1 so it could be indexed from Talk:Crucibulum. I left a note at the top giving the reasoning. Is that the best way to handle this situation? That is, move Talk:(I've Just Begun) Having My Fun/GA1 to Talk:Greatest Hits: My Prerogative/GA1 and so on, with an explanatory note? Alternatively each of the parent page talk pages could be returned to talk page state, with an article history template; I think I've seen this approach taken a couple of times though I can't bring an example to mind. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
A quick note to say that the above has passed - my first GA review. Once the nominator had done the hard work, I mucked in to lend a hand. Regards Billsmith60 ( talk) 15:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
This evening, or possibly tomorrow morning if I run into any issues with the change, I'll be updating the reviewing statistics to match the history I've found by scanning the GA subpages. I've posted earlier about this, and nobody objected, so I'm going to go ahead with the change; I'm absolutely certain it's more accurate than the numbers we have now, but it won't be perfect. For reference here are the parameters:
The total number of reviews in the database, including reviews excluded for one of the reasons given above, is 49,406.
The historical database tracks the following fields:
I'll be enhancing the reports I've already made avaiable so that you can query this database for an individual or a date range, and will see if I can automate some statistics. However, some things are unavoidably missing. The most common omission (over 600) is the outcome: if the GAN has been superseded by a later GAN, I can't tell the outcome by looking to see if the article is currently a GA because that's ascribable to the most recent GAN. If the article history template is on the talk page I can use that, but it's not always present.
In a few cases the nomination information is also missing. I extract it from the history of the article's talk page and from the history of the GAN page where I can, but if that doesn't work the various templates don't record the nominator -- {{ article history}}, {{ failedGA}}, and {{ GA}} all show outcome and date but not the nominator or reviewer. I would like to change article history to add parameters to show nominator and reviewer, but I haven't gotten agreement for that change (and I can see arguments against it, to be fair). So 95 records have no nominator information, and another 125 have no nomination timestamp information.
Another occasional error is that some editors had a habit of moving old pre-subpage GAs to subpages. Bungle did quite a few of these. They then show up as the reviewer, since they created the page. If I can detect that the nomination predates the May 2008 cutoff, I don't include it, but a few have probably slipped through.
I've fixed (with a great deal of help from others, in particular Qwerfjkl's bot) the most egregious errors I found in the various GA subpages -- you can trawl my contributions history if you want to see samples of the messes that I found -- merges, redirects, deletions, disambiguations, and multiple moves. Qwerfjkl's bot moved over 2,000 subpages to their correct locations. I will post links on ChristieBot's user page to lists of the various remaining problems -- in most cases the recommended fix will be "add article history", though there's a small risk that in some cases that will actually remove nomination information. I'm not expecting anyone to go through those and fix them, but they could be a reference for any bot that can automatically build article history. And if anyone is wondering why their personal lists of reviews or nominations doesn't match, those pages may give the answer.
CMD just mentioned on my talk page that page moves that fail to move the associated GA subpages are still going on now. I don't have a way to detect those, but will see if I can come up with something. Perhaps if we report those and notify the movers in each case as we fix them, the volume won't be too high to keep up with, and we might end up educating the people making the mistake. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I was preparing to start my first review of an article when I noticed that the article in question was nominated by someone who was not a significant contributor (1 edit and 0.5% authorship). Seeing as how this violates "If you are not a significant contributor to the article, you must secure the assent of the significant contributors before nominating." in Step 1 of the GAN instructions, does that meet the bar for a quick-fail? Or would this be considered a "drive-by nomination" and would I be permitted to just directly remove the nomination? If so, do I just delete the entry manually from the nominations list or is there some automated process that's supposed to be started by ChristieBot? Thanks, Horserice ( talk) 01:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Proposal 30 passed and I have been looking at what could be done to implement it. (This would require a BRFA, so this is just to clarify before I make any request.) The goal is to have categories such as "Good articles listed in February 2023" and "Good articles delisted in February 2023". Good articles can cease being good articles for other reasons than being delisted -- they can be merged or redirected or deleted or promoted to FA. I don't think there's much value in trying to track those exceptions, so I propose that these categories are interpreted to mean just what they say -- an article is in category "Good articles listed in February 2023" if it passed a GAN that month, regardless of what happened afterwards; and it's in category "Good articles delisted in February 2023" only if it was delisted that month. So an article that is now a former featured article, and was GA before it became FA, is not now a GA but would not be in any "delisted" category.
If that all sounds OK, then I can do the following:
This will omit completely the following:
There are some possible ways around some of these -- for example by checking every single article that uses article history, I might find some more records. But some will definitely be missed.
The categories would not be complete and there's no easy way to complete them, and maintaining them would add manual labour, at least for the delisting categories. I'm not sure this is worth doing with these caveats. Any opinions? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:GA § Should everything be cited?. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 02:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
After Proposal 13 of the GA Proposal Drive was passed, some discussion has taken place on the GAR talk page ( here), in regards to the actual utility of the GAR Coordinators, and a call for self-nomination went out. After something of a slowdown has taken place at the GAR talk page, a suggestion was made to open a discussion here regarding the confirmation of coordinators, and their roles; in part due to the larger number of people active here, and because much of the activity taken place has involved a relatively small number of parties, most of whom have been active together in the recent WP:DCGAR, GA proposal drive, and GAR talk page discussions, forming something of a majority of "those who show up", rather than a necessarily representative consensus. Based on the discussion involved in the recent overhaul of GAN, including unanimous support for the merging of individual and community reassessment (Proposal 14) users @ Premeditated Chaos, Femke, and AirshipJungleman29: have worked to craft and implement new guidelines for GAN which would seem to open the closing of GARs to uninvolved experienced editors in most cases, the GAR nominator themselves if there is a silent consensus, or, in the case of contentious discussion, the GAR coordinators. From this, we have a rough outline of the coordinators' roles, insofar as they help to manage the administrative work, and assist in the case of contentious discussions. But again, the role is not strictly defined, although what has been implemented thus far after active discussion seems to align with the spirit of the proposal quite well. A call went out to numerous editors to self-nominate, and recommendations were made, which resulted in a slew of @ Trainsandotherthings and Etriusus: and myself, with @ Chipmunkdavis: putting himself forward as a possibility, and @ Aircorn: suggested (but he has been inactive recently and therefore was not available for comment). The thinking of some, including @ SandyGeorgia:, who has spearheaded much of the movement, appears to be to open this to a wider discussion, where the nominees can be confirmed by the community here as reliable, and, during or after this process, the exact role of the coordinators in nailed down. I personally favor what appears to be our working model, of administrative work and decisive closers of contentious reviews; as well as the general slew of guidance and help that might be expected of coordinators. If people agree with this, I think the next step would be to open a poll for each of the various nominees, probably on a support/oppose basis, and a poll for the expectations and responsibilities of the coordinators. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I propose we open a poll here (higher viewers than WT:GAR) with the following procedure:
Happy with four coords as well.. Nominees, feel free to add names below. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:17, 21 February 2023 (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.
Candidates, feel free to nominate yourselves. Polling will open on February 27.
I am not a regular part of the GA process, so won't be voting when voting opens tomorrow, but I would be voting for all five based on my experience of each of them so far, even though GAR does not need this many Coords. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, it's definitely been over a week now. I don't know whether people want four or six coords, but I do know that there's a controversial GAR over at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hannah Arendt/1 that seems to have mostly halted, and as I and Etriusus have been involved, could I ask one of @ Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings: to close it as their first act in the role? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 02:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:GAN currently includes a NOTOC directive, meaning that the only way to navigate to specific sections is to manually scroll or jump up to the top of the page, scroll down a page to reach the listing of headings, and then jump from there to the section you are looking for. The new Vector2022 default skin for Wikipedia (at least) puts a persistent table of contents in the sidebar, allowing more convenient navigation, but only for pages that do not explicitly disable contents using NOTOC. Can we maybe remove the NOTOC from WP:GAN, so that more convenient navigation is possible? — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
toc
class, anyone who has custom css to format the table of contents loses out on that. Conceivably also losing the semantic information that it is a table of contents does some harm from an accessibility point of view?
Caeciliusinhorto-public (
talk) 15:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Discussion on GA categorisation sometimes pops up, most recently at Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023. During that discussion (@ Joe Roe, AirshipJungleman29, Kusma, Mike Christie, WhatamIdoing, BlueMoonset, and Ganesha811: courtesy ping) I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Topic Values/Subtopics to show the current topic (coded as h2) and sub-topic (coded as h3) divisions.
I have now collected the number of articles for those, as well as for their further divisions (there are h4 h5 and even some h6 scattered around, very ad-hoc no real system to speak of) at User:Chipmunkdavis/GA category stats. This gives some insight into the sorts of articles GA handles, and might be useful for discussion if there is still a desire to adjust the system. (The number of current GAs may not be exactly the same as the proportion of articles entering GAN, which Mike has been able to collect separately, but I assume it is roughly similar.) Some very full categories, some perhaps slightly too forward-thinking splits (shout out to Natural sciences#Types of chemical transformations with 0 entries). Please let me know if you spot any issues with the numbers (the overall number for example is not the same as the one generated by counting category entries, for some reason). Best, CMD ( talk) 04:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Just an FYI that WT:GA now redirects here as discussed. I added a separate archive box above to enable searching (if anyone can create a single button to search across all the archives, that would be more ideal but I couldn't figure out a way to do it). There are some old subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia talk:Good articles that I wasn't sure what to do with, like for example WT:Good articles/iconmockups, and so I left those untouched. Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 22:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
It's been several weeks since we've formalized the informal rule against drive-by nominations. I recall that there was talk about a way to detect or flag drive-by nominations, but has there been any progress on this? I skimmed through some of the current nominations from nominators with 0 GAs, and a bunch of them are drive-by noms or the nominators are otherwise minimal contributors to the article. Catching these automatically is probably the most efficient step we can take to keep the backlog manageable. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 00:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I just tried some timing tests. Getting the contributors for an article is very slow; a second or two for an article without much history, but more like a minute for an article like Donald Trump. Getting the edit count for a user is much quicker. I think the best way to do this would be to append a bullet list item to the report page when the nomination is first added to the GAN page, if the nominator has 1 or fewer GAs and an edit count under 1,000. Or is that too high? The report would stay there until someone deleted it.
User talk:ChristieBot/Incompletely moved pages is the same -- whoever cleans it up will have to delete the report records manually. CMD commented on my talk page that we are accumulating quite a few reports now, of different types; in addition to these two and GANR, there is Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches and User talk:ChristieBot/GAN errors (which is self-clearing). Is there a better page architecture that would make these easier to track and deal with? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 09:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
GA criteria 2 only explicitly requires citations for:
That's also echoed in WP:GACN, though the latter heavily implies that anything not cited inline should still come from listed WP:GENREF. While general references used to be acceptable (a while ago), that now mostly seen as a relic of the early-Wikipedia era.
However, the "state-of-the-art" practice seems to have shifted to requiring everything to be cited inline. That's reasonable to me. I've also seen quite a few GA articles delisted for lacking citations (and even seen B-class articles demoted to C-class for not being fully cited). Indeed, it's very hard for anyone to know whether something is original research unless it's cited. Given that there seems to have been a shift in accepted practice, shouldn't we update the GA criteria to reflect this? DFlhb ( talk) 17:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
[[Charles, Prince of Wales]] (later King Charles III) attended the event.<ref>Prince of Wales attends ship's christening</ref>
would be an example of a sentence permissibly containing verifiable but unverified information. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 19:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Initial proposal, withdrawn 04:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
Proposal: Change criterion 2b
2b currently states: Proposal: Change to:
If adding an option, please do so below the existing ones. Survey
|
Proposal 12 in the proposal drive was to include GARs on the GAN page. It passed, and I'm starting to look at implementing it. I have a couple of questions, and would like feedback on layout.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
GANs require a reviewer to pick them up, GARs require a content creator to pick them up. It would be nice if this GAN page listing leads to more "GA saves", which is the priority of the process per the bold text on WP:GAR. The text there is a mirror of the wording on FAR: "the ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status", which is what we should be promoting. Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 22:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
would adding GARs impact the GA report?Probably not. As long as you don't re-use GANentry the bot should ignore it. — Wug· a·po·des 02:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Dost Mohammad Khan has recently been nominated as a good article, and I don't know where a reviewer is supposed to start with this. I think someone more experienced than myself needs to intervene. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 06:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm in the middle of my first GA review here and was just wondering what the best way to check for copyright/plagiarism is. I think the article is fine, but I want to make sure. -- Zoo ( talk) 00:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Thomas Johnston (engraver) is one of the WP:DCGAR bunch. I've taken it completely apart and put it all back together again, see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thomas Johnston (engraver)/1, Talk:Thomas Johnston (engraver)#Working through this article's refs per the individual GAR, Article's state when I started in February and article's present state. Can someone else please take a look at it and close the GAR? I can't do it because it's a DCGAR and I worked on it too much - COI and all that. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 14:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I got some beginner questions I would like to ask:
Thanks in advance! Vestigium Leonis ( talk) 12:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rs chen 7754 15:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Briefly, the question is: can we remove the NOTOC from WP:GAN, so that its table of contents becomes usable for navigation, and if we do that, should we also remove the pseudo-table-of-contents near the start of GAN?
In more detail:
— David Eppstein ( talk) 00:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, is there any way to delete my error? I nominated Pachysentis. Mattximus ( talk) 17:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
On the report page, the links for each "old nomination" go to the relevant section of the main WP:GAN page. This was fine when the nominations were sorted by date, as the old ones were near the top. After the re-sorting, it has become hard to find the noms without browser ctrl-F. Shouldn't the report page also use {{ GANentry}}, just preceded by the symbol (if applicable) and followed by the age of the nom? — Kusma ( talk) 08:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I started a review of the Rhina Aguirre article. Are the sources via the blogs there suitable for a GA? (See review page). Pinging Krisgabwoosh, as the nominator. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 09:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)