This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am currently reviewing the article Billy Strachan which has been nominated by The History Wizard of Cambridge. I hadn't really looked at the sourcing side of the article yet because I tend to do that towards the end of my reviews. The nominator has recently been the subject of this discussion on the administrators noticeboard about the neutrality of their editing. I have now been told that some of the main sources in the article are non-neutral. It would be helpful to have some advice on what to do here. Llewee ( talk) 11:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
@ FOARP and Thebiguglyalien: FYI,
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
As a result of a recent conversation at a FAC, I have proposed a wording change to WP:CITE. Please comment there if interested. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I found some minor close paraphrasing in Talk:William L. Keleher/GA1 (not enough to quickfail the review on its own but there were other more serious issues that led me to quickfail it). As the nominator has 45 approved GAs and multiple ongoing nominations, further attention may be warranted. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Father Keleher was born January 27, 1906, in Woburn, Massachusetts. After attending Boston College High School, he graduated from the College of the Holy Cross and entered the Society of Jesus in 1926. He was ordained a priest in June 1937. Before his appointment as president he served as assistant to the Jesuit Provincial and as director of Jesuit novices.
Keleher was born on January 27, 1906, in Woburn, Massachusetts. He studied at Boston College High School and then the College of the Holy Cross. Keleher entered the Society of Jesus in 1926. He was ordained a priest in June 1937. He then became the assistant to the Jesuit provincinal superior. On November 1, 1942, he was made the province's master of novices.
Father Keleher was later professor, administrator and trustee at Holy Cross College. He was also associated with the Jesuit retreat house in North Andover, Mass. Three brothers and a sister survive.
Keleher was a professor, administrator, and trustee at the College of the Holy Cross. He also was worked at Campion Hall, the Jesuit retreat center in North Andover, Massachusetts. ... Three brothers and one sister were alive at the time of his death.
When I first starting reviewing, I found the Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not essay by WhatamIdoing to be really helpful in teaching me how to review and how not to review. But now having nominated a few dozen good articles myself, I've found that many reviewers–probably more than half–make several of the "mistakes to avoid" in a given review. The most common is the one highlighted on that page in bright yellow. Besides the fact that this allows reviewers to enforce their personal preferences, this is one of the things that makes GA a heavier and more demanding process than it needs to be. I say it would be beneficial to make this essay more visible and to keep it more actively maintained. It might also be a good place to describe standard practice on copyediting during GA: how much is necessary, and when it's more efficient for the reviewer versus the nominator to do it. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Renaming GA to something like Wikipedia:Articles that, in the opinion of a single human, meet six specific criteria, which suggests they are probably better than most articles but you wouldn't necessarily want to call them 'good' because there is definitely room for improvement, especially since they're not required to comply with all of the policies and guidelines, some of which are obviously important might give editors a clearer idea of what the process is really supposed to achieve[1] way, way lower-reading than I'm comfortable with, and that's the GACR reading it's written from. There's probably a gap for an RGA supplementary-essay that incorporates the clear-cut-common-mistakes in GACRNOT.
References
I propose that we change WP:QF so that instead of closing the review immediately, the nominator is allowed a chance to respond before the review is closed as a failure. The sudden fail with no immediate recourse is what makes quickfails so unpleasant. As standard practice, I've begun leaving reviews open when I expect to quickfail so that the nominator can respond. I've found that nominators are generally more accepting of the review closing as unsuccessful if it's a discussion rather than an imposed decision. This also has the benefit of the nominator being able to address it more easily if the reviewer made a mistake (for example, failing on copyright grounds when it's a case of backwards copying). Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 00:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Two variables that I think I take into account when quickfailing are how well I know the nominator's work, and which criterion is the problem. I've had no hesitation in quickfailing nominations with multiple serious copyvios or multiple unreliable sources, for example, but in the unlikely event I was to run into a nomination by someone I personally knew did good work, even then I might hold off and post the issues first before failing. That probably applies to everyone who's commented so far in this section. Another way to say that is that if, say, a nomination by PMC (to pick a name at random from above) appeared to be quickfailable, I would have enough respect for their prior work to ask about it first, knowing how annoying quickfails are. There are other markers for editing ability that I use if I don't know the editor's work from my own experience: if they have tens of thousands of edits; if they have multiple GAs and/or FAs; if some of the material in the nominated article impresses me as the work of a very good editor; perhaps a couple of other things. Those could also persuade me to delay a quick fail. I think that's probably not entirely fair, but I would justify it by saying the quickfails I do are sticking to the rules, and it's up to the reviewers judgement to not go the quickfail route if they wish. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 07:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Anyone have any ideas why the bot is listing Drosera (a carnivorous plant) and Osteopathic medicine in the United States under WP:GAN#Physics and astronomy reassessments? — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Would it be possible to change the version that John Romita Sr. became a good article on from this diff to this diff? I ask because there was a mistake I had missed before the article was passed. I had tried replacing the revision id on the talk page template, but the old revision still appears on Wikipedia 1.0 Server instead. FlairTale ( talk) 12:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Fill the |oldid= parameter with the revision number for the current revision at the time of promotion.Linking to the talk page, as in your diffs above, is not useful in the slightest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Is it time to remove the (very successful) backlog drive from the tabs? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, The article Šipan doesn't seem to be added to the nomination list for Geography. I've waited for about 20 minutes and it hasn't been added. When I tried adding it manually, it got reverted. Is there a problem with the bot or is it just me? Normally, it takes just 2 minutes to put the nomination into the list. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 11:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Currently, there's only a limited set of MOS pages that GAs must adhere to: lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I'm wondering if there's any appetite for adding MOS:QUOTE to that list (or, alternately, adding a "1c" that covers use of quotes in some manner). Wikipedia articles are expected to summarize what reliable sources say, in our own words. Per the MOS, quotes should be used where necessary to illustrate points or attribute ideas. Using large quotes to assemble the bulk of an article, joined solely by connective tissue like "Alice Smith said," is not a summary, and it's not appropriate encyclopedic writing. I've recently seen a few GANs that really pushed the boundaries of what I think is acceptable use of quoting for encyclopedic writing, but there's no explicit criteria to point to except saying that I don't feel it's well-written. I think it would be valuable to add this piece of guidance to ensure that GAs are actually summaries of their sources and not simply reproducing them. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
What considerations are relevant in applying the third fair use factor—the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole?
I pasted every linked policy in the Good Article Criteria into wordcounter.net and they clock in at around 90,000 words. And that 90k is without counting the words in the hundred or so essays and policies linked from those pages. Hamlet, Shakespeare's longest play, doesn't even get to 30k." I believe that the longer the instructions are, the less likely people are to read them. Rjjiii( talk) 04:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
If the quotation is sufficiently bad that it shouldn't be in a ga I think the reviewer can and should object under copyright or NPOV considerations. Adding to the GA criteria is not necessary in this case. ( t · c) buidhe 19:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious we need to minimise the use of these, and don't need an additional entry in the criteria. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I've been reviewing Lucy Parsons (review here). A large majority of issues I raised have been fixed, and the article is close to GA status in my view. However, some points remain, and the nominator and I are in disagreement over them. I believe I have raised issues of clarity, breadth, or neutrality; the nominator sees them as style issues. They include, in particular, the use of the term Negro, which I consider inappropriate. I would appreciate a second opinion. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the above discussion on the procedural issues, and on the specific point I flagged (no, really, I do): but I still would like a 2O on the other issues on which the nominator and I differ. There aren't too many; is anyone willing? Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I am here to write and improve articles. I think when a GA review is done well it should help with that process, as nominator I haven't found Vanamonde's reviewing technique particularly helpful with Lucy Parsons, which I nominated for GA after rewriting. It was picked up for review end of August and now, three weeks later, the end is nowhere in sight. I think it best to withdraw the nomination and move it to peer review to get more opinions. Normally I'd of course be fine with people editing the article, but for a GA reviewer to introduce changes I clearly disagree with just seems rude. As I've already commented at the review, there is more than one way to write an article and a nominator should not have to make stylistic changes based on a rationale of IDONTLIKEIT. It seems to me these very issues have been recently discussed in "What the good article criteria are not", particularly as regards to Hawkeye's comment about History of penicillin.
Moving on, I would recommend Vanamonde focuses on clear communication over what is and what isn't a GA pass/fail requirement. To take one issue, namely the usage of the term "negro", which they here refer to by saying "They include, in particular, the use of the term Negro, which I consider inappropriate" .. this started with Vanamonde questioning it's use by saying "I wonder at your use of "Negro" - I replied with a rationale, namely "I'd say I'm following the sources here and I'm happy to change. I'm not really sure what the MOS guidance is here and I'm not familiar with US custom, what would you suggest to use instead?". There wasn't discussion, instead Vanamonde doubled down, eventually saying "The use of the word "Negro" is more than a stylistic matter, if you wish to keep using this term, please justify it" (this seems to be their general interaction dynamic, to demand a justification then ignore it). As someone said above, perhaps Vanamonde should stick to their guns and they are giving their labour for free, but then why can nobody in the discussion give me a clear response based on MOS guidelines? Sure, it seems that at least a few US-based wikipedians find the term distasteful and I have no wish to offend (indeed the only use now remaining in the article is within a title of a work written by Parsons) but I'd like to have my rationale for inclusion engaged with before making any changes. Last time I checked I'm not getting paid for this either. Mujinga ( talk) 12:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
"pretty baffled as to what the reviewer wants from me before finding it GA quality - after a FA level check on only two of the criteria"really? The outstanding concerns are evident any reader, and cover four of the six criteria; the other two are not highlighted because they aren't of concern. You can rest easy: I will not be reviewing your nominations again. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
We're a couple weeks out from the drive now, so finally the opportunity to take a breath and write up a debrief.
First things first: this was astonishingly successful. We went from 638 to 198 unreviewed, a 69% decrease. I can't think of a single comparable drive. The last few drives mostly run around 50-60%; January 2022 was considered abnormally good at 64.3%, and started at a far lower total. We also didn't go a single day without an absolute decrease, again without precedent. Over a fortnight out, we're holding in the 200s for unreviewed and barely higher than we closed for total. At go time, there were 14 drive-eligible articles that had been waiting more than nine months for a review and another 65 that had been waiting for more than six months; we eradicated both categories. The average age of a nominated article went from ~90 days to ~30 days.
Our baseline situation was one of the most dire in GAN history. I was cautiously tongue-in-cheek hopeful we would get below June 2022's low of 357, because that was the last markedly-less-successful drive and we were starting well above it. I didn't expect sub-300; I emphatically did not anticipate sub-200. I did not expect we'd clear out several hundred 90-day nominations to the point we'd need to give bonuses to 60-days. I also expected more drama or dispute than actually happened, especially given the known drive-quickfail association. Instead, the worst you can say is we flooded DYK. (Sorry, guys.)
So, from a what-worked what-didn't perspective: clearly, quite a lot worked!
One thing that occured to me during the drive is that while many talk about drives as suboptimal "bandaid solutions", they seem more like a part of GAN's functioning than anything else. WT:GAN prior to the drive spent a fair while in hyperactive doom-and-gloom, which quieted down very quick once we got things up and running -- turns out even the state of crisis that was the first half of 2023 can be mitigated. We have a natural experiment with the late 2010s, where in the absence of the dramatics that triggered 2023-weirdness, no drives ran between late 2016 and late 2019. The result was an absolutely dire backlog, with reports of people in 2019 waiting over a year for reviews. People have dedicated their careers to researching how gamification solves such problems; we may do well to take their advice.
Having a generous scoring system, with sufficient checks-and-balances to maintain quality, also seems particularly worth calling out. Drives that have failed tend to be ones where expectations were far higher than made clear or rewards much lower than the amount of work. Being able to clearly reward people for their work, while simultaneously taking care to screen out things more likely to be problematic, allows for both high activity and the maintenance of standards.
I anticipate running another drive in...hopefully November. October is too close, December and really January are right out, February short, and I'm not pushing this into March. The project also tends to see a slowdown around December for the holidays, so it'd be good to get things sorted before then to avoid backlog panic. I wasn't totally sure about November given it's a holiday in a major enwiki market, but I checked the stats on GOCE drives (which run every other month, including every November) and their Nov drives consistently post good numbers, so it seems workable.
Thanks again, so much, to everyone, for all they've done. Golden, Buidhe, thanks so much for stepping up to coord. Reviewers -- this is your work. Every one of you was an integral part of this. Vaticidal prophet 19:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Removing the checklist seems to have been a good idea, as we ended up with very few disqualified checklist reviews.Briefly before the drive, the preload was changed away from a checklist. [3] The goal of having preloaded instructions was to aid new reviewers, but I have not seen a clear way to evaluate how many editors are doing first-time reviews. Regards, Rjjiii( talk) 17:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
As a reviewer of proposed GAs, I very much enjoyed this backlog drive, although I did come across quite a lot of close paraphrasing. Interesting to read the comments above about gamification, sure that plays a part for me but my main inspiration is the happy feeling of collaborating together with nominators and other reviewers to improve articles. So any way to build on that would encourage me to review more - there was certainly a fertile area of interaction with Women in Green.
As a nominator of GAs, I was slightly frustrated that for almost all of the drive I had four open noms. I haven't followed the ratio debate that closely, still I would have thought if I have around 80 reviews and 40 GAs then I would have a decent enough ratio. As I'll say when replying to the previous section later, I am primarily here to write and improve articles, not collect stars (although yes I do list achievements on my userpage since I am also proud of my attempts to counter systemic bias). From that perspective of article improvement, Villa Road had a nice review. Two reviews came in late at the end of the month: Hellé Nice was very quick and I had to check with BritneyErotica that they had made all the necessary checks - and they confirmed they had, which was great; Lucy Parsons is still open and I am pretty baffled as to what the reviewer wants from me before finding it GA quality - after a FA level check on only two of the criteria. So GA reviews are still a bit of a lottery but overall I enjoyed the backlog drive from both perspectives (and definitely reviewing improves my writing as well).
I'm unbothered as to when we should do it all again, primarily because my IRL schedule is currently all over the place - should we just trigger it when nominations pass a certain number or is that too random? There wouldn't be much buildup .. or perhaps there would be since we would see the number approaching - possibly another role which a co-ordinator could do. Mujinga ( talk) 12:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I have been editing Ellery Queen and would love some second thoughts on it. Obviously, a lot of work needs to be done before it meets the GA criteria but I am determined to do it. The lead is especially difficult to write as the article refers to both a pseudonym and a fictional character and the pseudonym itself was created by two individuals who were much better known under their aliases before being used by other people. Jack234567 ( talk) 05:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
In addition to the fiction featuring their eponymous brilliant amateur detective, the two men" down to just "They". Good luck! Rjjiii( talk) 07:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm considering reviewing Ldm1954's Electron diffraction (I haven't yet decided if I can commit the time). I've got a question about the list incorporation aspect of WP:GACR. Under Electron diffraction#Further developments, there's a long bullet list that I'm not sure how to evaluate (and another example under "Dynamical diffraction"). I think it's fine per the "Children" part of MOS:EMBED, but seeking additional insight before I make up my mind to take this on or not. RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose.Generally, a list of information like this just means that the prose description hasn't been written yet and still needs to be done. It looks similar to the type of list that I would create as an outline before I actually write an article. I also discourage things like "further developments" in general because it's essentially a "miscellaneous information" or otherwise unsorted section. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I think criterion 3b "focused on the topic" should point to WP:COATRACK and not WP:SIZE. To my mind, an article can be quite short but still unfocused, which is the issue that WP:COATRACK addresses. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
How much words are needed for an article to become a good article? I saw in the August 2023 backlog drive that people accepting articles under 800 points wouldn't get any points and it was listed as an incorrect acceptance. So is 800 words the minimum? 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Good article nominations:
WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long
Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!
Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 22:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)From my review of the talk page archives, it appears there has never been a true discussion here about whether MOS:ACCESS (or parts thereof) should be incorporated into GACR. The last major discussions related to alt text for images at FACR, and occurred over a decade ago. ( The consensus appears to be that since MOS:ACCESS is in the MOS, an alt attribute is required under FACR.) Since then, WCAG guidelines have been adopted by the ISO, ETSI, and the US Access Board, amongst other national and international entities. Good articles must meet "a core set of editorial standards". Accessibility should be included in that set; otherwise, we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia's disabled readers. At the very least, we should ensure that images in good articles include an alt attribute and alt text as necessary. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 16:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang}}
templates are easily added and helpful. —
Kusma (
talk) 16:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
alt text – for visually impaired readers – should be added to informative (but not purely decorative) images", Rjjiii ( talk) 03:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Strongest possible support Accessibility is not optional and if someone can't be bothered to add table captions and alt text, we should not be promoting this work as good. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 11:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Even if we do go the route of adding this to the criteria, we shouldn't be overly rigid on this. For instance, I'm yet to see a single bit of good guidance on how to adequately handle something like File:Vicksburg Campaign April-July 1863.pdf in alt text, and an overly rigid application of this is going to see a spate of GARs and quick-fails simply over things like handling a very complex map in alt text. Hog Farm Talk 23:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the heading is entirely facetious. But what other conclusion am I supposed to come to after a "discussion" like this occurs? When I submitted it to GAR, I did so because I believed it was a clear cut case of delisting. And then it turned into multiple personal attacks directed at my intelligence and my intentions, as well as those of other editors who believe that the article does not meet the GA criteria. Why should any editor volunteer to use GAR at all if this is a possible outcome? Right now, it's in my personal interest to turn a blind eye toward bad GAs rather than helping out in a thankless clean up job. How do we fix this? Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I requested the close as the rate dried up and I don't read in the discussion a general resolve to address the issue.": Have you been looking at the article history? Because to me this looks a comment that only addresses the GAR discussion. Article improvement has been ongoing and significant but the GAR discussion has almost entirely focused on the pre-improvement state of the article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I want to nominate Israeli settlement.
What category is best--- Politics & Government or Geography? or some other?
I know this is a difficult topic, but I think that's all the more reason for the community to put in the work to make it officially a "good" information source. any other related feedback welcome.
thanks, skak E L 17:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad of Ghor is listed as a GA nominee for "World history," but it should be in "Royalty, nobility and heraldry". Can I just change the GAN template on its talk page, or is there a different procedure for this? Aintabli ( talk) 19:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Having removed a bunch of drive-by nominations since the rule was implemented, I think the process would run a lot more smoothly if there was a boilerplate text that we've agreed on to leave on the user's talk page. I wrote up a rough draft of a standardized notice template:
I noticed that you recently nominated [an article] for
good article status, but you have not significantly contributed to the article. It is important that nominators are familiar with the article's content and sources, because there are usually questions about them during the good article review process. The article's nomination has been removed. If you have any questions about the good article process, or if you believe this was done in error, you can seek assistance at
the good articles talk page.
Regardless of whether it's made into an actual notice template or if it's just a general idea of what we should be saying, it would save the trouble of trying to figure out how to word the message each time. The most important thing is finding a wording that's non-bitey. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 22:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I've used the phrasing
Hi! I noticed that you nominated the article Example article for WP:Good article status. You do not appear to have edited the article prior to this, and there is no discussion about nominating the article on its talk page. It used to be the case that anybody could nominate an article, but it was decided back in January to only allow editors who have significantly contributed to the article to nominate it (see Wikipedia talk:Good Article proposal drive 2023#Proposal 11: Ban drive-by nominations for the discussion that led to this change and Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions for further details). I have consequently removed the nomination for now. Consider discussing whether the article is ready to be nominated with the article's principal editors on the talk page.
when I've come across this situation. "January" could be replaced with "January 2023" or plain "2023" as time goes on. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you nominated the article Example article for WP:Good article status. You do not appear to have edited the article prior to this, and there is no discussion about nominating the article on its talk page. It used to be the case that anybody could nominate an article, but it was decided back in January to only allow editors who have significantly contributed to the article to nominate it (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions). I have consequently removed the nomination for now. Consider discussing whether the article is ready to be nominated with the article's principal editors on the talk page.
{{{article|1}}}
to {{{article|{{{1}}}
}}}
so that:Courtesy link: WT:Template index/User talk namespace § Uw-ga-driveby
I've made a few changes resulting from this overlapping discussion and follow-up to it:
Mathglot ( talk) 19:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
You do not appear to have edited the article prior to thisto
You do not appear to have made significant edits to the article prior to this, since we want to cover not merely people who have never edited the article, but also those who have edited it but only in minor ways. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I've added the above template to the user warnings page. [4] Should it also be linked from the instructions? Perhaps in this footnote:
− | If the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, it can be uncontroversially considered a drive-by nomination. | + | If the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, it can be uncontroversially considered a drive-by nomination. You can [[Template:Uw-ga-driveby|notify the nominator]] on their talk page. |
Feedback welcome, Rjjiii ( talk) 18:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
There is an article which I improved from a previous account of mine. Am I allowed to nominate it from my current account? Moazfargal ( talk) 10:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm thinking of getting SoHo Weekly News in shape for GA. Before I do that, I'd like some input on how people feel about the Alumni section vis-a-via MOS:EMBED. I personally think it's fine, but if there's going to be pushback, I'd rather know about it before I nominate. RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Mike Christie asked me to bring this up here for visibility. Since the GAs reviewed count now somewhat "matters" in that it decides the sort order and is prominently displayed along with the GA count... do we have any special guidance on what to do for mismatches between who created a GA subpage and GA review credits? Currently, by default, the bot will credit whoever creates the GA subpage immediately, but maybe there will be wacky cases where a reviewer leaves halfway through, or never starts the review but the review doesn't get a pro-forma close + new review.
My inclination is just that if any explicit thumbs-up is required, the bot maintainer (Mike Christie for now) is empowered to have some admin script that +1s an editor's GA review count. It used to be anybody could edit the User:GA bot/Stats page, but now the "real" data is stored in an inaccessible database and any on-wiki edits will just get reverted and overriden, so it's made whoever maintains the DB part of the core flow. If something weird happens and there should be multiple credits for a review or the wrong editor was credited, whatever, just increment the count and move on. In the unlikely case of an editor repeatedly pestering for extra credits and wasting Mike Christie's time, bring it here to WT:GAN to determine if this was just the unluckiest editor ever or if something fishy is going on. SnowFire ( talk) 23:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The reviewer has asked to be replaced, but I don't know the process to handle that. Could somebody please see Talk:Gasparilla Pirate Festival/GA1#Status? and perform the required magic? RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering whether Prime Minister of Albania counts as a list or an article. Lists of course can't be good articles and a majority of Prime Minister of Albania is taken up by the list of prime ministers, but there is also a large portion which consists of prose, which gives it the possibility of being considered an article. I would like to know the thoughts of others. Steelkamp ( talk) 05:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Would anyone oppose or support adding the below text to link the user talk template for drive-by nominations to the end of footnote [a] on Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions:
You can
notify the nominator on their talk page.
I proposed this before but sidetracked the discussion. [6] Rjjiii ( talk) 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
ChristieBot has been down for the last 15 hours; I was just alerted to the problem by a post on the bot's talk page and have fixed it. I *think* it will catch up with everything correctly since it runs from categories, but if anyone sees something that looks like a bot error or omission, please let me know. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, if you watch this page you know it's a common occurrence for editors to post notes on a nomination on the GAN page, unaware that it will be overwritten by the bot. Over the last years I must have left dozens of messages on users' talk pages letting them know why this won't achieve what they are trying to do and telling them how to edit the GAN template on the article talk page. Besides confusing newer editors and leading to disappearing notes/co-noms, this issue also causes watchlist clutter. I was thinking it would be easy to fix by template-protecting the page and giving edit privileges to ChristieBot and any other bots that need to edit the page. Mike Christie suggested bringing this issue for discussion here in case there is any difficulty I am overlooking. ( t · c) buidhe 01:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be getting close to a consensus. I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Template_editor for ChristieBot to get the template editor permission if there are no objections here over the next couple of days. I'll post a note here when I do so in case there are any questions there. Once that's done any of the admins in this discussion can change the GAN page. I don't believe any code changes to ChristieBot will be needed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Eurohunter currently has fifteen reviews open, all of which were opened during the August GAN backlog drive. Of these, one has been awaiting a second opinion for over eight weeks ( Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA1), one received a brief comment from them in late September ( Talk:Kwyet Kinks/GA1) but a request in response to complete the review one way or the other has been ignored, and the rest haven't been touched since sometime in August despite Eurohunter being pinged on their talk page. It could be that they burned out before the end of the backlog drive; it has happened to a number of participants in the past. One way or another, the reviews need attention.
Two of these review pages were opened but no review ever posted; I have requested a G6 speedy deletion for them both, since it has been eight weeks without action for both noms, and Eurohunter has another dozen reviews that clearly have a higher priority. It would be great if an admin could delete the two review pages— Talk:Mis Mejores Canciones – 17 Super Éxitos/GA1 and Talk:16 Super Exitos Originales/GA1—so these can go back into the pool of unreviewed nominations, where they would be the eighth- and ninth-oldest nominations awaiting review.
Even with those two deleted, there are still thirteen open reviews. The other eleven not yet mentioned are:
Some of these may be awaiting nominator action, in which case the nominator should be contacted on their talk page (unless they post here) and if they aren't prepared to address the issues in a timely fashion—they've had as much as a couple of months already—the reviews should probably be closed by someone here. Thanks to anyone who can help move these along in some fashion. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I need assistance with handling cases of reviewer's revenge. During the article review process, I requested certain edits from the nominating editor and placed the review on hold at Talk:Mammalian_kidney/GA1.
However, it seems that the reviewer went through my contributions and discovered that I had nominated an article for GA status on Russian Wikipedia. It is worth noting that this happened only after I provided my opinion on the Mammalian_kidney article. Then the nominating editor enrolled as a reviewer and expressed opposition to granting GA status to my article at ru:Википедия:Кандидаты_в_хорошие_статьи/16_ноября_2023#Против_(Обходной_путь_биосинтеза_андрогенов)
Please advise on how to handle these situations effectively in order to prevent such objectionable behavior in the future.
I would not have taken on the role of reviewing this editor's work if I had known that retaliatory actions would ensue. Unless this situation is clarified and resolved appropriately, future reviewers may also face similar retaliatory actions.
Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 09:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, can someone remove the nomination for Misti? I was too quick, the article needs some work still. JoJo Eumerus mobile ( main talk) 17:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to close Talk:Cross-site leaks/GA2. When I go to the (absurdly long) "Topic, subtopic, and sub-subtopic" menu, there's no "Computing and engineering" item. Digging into the HTML, I find:
<option value="Engineering and technology" disabled="">===Computing and engineering===</option>
Why is this disabled? RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
===Computing and engineering===
, it would allow inserting articles
here. That doesn't seem like a good spot to insert articles. I think we're instead supposed to choose a heading farther down. So I am leaning towards keeping ===Computing and engineering===
disabled. Does that seem reasonable? I also notice
you manually added this article to the similar-sounding =====Engineering technology=====
, which is an option farther down in the drop-down list and is not disabled. So hopefully this is all resolved? :) –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 08:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
{{GA nominee|...|subtopic=Geography...}}
Let me propose an idea of GA apprenticeship, where all editors are by default considered "GA reviewer apprentices". They can do reviews, but their verdict is not binding until approved by any "GA master", a status received by an editor with N reviews (similar to the Extended autoconfirmed status received by K number of edits). GA masters may supervise apprentices or may not, but they guide the process and should review the quality of the review process made by the apprentice, all communication, arguments and the verdict. After an apprentice made N/2 edits, such apprentices' verdicts are binding, but a nominated editor has a simplified appeal procedure whereas any master can review and uphold or change the apprentices' verdict in a lightway procedure. After an apprentice does N reviews (of which N/2 must be approved by a master0 and becomes master, such review verdicts cannot be appealed by the simplified procedure, and the contestation should be done as it is done now.
This process will attract the new editors to the review process because they would feel safe under guidance and would not fear to do anything bad. Also, it will make review process fair and will also not frighten new reviewers who may be subject of attacks by the editors who disagree. The master will guide the apprentice on how to withstand such attacks. It may add extra work to the masters, but this will pay up by the bigger number of reviewers that such system may potentially bring. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 06:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this review could needs some eyes, zero issues at the article??? 2001:4455:663:D600:3DB4:2299:F74E:C668 ( talk) 20:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, we have difficulty on understanding and disagreement p. 1b of the GA criteria. See discussion at Talk:XXXYY_syndrome#Conclusion
As a second reviewer, I believe that the article does not meet the criteria because it lacks proper layout guidelines. Certain sections were missing from the article without any justification provided by the author. In my opinion, these sections are essential for that particular article to be considered GA unless a solid justification is provided on why these sections are not needed; they cannot be just silently ommitted. However, the first reviewer argued that I cannot insist on including specific sections in order for an article to be considered GA. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 09:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
there are other definitions that take into account other factors such as hormonal balance, reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics...by which definition, it's a male SCA. It's not a condition that causes people to have DSDed reproductive organs or secondary sex characteristics -- none of the SCAs are. Some sex chromosome disorders are, but that's not the normal phenotype for any of the polysomy SCAs. (This is why I never worked on the male X-polysomy articles, despite the constant begging amongst XXY support groups for literally any information about those disorders that isn't deeply stigmatizing and several decades out of date.) Vaticidal prophet 22:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
[c]onsidering the low prevalence of XXXYY syndrome, what factors should be taken into account when deciding whether to include it in routine newborn screenings? Others are beyond the scope of this specific article, such as:
[w]hat other genetic conditions or abnormalities are typically included in newborn screening programs? You've also now twice repeated the concern that the article excludes material
that I consider important. The nominator is de-facto justified to ignore such concerns (though this isn't what happened as demonstrated by PMC). Wikipedia is explicitly disinterested in what any editor believes should be there. That's the basis of WP:V. Articles cover the subject matter as discussed within RS (in this case MEDRS) directly related to the topic. If you've identified material contained within MEDRS that is missing from the article, that is worth discussing. Otherwise, the generalized concern behind 'why does x section not exist?' can be addressed with 'because it isn't discussed in the relevant literature'. Mr rnddude ( talk) 01:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Few adults with the disorder have been reported, and there are no reports of people diagnosed prenatally who survived to birth. This lack of prognosis information is common in sex chromosome tetrasomy and pentasomy; though longitudal studies exist for the sex chromosome trisomies, higher-level aneuploidies are far rarer and information more sparseand
These assumptions were later disproven by longitudinal studies of people diagnosed at birth with sex chromosome trisomies, which found people with 47,XXY, 47,XXX, and 47,XYY karyotypes blended into the general population and had little unusual propensity for criminality. Despite these advances regarding sex chromosome trisomies, the tetrasomy and pentasomy variants remain understudied. Due to their extreme rarity, none were detected in these cohort studies, and no unbiased information exists on their long-term prognosis). This is the fourth article on a tetra/penta SCA I've nominated at GAN, and the rarest disorder of the bunch; the amount written here is generally representative of these articles and the sourcing that exists for them. Vaticidal prophet 02:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I think we've moved past the point of useful discussion above. It is crystal clear that the article's first reviewer is demanding original research from the nominator. I think the nominator is wise to decline. Vaticidalprophet, would you like to renominate and ask for a new reviewer? I would be happy to create the review page and add a note pointing to this discussion, explicitly asking the new reviewer to disregard the quickfail criterion about addressing issues from a prior review. Is this option ok with VP, and would anyone else oppose it? Is there a better next step? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 17:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)I understand your drive to have as many GAs as possibleI'd appreciate if you struck that. I do not have a drive to "collect GAs" -- I have a drive to write high-quality articles. The article suite does consistently define things such as how these disorders originate, and will do so regardless of how it's long-term organized. I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by saying it doesn't -- are you only looking at section headers? This is the question I had before about "what do you mean by it not discussing newborn screening and prenatal diagnosis" -- it does! Vaticidal prophet 22:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Just at the end here...it seems something about how the GAN was passed (never technically being reopened) resulted in the bot not processing it properly, such that it e.g. was never given a GA icon. Would just manually adding the GA icon be enough for e.g. it to be properly read and categorized as a GA? Vaticidal prophet 00:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I retracted as a reviewer and copied the GA review discussion to the page talk. Still, a new reviewer should get a non-existing GA page Talk:Mammalian kidney/GA1, but I cannot delete it. Can an administrator please mark this page as deleted, preserving history, so the new reviewer will start the review from scratch? Emptying the page didn't because a potential new reviewer would not find a page pre-filled with the required templates when clicking on the review link. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 17:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Closed per request on my user talk
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 14:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
== Clarifying the process of retracting the reviewer and returning the nominated article to backlog == I propose to update slightly the instruction, without altering the meaning, but to improve clarity, so that the process of retracting the reviewer and returning the nominated article to backlog will be easier to understand. 1. Update slightly the wording in Step 4a to emphasize that this action return article to backlog; 2. Adding section 4b or a separate item somewhere else with explicit purpose "What to do if I need to retract as a reviewer" (to be able to find easier). A possible proposed version is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions&oldid=1186395619 Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 12:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Check out Talk:Eileen Niedfield/GA1. On top of everything else they've done, they took on this review. They found some missing dates and decided to fix it themselves, sourced to ancestry.com, which is such a well-known non-RS it's got it's own shortcut: WP:ANCESTRY. This guy is a menace. Either he's trolling us or this is the worst case of WP:CIR I've seen in a long time. Either way, he can't be allowed to continue to wreak havok on GA. I'm way too WP:INVOLVED so I can't block them. Could some non-involved admin please deal with this? RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
In Talk:Guillermo Torrez/GA1#General comments, I objected to the way multiple sources were lumped together in a single citation, but I'm not sure my objection is justified. Could somebody who knows better please comment directly on the review page please? RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
How do I notify the nominator that I have begun reviewing their article, or is it done automatically? —M3ATH ( Moazfargal · Talk) 20:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
For Raymond Flynn and Mario Choque (and maybe some others?) the short description is duplicated: "American politician (born 1939)American politician (born 1939)" and "Bolivian politician (born 1954)Bolivian politician (born 1954)" respectively. a455bcd9 (Antoine) ( talk) 09:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
If I WP:G6 a review under WP:GAN/I#N4a, I assume I should leave the page= attribute of the {{ GA nominee}} template unincremented, yes? RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I saw History of transgender people in Brazil was nominated for GA. I've been looking to learn GAN reviewing, and thought that could be a good one to do, as I got my first GA on a similar article. However, it's written by a WikiFriend of mine. Is it considered bad form to review nominations from friends? -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 22:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you please help me understand the concerns of the reviewer User:BeingObjective on two of my failed GA nominations:
The reviewer mentioned that articles did not meet certain GA criteria without any particular hint on how the articles could be improved so they for sure pass GA on renomination.
I asked the reviewer for help in understanding on how can I improve the articles.
The reviewer provided a reply at Talk:Ketotifen/GA1 that I could not understand. Can you please help and give me guidance? The reviewer also indicated that the articles fail but did not formally conclude the review, so the status of those reviews are still in progress.
Please help me understand the reviewer's concerns. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 22:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Iztwoz, @ D6194c-1cc, can you please help? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 16:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I am unable to disclose this review of Talk:Walter Tull/GA1, is there anyone available or would like to take over and review it? JC Kotisow ( talk) 02:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good article nominations has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
185.69.6.18 ( talk) 07:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
See Talk:Arithmetic/GA1 (recent checkbox review by User:ThatChemist25), discussion on User talk:ThatChemist25#GA review of Arithmetic by nominator User:Phlsph7, and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Arithmetic/1 (initiated by User:DannyMusicEditor). I'm not sure an immediate GAR is the right process for handling checkbox reviews; shouldn't we just void the review and return the article to the nomination queue? (Potential COI: I am the nominator of another article that ThatChemist25 has promised to review but has not yet reviewed, Talk:Erdős–Anning theorem/GA1. I know a checkbox review is not what I want to get out of this process and I expect Phlsph7 feels similarly.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
An in-depth review must be performed in all other caseswith
An in-depth review must be provided in all other cases? This would close the backdoor to reviewers who retroactively claim that they indeed performed an in-depth review but just didn't write it down. Phlsph7 ( talk) 09:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Update: Situation now resolved. Reviewer has been blocked as a sockpuppet and the bad reviews speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Both articles should be back on the queue where they belong. I restored the review-number count of the arithmetic nomination back to 1 to avoid the issue of eventually having a review 2 with no review 1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
How to find out if there is copyvio in an article. Is there a bot or tool that does that? Also, how can I check if an image used is appropriately licensed and/or has a fair use rationale.
I need this information for my first review: Killing of Wadea al-Fayoume. Since that is my first review, can I request a more experienced reviewer to chip in with their thoughts on the review page?
—M3ATH ( Moazfargal · Talk) 17:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The article for a recent WP:DYK hook I reviewed has now been nominated for GA. DYK rules prevent users from reviewing hooks for articles they also reviewed for GA. Before proceeding, I wanted to make sure there wasn't a similar rule the other way around here on GA. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 10:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I just got my account renamed from Moazfargal to M3ATH. Prior to the rename, I had reviewed one article and had two nominations (still unreviewed). However, now when checking on the GAN page I find that my nominations have been pushed to the bottom of the list (they were the first noms in Places and Politics and government) and my number of GAs and reviews also got messed up. Is this a bot issue? P.S. the nominations in question are Jenin refugee camp and Mohammed Deif. — M3ATH ( See · Say) 22:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
In case participants here might not have seen it yet: there is a long discussion of editor FuzzyMagma and alleged close paraphrasing of translated sources ongoing at WT:DYK#september 1983 laws (where it started), WP:CCI#FuzzyMagma, and WP:ANI#User:FuzzyMagma and close paraphrasing. This affects several current unreviewed GA nominees: Mafeje affair, September 1983 Laws, 1976 Sudanese coup attempt, BlueforSudan, Marianne Bachmeier, Satti Majid, Ukuthwasa, Makwerekwere, Khalwa (school), Bona Malwal, Archie Mafeje, and Child abuse in association football; for the relevant GA criteria see WP:GAFAIL #2 and WP:GACR #2d. As well, the bot counts 8 already-passed GAs by FuzzyMagma which might need re-review with an eye to paraphrasing from foreign-language sources. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I have concerns about this very recent promotion of November 2023 (nominator Vanderwaalforces, reviewer Reading Beans). The GA review did not follow the instructions, which require "an in-depth review to be provided", together with a source-spotcheck to ensure text-source integrity. The review was not in-depth, and a spotcheck was not carried out.
This is bad news, as a quick look shows that some information is not verified by the source. See for example the final paragraph: Eweka Osagie Osifo is an author who has made substantial contributions to Edo literature through his novels, short stories, and essays. Works such as Tales of a Village Schoolmaster and Echoes from Eden (1998) offer insightful glimpses into Edo's way of life, tradition, and societal issues. This is cited to Usuanlele & Agbontaen 2000, but a quick look at the source shows that Osifo is not even mentioned. The article also contains large amounts of semi-promotional phrasing and weasel words. I think the review should be considered invalid, and that the article should be returned to the GAN queue.
Full disclosure: I have previously queried Vanderwaalforces on how they picked up a GA nomination from Reading Beans within seven minutes, before it appeared at WP:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Would it make sense to update Wikipedia:Good articles/By length? Maybe with readable prose size? It would be an easy way to identify some GA that have grown a lot in size since their promotion and that may require some trimming and/or re-assessment. a455bcd9 (Antoine) ( talk) 11:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Early life of L. Ron Hubbard -> Life of L. Ron Hubbard from 1911 to 1950 per a talk page discussion. Could someone please update the bookkeeping properly? Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Certain subcategories have so many members that it becomes almost impossible to parse them as a reader. I think that it might improve the usefulness of the GA listing to have these be broken up. Some ideas on how this might be done:
I bet there would be a lot of other splits we can make to make these listings more human-readable. Much above a hundred articles, the lists get very hard to parse. Generalissima ( talk) 03:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
( Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Meteorology) I have split up the large "Storm sciences, tropical cyclone seasons, and storm effects" category. This brought to light that the original subsection included items that don't seem to fit into either of those 3 titles, with the remnant grabbag now left in the Storm sciences subsection. "Meteorological observatories" (currently 6 articles) is also odd, with some of the 6 not being meteorological observatories. My current thought is to merge that into "Storm sciences", and pull the ill-fitting items into the (currently empty) general "Meteorology" subsection. CMD ( talk) 16:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Are there any problems with a COI editor nominating an article for GA? I'm talking about User:CommunityNotesContributor who nominated Community Notes. They haven't officially declared a COI, but it's pretty obvious from the user name. There's almost certainly a WP:PROMONAME problem as well, but that's another issue. RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, organization, website, product.. Fortunately I'm not representing the product here, I'm representing myself as a contributor. So I'll assume exemption for now, but maybe someone could post at WP:RFCN for clarity? CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 19:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm reviewing Talk:Doctor Who (series 2)/GA2. The nominator is OlifanofmrTennant. We were chugging along steadily, when some of the changes that the nominator made in response to my comments were evidently noticed by a third editor, Alex 21. One of the issues at hand is the reliability of a certain website, DoctorWhoNews.net. Based on my judgment and an WP:RSN thread opened by the nominator, I think it is not reliable enough for GA, and urged the nominator to remove it and replace with a more reliable source. Alex has begun giving the nominator directly contradictory advice in the review thread, on this and on a related topic. I think this is confusing and unfair to the nominator.
While Alex is certainly acting in good faith and trying to improve the article, we can't have multiple reviewers simultaneously giving contradictory advice. My understanding has always been that there is only 1 reviewer at a time, for precisely this reason. What's your advice for resolving this issue? Thanks everyone! — Ganesha811 ( talk) 13:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all for your thoughts. I'll see if we can land on consensus re: Doctor Who News. Otherwise, it's looking likely the review will fail this time around, unfortunately. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 22:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if a drive-by nomination should be removed when its review has long started, and there is considerable work done. Do we automatically stop the review or respect the effort put and allow the review to continue? Aintabli ( talk) 01:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
If the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, it can be uncontroversially considered a drive-by nomination.
I don't think there is anything to further discuss. If Keivan.f sees this and gives a thumbs up like CMD, the review will continue, so there is no need to further this discussion. Thanks, Aintabli ( talk) 07:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The point of disallowing drive-by nominations is to ensure that nominators are sufficiently familiar with the article and its sources to be able to deal with any issues brought up by the reviewer. If the nominator has that familiarity, there is no problem—in principle, it should be fine even if they have not made any contributions to the article whatsoever (though it might be difficult to demonstrate that familiarity to whoever happens to come across their nomination). So basically, what Kusma said. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe GAN eligibility criteria should not be within a footnote. The text isn't dense, so having a footnote only hides important details. Having them visible to all would be much more helpful and would prevent GF drive-by nominations. Aintabli ( talk) 06:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
uncontroversially, though. But I am okay with any decision to be made here. We can wait or change the wording. Either is fine by me. Aintabli ( talk) 15:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I would like to request for opinions regarding a recent quick fail of the article Virtual Self (EP) ( review here) by TechnoSquirrel69, which was followed by the addition of the {{ primary sources}} tag to the article. The article was quick failed because the "Background" and "Concept and inspiration" sections are almost entirely based on interviews. However, as I see it, sections like these and similar ones, such as "Development" and "Production", in works such as albums, video games and what not, will tend to be referenced to mostly, if not entirely, of interviews and primary sources, as they generally address the creator's personal feelings, motivation and what not. I've seen many GAs and even some FAs promoted with such sections being entirely, or at least a very big portion of it, composed of such sources, and I thought the high usage of interviews in such sections was widely considered acceptable. We tried to reach a consensus on the talk page of the article without success. Any opinions from uninvolved editors would be widely appreciated. Skyshifter talk 01:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
User:Vanderwaalforces left a warning [7] on User:Harukkaaario's talk page earlier today. In response, Harukkaaario instantly failed one of Vanderwaalforces' nominations with zero comment, refusing to even create the review page. I fail to see how this is anything other than overt misconduct which should be undone. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
There is also the Talk:Small set expansion hypothesis/GA1 review page that Harukkaaario opened. Rather than start a review, 11 minutes later they quick passed the nomination on the article's talk page with a GA template. The pass was reverted by Vanderwaalforces, but the effectively empty review page remains, and the bot will continue transcluding it as long as the page is there. If the review page is deleted, we can revert the talk page to the point just after the GAN, but not until the page is gone. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I think this is going to need an admin: the GA1 page linked above is basically empty; the review itself has been conducted on the article's talk page under where the GA1 page has been transcluded.
Can those portions of the talk page below the transclusion and the related edits be merged with the GA1 review page and its history? Thank you for taking care of this; I didn't want to copy the review onto the GA1 and lose the history thereby. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what to do with Talk:Portsmouth Square pedestrian bridge/GA1. The article is in okay shape - not yet GA quality, but close enough to get there in the course of a review. I left the first portion of my comments; after they sat for a week, I pinged the nominator, User:Kylelovesyou, who hadn't been active during that time, asking if they were still interested. They left a noncommital response and removed the GAN template from the article talk. Should I fail the nomination (with no prejudice to a renomination) since they're no longer interested? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 01:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Legal trouble may have been introduced during a GA review of an article I had worked on. The reviewer suggested the addition of a compatibly-licensed image from Flickr, which I then imported to Commons, but now there is a deletion request pending for that image since it might be infringing copyright regardless of the license attached to it. If the file does get deleted, since it was introduced per a suggestion on the GA review, will this invalidate the GA assessment and cause the article to be stripped of GA status? Additionally, does this require getting an admin involved to redact the revisions that link to the image (including the revision that had been GA-approved)? This is my first time getting involved in the GA process and I am unsure how to proceed, as well as how to ensure this does not jeopardize my ability to contribute to Wikipedia or Commons in the future. huntertur ( talk) 06:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi y'all! Recently @ Maury Markowitz opened a GA review for DOM clobbering. They mentioned that they were not doing a full review and raised some issues which I subsequently fixed. However, based on comments on Discord and my own understanding of recently reading the GA guidelines, there doesn't seem to be a scope/established procedure for a partial review. Given that, I'm unsure how to proceed with the nom going forward ? Sohom ( talk) 08:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The "review" at Talk:Eddie Gossage/GA1 does not appear proper. Perhaps someone who knows how to "unstart" a review could handle that one, so that it no longer shows up as under review in the list? Ljleppan ( talk) 14:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I recently failed Fyappiy for a number of reasons, one of which was over-use of lists as opposed to prose. The nom has asked me for help on this, and while I do feel an obligation to give them assistance, I'm afraid I'm coming up short on concrete suggestions for how to rewrite this in a WP:GACR compliant way. Any assistance folks could provide would be appreciated. RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there anybody willing enough to assist me with the backlog at Biology and medicine? Of the 28 articles nominated, only 5 are under review. I wish GA nominaters were more willing to review articles and help with the backlog. 20 upper ( talk) 06:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The article
Arithmetic was just promoted to GA status
after a checkbox review without any review text. After I
prompted the reviewer (
History6042), they added a few minimal comments. I was wondering whether this fulfills the GA instruction of providing an in-depth review
(see
WP:GAN/I#R3).
There was a similar issue about one month ago, see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_30#Potential_issue_with_check-the-boxes_review and Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Arithmetic/1. In that case, the review was considered to be invalid. I'll ping the editors that commented back then: @ David Eppstein, DannyMusicEditor, AirshipJungleman29, Chipmunkdavis, Jacobolus, and Sergecross73:.
Phlsph7 ( talk) 18:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Not a sock (based on technical evidence), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eluike. -- Yamla ( talk) 21:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I noted in the
#Potential issue with review of Arithmetic (again) thread directly above,, there isn't a source spotcheck, so yes, the review is invalid
. I'm embarrassed to admit that after doing 29 reviews, I wasn't aware that doing a reference spot-check was required. I generally just look at the reference list to see if I notice any that don't seem to meet
WP:RS, and look through the article text to see if there's anything that's not sourced. And I run earwig's tool to check for copyvios. If I see anything suspicious, I'll drill down, but otherwise I haven't been doing spot checks in the way
WP:GAN/I#R3 requires. To assuage my embarrassment, I looked at a dozen random historical reviews:
The two I listed first are the only ones that had any tangible evidence of a spot check having been done. So I guess I'm not alone in my ignorance? Or maybe people are doing them and just not saying anything about it?
And, yes, before I do my next review, I'll go back and re-read the instructions to see what else I've been doing wrong. RoySmith (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
This looks to me like a misreading of the source citedand at another
what in the source cited supports this?
Strangers' Hall was nominated in September by User:Willbb234, recently indef-blocked for harassing another editor. Is there some way to place the nomination on hold, in case they successfully appeal their block (as has happened before)? Or should it just be removed? — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Goodreg3: has nominated Scotland, but has then opened a review. Could someone delete Talk:Scotland/GA1 please? Mertbiol ( talk) 10:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Is there any reason why Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives is located on the old WikiProject area, and not at Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives? Other than that's where a pair of shortcuts point to. Thanks. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 14:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Killing of Wadea al-Fayoume - reviewed by M3ATH, who currently has 257 edits and had less at the time of the review.
I’m not sure what the appropriate response is here?
In general, I’m not sure if editors who are not extended-confirmed have the experience to review these articles. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Can we redirect Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment to this page ( WT:GAN) as was done last year with Wikipedia talk:Good articles? Occasionally I want to ask a GA criteria-related question, but know that it'll get a lot more views here than on WT:GAR. As Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria already redirects here, I think it makes sense to have a centralised talk page for all GA-related processes. @ WP:GAR coordinators: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Posting here to encourage participation in reassessments from more people than the regulars at the GAR page. These are older discussions where improvement is not ongoing and which could use more participation.
Any comments on the above would be useful. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This change [8] was made to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions years ago, citing this discussion [9].
It added the text below to the nominating and reviewing instructions:
Ensure all articles meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article, including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and notability.
But: the cited discussion actually came to a consensus against adding notability as a criteria to review against, and a consensus for using existing procedures for notability. The language is also confusing as WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V are already explicitly in the criteria. I'm going to propose the below language as a more clear description of norms. To be clear, I don't intend to change the process. I am looking for wording that best reflects existing practice.
If an article does not meet Wikipedia's notability policy, instead of reviewing you may nominate the article for deletion or propose merging.
More clear alternative wording ideas are of course welcome, Rjjiii ( talk) 12:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Could somebody who is more experienced in the GA process than I am please take a look at Talk:Janko Drašković/GA1. This is a review which has been dragging on for a couple of months. I tried to prod the participants into picking things up and now it's devolved into a content battle between the reviewer and the nominator. RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, anyone know what happened with this change of numbers from March last year? Special:Diff/1142554023 Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
My article Shilling (New Zealand coin) recently has been passed by a reviewer (see Talk:Shilling (New Zealand coin)/GA1. However, I think the reviewer passed it manually instead of using the GAN tool; it was miscategorised as a Media and Drama article instead of an Economics and Business article, and was not put on either section's listing of articles.
(On a side note, the "List of all Good Articles" fails to transclude a number of sections.) Generalissima ( talk) 18:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that MLS Cup 2010 was listed as a failed GAN from back in 2011, however looking at the review page, there was never an actual review. Is it possible for the review page to be deleted in this case? -- Zoo Blazer 06:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Not that I really care about being bumped from #13 to #14 in a list (solution in either case: pick up some reviews!), but am I forgetting some bit of elementary school math and/or some quirk of the ranking rules that explains why at 4:5 I'm a spot behind someone at 1:2? I perused the source code and couldn't find an obvious cause. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 19:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello again,
See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_30#Troubleshooting_review_count_mismatches and User_talk:ChristieBot#Inaccurate_GA's_reviewed_count. The short version is I performed a GA review, but wasn't credited by the bot because I didn't create the GA subpage. I have asked MikeChristie to just manually add a credit anyway, because, well, that's what actually happened. He has refused and said that I need to get a consensus that this is okay first. So... if any community members watching this page think that manually adjusting the GA reviewed count in such circumstances is acceptable, please chime in. It feels weird to do a pseudo-RFC like this, but this is apparently the standard required.
Since I suppose I need to formulate an "argument", the map is not the territory. There was no warning about needing to be the one to create the subpage at the time, and it'd be ridiculous to perversely reward creating the subpage but not the actual work. If a bug happens, just fix it. If it happens all the time, then update the documentation to make it less likely. I wouldn't have cared before, but per the GA reforms last year, the nominated-to-reveiwed ratio actually matters, and I don't particularly want to look like I'm cheating the system by nominating articles and not reviewing them. And while I'm not trying to threaten WP:DIVA-esque behavior, I will say that as a general principle, this feels absolutely shitty to have happen, and I presume would be equally awful for others. Why piss people off over what's basically a bug? It's so easily correctable that not correcting it makes it feel like a petty slight. But I don't want to make this about me personally - this is the kind of thing that should just be quietly fixed regardless. SnowFire ( talk) 23:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
|reviewer=
parameter which was briefly a part of the template before (
test case example). The instructions on incrementing at
WP:GAN/I#N4a are both technical and kind of obscure. I just recently did this wrong until RoySmith fixed it for me.
[11] I think we should either [a] re-introduce the |reviewer=
parameter for record-keeping or [b] streamline the incrementing procedure. If we take route [b] then the
GAN Review Tool used to close GAs should likely have a bullet point option for new reviewers starting a new review. Also if [b] is the community norm, then the norm should also be that abandoned reviews discussed here are incremented forward as a result of discussion.
Rjjiii (
talk) 06:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
|reviewer=
approach will work unless the parameter is also added to {{
FailedGA}} and {{
Article history}}. I suggested the latter
here and got no response, and changing Article history would definitely require both consensus and some thought about the implications (e.g. would we need a followup bot run to populate the parameter?). I also raised the question
here and got some pushback, so I think something closer to consensus would be needed before the parameter solution could be implemented. That's one reason why I proposed the simple "log it on a page and it gets picked up by the bot" as the approach. CMD, yes, I think a link to the relevant review, plus perhaps a permalink to whatever discussion happened, would work. In a case like SnowFire's I think SnowFire could just add the relevant row to the table, write whatever text they want in the explanations column, and if someone later feels the explanation is insufficient they can revert or raise a discussion here. I am a bit concerned that someone would later come along and put in +10 for themselves because they recall doing ten second-opinion reviews over the last few years but can't remember which articles they are, but if we don't mind policing that sort of thing from this page then it should work.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 11:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Per the spirit of the concerns expressed here, I have boldly closed Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident/GA1, where the reviewer withdrew before significant engagement, and reopened a new GAN at the original nomination date. This should ensure that any reviewer, who will have to perform a full review given the incompleteness of the previous one, is appropriately credited. CMD ( talk) 04:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
There was a contentious GAR at Talk:John von Neumann last year where the article writers were, in my view, able to get around 3b by arguing that an article with over 15,000 words complied with the idea of "without going into unnecessary detail" and that WP:Article size and WP:Summary style are not a firm upper bound on how long an article can be.
As a result, I'd like to propose strengthening WP:GA? criterion 3b by mandating compliance with WP:TOOBIG in addition to the link that's already there (to summary style). Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
andVon Neumann was a child prodigy who at six years old could divide two eight-digit numbers in his head[24][25] and could converse in Ancient Greek. When the six-year-old von Neumann caught his mother staring aimlessly, he asked her, "What are you calculating?"[26]
What? These are von Neumann's notable contributions to science that an encyclopedia is meant to summarise? It would be an embarrassment for a Buzzfeed 'Top 10 things you didn't known about von Neumann' claptrap, clickbait, brainrot piece; but it passes for 'focused and on topic' on Wikipedia. It took me two minutes to find a section with excise-able trivia in it, yet those editors couldn't for one and a half months ofHe was also interested in history, reading his way through Wilhelm Oncken's 46-volume world history series Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen (General History in Monographs).[29]
What is someone with such an extreme anti-intellectual point of view doing editing Wikipedia?by an administrator as? That was a targeted personal attack levied by David Eppstein against AirshipJungleman29 in that discussion. And what do you mean continue a conduct dispute? I wasn't even remotely involved in that discussion and have never edited either that talk page or that article (I think). I am outright accusing two editors of disrupting the encyclopedia based on the evidence on that talk page. However, that disruption ended two months ago. It is not feasible to start an AN/I discussion now. Had I seen such commentary at the time, I might have intervened to seek sanction then. Mr rnddude ( talk) 03:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
[a]n encyclopedia (American English) or encyclopædia (British English) is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge, either general or special, to a particular field or discipline. Mr rnddude ( talk) 03:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is considered to be a tertiary source.[i] Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Mr rnddude ( talk) 03:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I have opinions here, but I am not going to participate in a thread that Mr rnddude has so thoroughly poisoned with preemptive personal attacks, still quite visible. I will just say that the description of my behavior on that GAR is false; I contributed some significant simplifications to material in that article, in an attempt to cut its length while preserving its important content, until driven away by the toxic attitude still on display here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
[r]ather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't(emphasis as in original). This is the only emphasized content in that section. Further, the policy provides a subsection with justifications for removal. One such is the policy WP:NOT, which under WP:NOTEVERYTHING opens with:
[i]nformation should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Mr rnddude ( talk) 21:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.TompaDompa ( talk) 03:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm creating a new sub-section to make sure people see the new database report Legoktm put together that lists every good article and its prose size: Wikipedia:Database reports/Good articles by size. I imagine this will have applications beyond the above discussion, which has gotten slightly derailed by my inadvertent restarting of a content debate. (Apologies for that.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I am reviewing an article that uses miles but no kilometers. I have always been told to use {{convert|60|mi}} to show miles and kilometers for my GA. Is this mandatory for GA? I have also had a similar experience with dollar amounts from long ago, and have been told to use code similar to ({{Inflation|US|595|1982|fmt=eq}}). Is this a requirement for GA? It seems like a writer would want to put this type of stuff in their article, but I have had some resistance. TwoScars ( talk) 15:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate Wiki-Links: I run the Highlight duplicate links Tool, and it finds duplicate links. Shouldn't these be fixed for GA?
Image location: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Location, "...avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other". Shouldn't that be fixed for GA? TwoScars ( talk) 17:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a section.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia CD Selection has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Schierbecker ( talk) 03:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
As seen at Ed's Wikipedia:Database reports/Good articles by size, there are about 650-700 GA's under 500 words in length. While I know that there are certainly mixed tastes on what size meets the breadth requirements required by GAs (I personally don't feel comfortable nominating or promoting anything under 800 words), I think sub-500 words definitely falls into the lack of breadth territory.
Most of these articles are certainly high quality! But I think it's also important to note that breadth is a factor in the GA standard purely beyond quality, and I'm not sure a lot of these make it. I think it's also important to note that some topics will never have the breadth of coverage to meet GA in quality, no matter how well-written the article is.
Let's take a look at some of the shortest GAs in this range:
I'd like to reiterate that these articles are certainly high quality, and by current GA criteria standards, where "breadth" is extremely loosely defined, there is no reason to assume they don't meet it. But I think some sort of actual definition of what constitutes breadth of coverage would be very helpful. Can we really look at a few hundred words about a single athlete's performance at one Olympic games, or an obscure exoplanet, or a 20 mile Michigan state highway, and assume that any encyclopedic coverage of those topics will be able to reach the level we expect of GAs? In my opinion, these articles fall under what is described at WP:PERMASTUB.
I think that there should be a clear delineation of what constitutes the breadth of coverage and sourcing available for an article to be "GA-able" to begin with, and most importantly some sort of other signifier for short articles where all known coverage of them has been incorporated, and that the prose has been looked over for quality. We already separate out lists as FLs, so why not some sort of "Quality Stub" criteria, to recognize that not all articles can be expanded beyond their size? Generalissima ( talk) 01:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
My feeling is that trying to categorize these separately would introduce a perverse incentive, encouraging editors to pad out articles with filler to avoid this categorization and aim for a real GA. Instead, we should encourage adherence to WP:GACR 3b and reward articles whose shortness is appropriate. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Personally, any notable article can meet GA (or more specifically, WP:GACR). Point 3a is "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". If there aren't many aspects of the topic to begin with, it's impossible to force an article to address "main aspects" that don't exist (and as said above, this requirement could mean filler content being added to GANs -> fail of 3b). If the article isn't notable, then it can go through AfD or other processes and that is unrelated to the article's breadth. Skyshifter talk 02:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, I would say an article needs 1500 bytes of prose, which is what DYK mandates. Anything less than that ballpark figure is probably a likely candidate to be merged and redirected to another article. I know I was vexed about size when nominating Fender Contempo Organ for GA, but that's three times the size of the Michigan state road article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
GabrielPenn4223 has listed a number of articles for GAR, but they were not aware of the notifications step. Pinging @ WP:GAR coordinators: ; for an organized response to make sure all users and projects who need notified get notifications. Hog Farm Talk 18:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I will stop creating up GARs until I properly know what "Good Article" is. I've heard feedback from others that I was causing problems, My bad! Sorry guys! GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 03:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I've closed the first GA I did on this due to feedback from others, and I am posting this first before nominating again per request, and this is on the 2023 Sweeps list.
Anyone give me pointers for me to clearly examine other than a dead link? GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 03:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I think so, but I don't know. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 06:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I am extremely sorry for misusing the "GA" formula. I am going to stop talking about this topic. Articles have to be improved. What I did was wrong. What was I thinking in the first place? I promise I will not make new reassessments and reviews for a while. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 12:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Does the "good article" symbol which appears at the top right of some articles imply that the article is censored in a similar fashion to other articles which have a padlock in the top right-hand corner of them? Or does it not have any bearing on censorship of the article?
There is a certain confusion because the green plus symbol, if I may call it that, is in the same location as the padlock symbol which indicates censorship of the article. 220.245.249.73 ( talk) 13:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I began reviewing Pruemopterus for GA status but found that it relies almost entirely on one source. There is a second source that only covers a few sentences worth of information. I've been looking for alternative sources that could be included, the two I've found really just function as padding rather than adding something substantive. I do not think there is any explicit policy against single source GA, and WP:SPECIES states that recognized taxonomy pages are inherently notable (nor is it WP:GA's place to operate as AfD). I am just looking for clarification to see if this isn't an obscure quick-fail criteria, or if we need to pen some kind of guideline about it. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 19:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I admit that it has been a few years since I was last here to review articles, but I will say that I'm rather disoriented by the lack of organization of nominations by date. I don't recall this being a big problem in the past. I always try to do the older nominations first, but I'm having a hard time figuring out where those are. Any ways in which we can improve this, such as putting a notice to nominators or having a bot correct for improper placement? Thanks. Tea with toast (話) 05:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Good article tools § Template-protected edit request on 25 January 2024. Sohom ( talk) 09:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Just to ask, should there be another GAN backlog drive soon? Because there's over 500 articles awaiting review. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 ( talk) 03:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to check in on this: is a backlog drive still happening in February? If so, I want to give a couple of day's warning to WP:DYK as GAN drives lead to an increase in nominations there. Thanks! Z1720 ( talk) 14:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I expressed support above for a backlog drive in February. Is such an event planned anytime soon? I think it is a huge necessity, as the one in August seemed to miss a lot of the older nominations. Bneu2013 ( talk) 05:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet, Ganesha811, I have created the draft of a page for the drive, on the assumption that there is still a desire and ability to run the drive for February 2024, at Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/February 2024. ( Shushugah, I couldn't tell whether you were volunteering as a helper with the checks or as a coordinator, so I haven't specifically included you on the draft page; that's an easy fix if you wish to be a coordinator.) It's based on the August 2023 page; there were only two fewer 90+ day old unreviewed GANs vs. that August drive. As usual, I'm happy to keep the "Progress" section and "List of qualifying old articles" section up to date over the course of the month; the former is going to be trickier since the GAN Report page is being updated at 11:08 UTC rather than the traditional 01:00 UTC. If this drive isn't going forward, we should be clear about that as soon as possible, and either delete the page or rename it to March 2024. We're nearly up to 700 GANs in toto, so it would be helpful if we could do a drive soon. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I have moved the page to March 2024, and updated it to reflect that month. I've also listed it on the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives page as a Proposed drive for March 2024. Thank you for all the responses. I hope we're able to mount a drive in March; I'll update the List of qualifying old articles in late February. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
An in-depth review must be provided in all other cases [than quickfails]. This must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers, and that no copyrighted material has been added to the article from the source.(In my view, spotchecks can be evidenced through an explicit list or through reviewer comments about sourcing.)It would be worth highlighting this in backlog drives for those volunteers who have not noticed this change. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
At the moment, the sports section has, with 95, by far the greatest number of nominations, meaning that it is hard to pick out ones you find interesting. Splitting the section into football and non-football sections would make it far more equal, at (right now) 46 and 49 nominations each. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
These changes happen rarely so I have to refamiliarize myself with what's needed. Right now the following keywords on a nomination put it in the "Sports" category:
I assume we want to keep these keywords as valid? And these keywords should presumably put the nomination in the "Sports (Other)" rather than "Sports (Football)" subsections? New keywords could be:
all of which would put the nomination in the new subsection. That would mean all the existing nominations would stay in "Sports (Other)" until the nomination parameters were changed. Is there a better way to do this?
I recall that {{ GA/Subtopic}} will need to be updated. CMD, I know you have a good institutional memory for this sort of thing: is there anything else that will need tweaking? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why we have not gone with the GA subtopics of Football
and Other sports
, but instead invented different names for GAN? In the past, we have attempted to match our topic and subtopic naming for the two. Admittedly, "Other sports" is less inclusive there than here, since there are additional subdivisions at GA, but "Football" should be one-to-one.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 03:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This might have some overlap with the discussion above but I am curious as to whether we could add some sort of "other" subheader under the "Football" section. I just passed Winchester College football and it didn't seem to fit anywhere other than "Sports miscellanea" since none of the existing football sections applied to it, though that didn't seem satisfying since there is a dedicated "Football" section. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 17:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Posting here to encourage participation in reassessments from more people than the regulars at the GAR page. These are older discussions where improvement is not ongoing and which could use more participation.
Any comments would be useful. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Could another reviewer take a look at Talk:U.S. Route 101/GA1? A new user has quick-passed the article, but I would look a more comprehensive one to be performed for the sake of transparency. Sounder Bruce 06:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
its good enough for good article) and added a wrong template to the review page. There was a similar case recently involving a minimal review of Arithmetic, see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_30#Potential_issue_with_review_of_Arithmetic_(again). The conclusion in that case was that the review was invalid because it did not follow the review requirements at WP:GAN/I#R3. That would mean that the article goes back to being a GA candidate. I'll ping @ AirshipJungleman29: who also was involved in that discussion. Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
No reply from the user despite further edits, can an admin delete Talk:U.S. Route 101/GA1? CMD ( talk) 16:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, could someone please look at Talk:Grimace Shake/GA2? We want the review voided and the article put back in the queue with its old timestamp. However, my question is whether to delete the GA2 page (undesirable as it removes conversation history from view of non-admins) or to increment the tally to GA3 (undesirable as it would be the second GA review, not the third). — Bilorv ( talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, all. I recently passed Avengers assemble scene as a GA, but I am unsure where to list it at Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama, as there seem to be no similar GAs. It was nominated as a film GA so I'm inclined to put it somewhere in the film section—the closest I can find is "Film franchises, overview articles and production articles". Does anyone have any suggestions on where to list this? Thanks. Pamzeis ( talk) 10:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The article has been promoted immediately for such a popular article without minor issues? Not only that, but also this Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted/GA1. It definitely needs some attention. 2001:4455:3AA:B000:FC6F:73B8:1BD8:E9E2 ( talk) 21:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted the approvals of both Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted/GA1 and Talk:Waluigi/GA1, removed the GA listings at WP:GA, reset the article talk pages, and removed the GA icon from the article itself. The nominations were reset, retaining their original nomination dates, and are now awaiting new reviewers. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Recently, there were several checkbox GA reviews that failed the review requirements at WP:GAN/I#R3. For example, see the discussions at:
What do you think about implementing some kind of assessment system where each review gets a very short assessment by an experienced reviewer? This could take the form of having a table on a new page that is updated by a bot with the GA reviews that are passed. It could be limited to GA reviews by inexperienced editors. The table has a column for experienced reviewers to assess whether the review fulfills the basic requirements. An in-depth assessment would probably take up too much time so it might be better to just have something very basic, like checking whether a source review was done or not. The assessment would not mean that the reviewer agrees with the promotion but only that certain minimal requirements are met.
I'm not 100% sure that this is the way to go so I wanted to hear what others think. Some questions would be
The current GA instructions at
WP:GAN/I#R3 state that An in-depth review must be provided
but give very little information on what that means besides requiring a source check. It might be helpful both to new reviewers and experienced reviewers assessing their reviews to be a little more precise on what "in-depth" means.
One idea would be that, at the absolute minimum, a review should include at least one sentence for each of the six good article criteria. This sentence should not just restate the criterion but explain how the reviewer came to the conclusion that this specific article passes it. For example, when assessing the broadness criterion, the reviewer could list the main topics discussed in the article and mention that these same topics are covered in one or several of the main overview sources.
Having this type of minimal structure would push new reviewers to seriously think about every single criterion and decrease the risk that the article is just waved through because it looks good overall. It would also help experienced reviewers assess whether the new reviewer actually engaged with all the criteria. In most cases, a single sentence is not sufficient and the GA instructions should not imply that. Phlsph7 ( talk) 18:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
GA community please look straight over to this page, I will ping the GA contributors /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/The_Wiggles_Pty_Ltd/1 GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 20:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Moss was once nominated for GA status, and failed. I'd like to bring Moss up to GA status. Is the original GA nomination + discussion archived somewhere? If so, can anyone help me find it? I need to read everything that was ever written on the topic. Polytrichum commune ( talk) 16:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey everyone, could someone take a look at Talk:NAFO (group)#GA Review? The review (which is for the article NAFO (group)) was recently speedily closed but per the advice of another editor, I think the article is good enough to qualify for a renomination as-is. Feel free to see the linked discussion and thanks in advance for the help! Cheers, Dan the Animator 21:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I recently passed a GA nomination. See Talk:Stuart Memorial, Dunedin/GA1. In the process, a reasonably lengthy set of feedback and responses was recorded. As well as this review content appearing on the GA1 review page, it is also transcluded onto the article talk page. Once the review is complete, it is not clear to me that there is a need for the full content of the review to be in two places. My question is about the policy/practice. I know that Talk pages can be archived, but is it really necessary to retain the review comments on the main article talk page ? I was not able to quickly find any guidance about this point. Marshelec ( talk) 08:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Another rushed GA review by an inexperienced editor. I am still very much in support of a 500-edit minimum for reviews. Sounder Bruce 22:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've just passed a GA for a weightifter. Please could someone create a subheading for weightlifting, or let me know how to categorise the article? Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am currently reviewing the article Billy Strachan which has been nominated by The History Wizard of Cambridge. I hadn't really looked at the sourcing side of the article yet because I tend to do that towards the end of my reviews. The nominator has recently been the subject of this discussion on the administrators noticeboard about the neutrality of their editing. I have now been told that some of the main sources in the article are non-neutral. It would be helpful to have some advice on what to do here. Llewee ( talk) 11:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
@ FOARP and Thebiguglyalien: FYI,
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
As a result of a recent conversation at a FAC, I have proposed a wording change to WP:CITE. Please comment there if interested. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I found some minor close paraphrasing in Talk:William L. Keleher/GA1 (not enough to quickfail the review on its own but there were other more serious issues that led me to quickfail it). As the nominator has 45 approved GAs and multiple ongoing nominations, further attention may be warranted. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Father Keleher was born January 27, 1906, in Woburn, Massachusetts. After attending Boston College High School, he graduated from the College of the Holy Cross and entered the Society of Jesus in 1926. He was ordained a priest in June 1937. Before his appointment as president he served as assistant to the Jesuit Provincial and as director of Jesuit novices.
Keleher was born on January 27, 1906, in Woburn, Massachusetts. He studied at Boston College High School and then the College of the Holy Cross. Keleher entered the Society of Jesus in 1926. He was ordained a priest in June 1937. He then became the assistant to the Jesuit provincinal superior. On November 1, 1942, he was made the province's master of novices.
Father Keleher was later professor, administrator and trustee at Holy Cross College. He was also associated with the Jesuit retreat house in North Andover, Mass. Three brothers and a sister survive.
Keleher was a professor, administrator, and trustee at the College of the Holy Cross. He also was worked at Campion Hall, the Jesuit retreat center in North Andover, Massachusetts. ... Three brothers and one sister were alive at the time of his death.
When I first starting reviewing, I found the Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not essay by WhatamIdoing to be really helpful in teaching me how to review and how not to review. But now having nominated a few dozen good articles myself, I've found that many reviewers–probably more than half–make several of the "mistakes to avoid" in a given review. The most common is the one highlighted on that page in bright yellow. Besides the fact that this allows reviewers to enforce their personal preferences, this is one of the things that makes GA a heavier and more demanding process than it needs to be. I say it would be beneficial to make this essay more visible and to keep it more actively maintained. It might also be a good place to describe standard practice on copyediting during GA: how much is necessary, and when it's more efficient for the reviewer versus the nominator to do it. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Renaming GA to something like Wikipedia:Articles that, in the opinion of a single human, meet six specific criteria, which suggests they are probably better than most articles but you wouldn't necessarily want to call them 'good' because there is definitely room for improvement, especially since they're not required to comply with all of the policies and guidelines, some of which are obviously important might give editors a clearer idea of what the process is really supposed to achieve[1] way, way lower-reading than I'm comfortable with, and that's the GACR reading it's written from. There's probably a gap for an RGA supplementary-essay that incorporates the clear-cut-common-mistakes in GACRNOT.
References
I propose that we change WP:QF so that instead of closing the review immediately, the nominator is allowed a chance to respond before the review is closed as a failure. The sudden fail with no immediate recourse is what makes quickfails so unpleasant. As standard practice, I've begun leaving reviews open when I expect to quickfail so that the nominator can respond. I've found that nominators are generally more accepting of the review closing as unsuccessful if it's a discussion rather than an imposed decision. This also has the benefit of the nominator being able to address it more easily if the reviewer made a mistake (for example, failing on copyright grounds when it's a case of backwards copying). Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 00:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Two variables that I think I take into account when quickfailing are how well I know the nominator's work, and which criterion is the problem. I've had no hesitation in quickfailing nominations with multiple serious copyvios or multiple unreliable sources, for example, but in the unlikely event I was to run into a nomination by someone I personally knew did good work, even then I might hold off and post the issues first before failing. That probably applies to everyone who's commented so far in this section. Another way to say that is that if, say, a nomination by PMC (to pick a name at random from above) appeared to be quickfailable, I would have enough respect for their prior work to ask about it first, knowing how annoying quickfails are. There are other markers for editing ability that I use if I don't know the editor's work from my own experience: if they have tens of thousands of edits; if they have multiple GAs and/or FAs; if some of the material in the nominated article impresses me as the work of a very good editor; perhaps a couple of other things. Those could also persuade me to delay a quick fail. I think that's probably not entirely fair, but I would justify it by saying the quickfails I do are sticking to the rules, and it's up to the reviewers judgement to not go the quickfail route if they wish. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 07:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Anyone have any ideas why the bot is listing Drosera (a carnivorous plant) and Osteopathic medicine in the United States under WP:GAN#Physics and astronomy reassessments? — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Would it be possible to change the version that John Romita Sr. became a good article on from this diff to this diff? I ask because there was a mistake I had missed before the article was passed. I had tried replacing the revision id on the talk page template, but the old revision still appears on Wikipedia 1.0 Server instead. FlairTale ( talk) 12:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Fill the |oldid= parameter with the revision number for the current revision at the time of promotion.Linking to the talk page, as in your diffs above, is not useful in the slightest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Is it time to remove the (very successful) backlog drive from the tabs? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, The article Šipan doesn't seem to be added to the nomination list for Geography. I've waited for about 20 minutes and it hasn't been added. When I tried adding it manually, it got reverted. Is there a problem with the bot or is it just me? Normally, it takes just 2 minutes to put the nomination into the list. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 11:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Currently, there's only a limited set of MOS pages that GAs must adhere to: lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I'm wondering if there's any appetite for adding MOS:QUOTE to that list (or, alternately, adding a "1c" that covers use of quotes in some manner). Wikipedia articles are expected to summarize what reliable sources say, in our own words. Per the MOS, quotes should be used where necessary to illustrate points or attribute ideas. Using large quotes to assemble the bulk of an article, joined solely by connective tissue like "Alice Smith said," is not a summary, and it's not appropriate encyclopedic writing. I've recently seen a few GANs that really pushed the boundaries of what I think is acceptable use of quoting for encyclopedic writing, but there's no explicit criteria to point to except saying that I don't feel it's well-written. I think it would be valuable to add this piece of guidance to ensure that GAs are actually summaries of their sources and not simply reproducing them. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
What considerations are relevant in applying the third fair use factor—the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole?
I pasted every linked policy in the Good Article Criteria into wordcounter.net and they clock in at around 90,000 words. And that 90k is without counting the words in the hundred or so essays and policies linked from those pages. Hamlet, Shakespeare's longest play, doesn't even get to 30k." I believe that the longer the instructions are, the less likely people are to read them. Rjjiii( talk) 04:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
If the quotation is sufficiently bad that it shouldn't be in a ga I think the reviewer can and should object under copyright or NPOV considerations. Adding to the GA criteria is not necessary in this case. ( t · c) buidhe 19:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious we need to minimise the use of these, and don't need an additional entry in the criteria. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I've been reviewing Lucy Parsons (review here). A large majority of issues I raised have been fixed, and the article is close to GA status in my view. However, some points remain, and the nominator and I are in disagreement over them. I believe I have raised issues of clarity, breadth, or neutrality; the nominator sees them as style issues. They include, in particular, the use of the term Negro, which I consider inappropriate. I would appreciate a second opinion. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the above discussion on the procedural issues, and on the specific point I flagged (no, really, I do): but I still would like a 2O on the other issues on which the nominator and I differ. There aren't too many; is anyone willing? Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I am here to write and improve articles. I think when a GA review is done well it should help with that process, as nominator I haven't found Vanamonde's reviewing technique particularly helpful with Lucy Parsons, which I nominated for GA after rewriting. It was picked up for review end of August and now, three weeks later, the end is nowhere in sight. I think it best to withdraw the nomination and move it to peer review to get more opinions. Normally I'd of course be fine with people editing the article, but for a GA reviewer to introduce changes I clearly disagree with just seems rude. As I've already commented at the review, there is more than one way to write an article and a nominator should not have to make stylistic changes based on a rationale of IDONTLIKEIT. It seems to me these very issues have been recently discussed in "What the good article criteria are not", particularly as regards to Hawkeye's comment about History of penicillin.
Moving on, I would recommend Vanamonde focuses on clear communication over what is and what isn't a GA pass/fail requirement. To take one issue, namely the usage of the term "negro", which they here refer to by saying "They include, in particular, the use of the term Negro, which I consider inappropriate" .. this started with Vanamonde questioning it's use by saying "I wonder at your use of "Negro" - I replied with a rationale, namely "I'd say I'm following the sources here and I'm happy to change. I'm not really sure what the MOS guidance is here and I'm not familiar with US custom, what would you suggest to use instead?". There wasn't discussion, instead Vanamonde doubled down, eventually saying "The use of the word "Negro" is more than a stylistic matter, if you wish to keep using this term, please justify it" (this seems to be their general interaction dynamic, to demand a justification then ignore it). As someone said above, perhaps Vanamonde should stick to their guns and they are giving their labour for free, but then why can nobody in the discussion give me a clear response based on MOS guidelines? Sure, it seems that at least a few US-based wikipedians find the term distasteful and I have no wish to offend (indeed the only use now remaining in the article is within a title of a work written by Parsons) but I'd like to have my rationale for inclusion engaged with before making any changes. Last time I checked I'm not getting paid for this either. Mujinga ( talk) 12:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
"pretty baffled as to what the reviewer wants from me before finding it GA quality - after a FA level check on only two of the criteria"really? The outstanding concerns are evident any reader, and cover four of the six criteria; the other two are not highlighted because they aren't of concern. You can rest easy: I will not be reviewing your nominations again. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
We're a couple weeks out from the drive now, so finally the opportunity to take a breath and write up a debrief.
First things first: this was astonishingly successful. We went from 638 to 198 unreviewed, a 69% decrease. I can't think of a single comparable drive. The last few drives mostly run around 50-60%; January 2022 was considered abnormally good at 64.3%, and started at a far lower total. We also didn't go a single day without an absolute decrease, again without precedent. Over a fortnight out, we're holding in the 200s for unreviewed and barely higher than we closed for total. At go time, there were 14 drive-eligible articles that had been waiting more than nine months for a review and another 65 that had been waiting for more than six months; we eradicated both categories. The average age of a nominated article went from ~90 days to ~30 days.
Our baseline situation was one of the most dire in GAN history. I was cautiously tongue-in-cheek hopeful we would get below June 2022's low of 357, because that was the last markedly-less-successful drive and we were starting well above it. I didn't expect sub-300; I emphatically did not anticipate sub-200. I did not expect we'd clear out several hundred 90-day nominations to the point we'd need to give bonuses to 60-days. I also expected more drama or dispute than actually happened, especially given the known drive-quickfail association. Instead, the worst you can say is we flooded DYK. (Sorry, guys.)
So, from a what-worked what-didn't perspective: clearly, quite a lot worked!
One thing that occured to me during the drive is that while many talk about drives as suboptimal "bandaid solutions", they seem more like a part of GAN's functioning than anything else. WT:GAN prior to the drive spent a fair while in hyperactive doom-and-gloom, which quieted down very quick once we got things up and running -- turns out even the state of crisis that was the first half of 2023 can be mitigated. We have a natural experiment with the late 2010s, where in the absence of the dramatics that triggered 2023-weirdness, no drives ran between late 2016 and late 2019. The result was an absolutely dire backlog, with reports of people in 2019 waiting over a year for reviews. People have dedicated their careers to researching how gamification solves such problems; we may do well to take their advice.
Having a generous scoring system, with sufficient checks-and-balances to maintain quality, also seems particularly worth calling out. Drives that have failed tend to be ones where expectations were far higher than made clear or rewards much lower than the amount of work. Being able to clearly reward people for their work, while simultaneously taking care to screen out things more likely to be problematic, allows for both high activity and the maintenance of standards.
I anticipate running another drive in...hopefully November. October is too close, December and really January are right out, February short, and I'm not pushing this into March. The project also tends to see a slowdown around December for the holidays, so it'd be good to get things sorted before then to avoid backlog panic. I wasn't totally sure about November given it's a holiday in a major enwiki market, but I checked the stats on GOCE drives (which run every other month, including every November) and their Nov drives consistently post good numbers, so it seems workable.
Thanks again, so much, to everyone, for all they've done. Golden, Buidhe, thanks so much for stepping up to coord. Reviewers -- this is your work. Every one of you was an integral part of this. Vaticidal prophet 19:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Removing the checklist seems to have been a good idea, as we ended up with very few disqualified checklist reviews.Briefly before the drive, the preload was changed away from a checklist. [3] The goal of having preloaded instructions was to aid new reviewers, but I have not seen a clear way to evaluate how many editors are doing first-time reviews. Regards, Rjjiii( talk) 17:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
As a reviewer of proposed GAs, I very much enjoyed this backlog drive, although I did come across quite a lot of close paraphrasing. Interesting to read the comments above about gamification, sure that plays a part for me but my main inspiration is the happy feeling of collaborating together with nominators and other reviewers to improve articles. So any way to build on that would encourage me to review more - there was certainly a fertile area of interaction with Women in Green.
As a nominator of GAs, I was slightly frustrated that for almost all of the drive I had four open noms. I haven't followed the ratio debate that closely, still I would have thought if I have around 80 reviews and 40 GAs then I would have a decent enough ratio. As I'll say when replying to the previous section later, I am primarily here to write and improve articles, not collect stars (although yes I do list achievements on my userpage since I am also proud of my attempts to counter systemic bias). From that perspective of article improvement, Villa Road had a nice review. Two reviews came in late at the end of the month: Hellé Nice was very quick and I had to check with BritneyErotica that they had made all the necessary checks - and they confirmed they had, which was great; Lucy Parsons is still open and I am pretty baffled as to what the reviewer wants from me before finding it GA quality - after a FA level check on only two of the criteria. So GA reviews are still a bit of a lottery but overall I enjoyed the backlog drive from both perspectives (and definitely reviewing improves my writing as well).
I'm unbothered as to when we should do it all again, primarily because my IRL schedule is currently all over the place - should we just trigger it when nominations pass a certain number or is that too random? There wouldn't be much buildup .. or perhaps there would be since we would see the number approaching - possibly another role which a co-ordinator could do. Mujinga ( talk) 12:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I have been editing Ellery Queen and would love some second thoughts on it. Obviously, a lot of work needs to be done before it meets the GA criteria but I am determined to do it. The lead is especially difficult to write as the article refers to both a pseudonym and a fictional character and the pseudonym itself was created by two individuals who were much better known under their aliases before being used by other people. Jack234567 ( talk) 05:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
In addition to the fiction featuring their eponymous brilliant amateur detective, the two men" down to just "They". Good luck! Rjjiii( talk) 07:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm considering reviewing Ldm1954's Electron diffraction (I haven't yet decided if I can commit the time). I've got a question about the list incorporation aspect of WP:GACR. Under Electron diffraction#Further developments, there's a long bullet list that I'm not sure how to evaluate (and another example under "Dynamical diffraction"). I think it's fine per the "Children" part of MOS:EMBED, but seeking additional insight before I make up my mind to take this on or not. RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose.Generally, a list of information like this just means that the prose description hasn't been written yet and still needs to be done. It looks similar to the type of list that I would create as an outline before I actually write an article. I also discourage things like "further developments" in general because it's essentially a "miscellaneous information" or otherwise unsorted section. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I think criterion 3b "focused on the topic" should point to WP:COATRACK and not WP:SIZE. To my mind, an article can be quite short but still unfocused, which is the issue that WP:COATRACK addresses. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
How much words are needed for an article to become a good article? I saw in the August 2023 backlog drive that people accepting articles under 800 points wouldn't get any points and it was listed as an incorrect acceptance. So is 800 words the minimum? 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Good article nominations:
WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long
Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!
Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 22:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)From my review of the talk page archives, it appears there has never been a true discussion here about whether MOS:ACCESS (or parts thereof) should be incorporated into GACR. The last major discussions related to alt text for images at FACR, and occurred over a decade ago. ( The consensus appears to be that since MOS:ACCESS is in the MOS, an alt attribute is required under FACR.) Since then, WCAG guidelines have been adopted by the ISO, ETSI, and the US Access Board, amongst other national and international entities. Good articles must meet "a core set of editorial standards". Accessibility should be included in that set; otherwise, we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia's disabled readers. At the very least, we should ensure that images in good articles include an alt attribute and alt text as necessary. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 16:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang}}
templates are easily added and helpful. —
Kusma (
talk) 16:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
alt text – for visually impaired readers – should be added to informative (but not purely decorative) images", Rjjiii ( talk) 03:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Strongest possible support Accessibility is not optional and if someone can't be bothered to add table captions and alt text, we should not be promoting this work as good. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 11:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Even if we do go the route of adding this to the criteria, we shouldn't be overly rigid on this. For instance, I'm yet to see a single bit of good guidance on how to adequately handle something like File:Vicksburg Campaign April-July 1863.pdf in alt text, and an overly rigid application of this is going to see a spate of GARs and quick-fails simply over things like handling a very complex map in alt text. Hog Farm Talk 23:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the heading is entirely facetious. But what other conclusion am I supposed to come to after a "discussion" like this occurs? When I submitted it to GAR, I did so because I believed it was a clear cut case of delisting. And then it turned into multiple personal attacks directed at my intelligence and my intentions, as well as those of other editors who believe that the article does not meet the GA criteria. Why should any editor volunteer to use GAR at all if this is a possible outcome? Right now, it's in my personal interest to turn a blind eye toward bad GAs rather than helping out in a thankless clean up job. How do we fix this? Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I requested the close as the rate dried up and I don't read in the discussion a general resolve to address the issue.": Have you been looking at the article history? Because to me this looks a comment that only addresses the GAR discussion. Article improvement has been ongoing and significant but the GAR discussion has almost entirely focused on the pre-improvement state of the article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I want to nominate Israeli settlement.
What category is best--- Politics & Government or Geography? or some other?
I know this is a difficult topic, but I think that's all the more reason for the community to put in the work to make it officially a "good" information source. any other related feedback welcome.
thanks, skak E L 17:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad of Ghor is listed as a GA nominee for "World history," but it should be in "Royalty, nobility and heraldry". Can I just change the GAN template on its talk page, or is there a different procedure for this? Aintabli ( talk) 19:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Having removed a bunch of drive-by nominations since the rule was implemented, I think the process would run a lot more smoothly if there was a boilerplate text that we've agreed on to leave on the user's talk page. I wrote up a rough draft of a standardized notice template:
I noticed that you recently nominated [an article] for
good article status, but you have not significantly contributed to the article. It is important that nominators are familiar with the article's content and sources, because there are usually questions about them during the good article review process. The article's nomination has been removed. If you have any questions about the good article process, or if you believe this was done in error, you can seek assistance at
the good articles talk page.
Regardless of whether it's made into an actual notice template or if it's just a general idea of what we should be saying, it would save the trouble of trying to figure out how to word the message each time. The most important thing is finding a wording that's non-bitey. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 22:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I've used the phrasing
Hi! I noticed that you nominated the article Example article for WP:Good article status. You do not appear to have edited the article prior to this, and there is no discussion about nominating the article on its talk page. It used to be the case that anybody could nominate an article, but it was decided back in January to only allow editors who have significantly contributed to the article to nominate it (see Wikipedia talk:Good Article proposal drive 2023#Proposal 11: Ban drive-by nominations for the discussion that led to this change and Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions for further details). I have consequently removed the nomination for now. Consider discussing whether the article is ready to be nominated with the article's principal editors on the talk page.
when I've come across this situation. "January" could be replaced with "January 2023" or plain "2023" as time goes on. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you nominated the article Example article for WP:Good article status. You do not appear to have edited the article prior to this, and there is no discussion about nominating the article on its talk page. It used to be the case that anybody could nominate an article, but it was decided back in January to only allow editors who have significantly contributed to the article to nominate it (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions). I have consequently removed the nomination for now. Consider discussing whether the article is ready to be nominated with the article's principal editors on the talk page.
{{{article|1}}}
to {{{article|{{{1}}}
}}}
so that:Courtesy link: WT:Template index/User talk namespace § Uw-ga-driveby
I've made a few changes resulting from this overlapping discussion and follow-up to it:
Mathglot ( talk) 19:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
You do not appear to have edited the article prior to thisto
You do not appear to have made significant edits to the article prior to this, since we want to cover not merely people who have never edited the article, but also those who have edited it but only in minor ways. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I've added the above template to the user warnings page. [4] Should it also be linked from the instructions? Perhaps in this footnote:
− | If the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, it can be uncontroversially considered a drive-by nomination. | + | If the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, it can be uncontroversially considered a drive-by nomination. You can [[Template:Uw-ga-driveby|notify the nominator]] on their talk page. |
Feedback welcome, Rjjiii ( talk) 18:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
There is an article which I improved from a previous account of mine. Am I allowed to nominate it from my current account? Moazfargal ( talk) 10:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm thinking of getting SoHo Weekly News in shape for GA. Before I do that, I'd like some input on how people feel about the Alumni section vis-a-via MOS:EMBED. I personally think it's fine, but if there's going to be pushback, I'd rather know about it before I nominate. RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Mike Christie asked me to bring this up here for visibility. Since the GAs reviewed count now somewhat "matters" in that it decides the sort order and is prominently displayed along with the GA count... do we have any special guidance on what to do for mismatches between who created a GA subpage and GA review credits? Currently, by default, the bot will credit whoever creates the GA subpage immediately, but maybe there will be wacky cases where a reviewer leaves halfway through, or never starts the review but the review doesn't get a pro-forma close + new review.
My inclination is just that if any explicit thumbs-up is required, the bot maintainer (Mike Christie for now) is empowered to have some admin script that +1s an editor's GA review count. It used to be anybody could edit the User:GA bot/Stats page, but now the "real" data is stored in an inaccessible database and any on-wiki edits will just get reverted and overriden, so it's made whoever maintains the DB part of the core flow. If something weird happens and there should be multiple credits for a review or the wrong editor was credited, whatever, just increment the count and move on. In the unlikely case of an editor repeatedly pestering for extra credits and wasting Mike Christie's time, bring it here to WT:GAN to determine if this was just the unluckiest editor ever or if something fishy is going on. SnowFire ( talk) 23:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The reviewer has asked to be replaced, but I don't know the process to handle that. Could somebody please see Talk:Gasparilla Pirate Festival/GA1#Status? and perform the required magic? RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering whether Prime Minister of Albania counts as a list or an article. Lists of course can't be good articles and a majority of Prime Minister of Albania is taken up by the list of prime ministers, but there is also a large portion which consists of prose, which gives it the possibility of being considered an article. I would like to know the thoughts of others. Steelkamp ( talk) 05:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Would anyone oppose or support adding the below text to link the user talk template for drive-by nominations to the end of footnote [a] on Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions:
You can
notify the nominator on their talk page.
I proposed this before but sidetracked the discussion. [6] Rjjiii ( talk) 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
ChristieBot has been down for the last 15 hours; I was just alerted to the problem by a post on the bot's talk page and have fixed it. I *think* it will catch up with everything correctly since it runs from categories, but if anyone sees something that looks like a bot error or omission, please let me know. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, if you watch this page you know it's a common occurrence for editors to post notes on a nomination on the GAN page, unaware that it will be overwritten by the bot. Over the last years I must have left dozens of messages on users' talk pages letting them know why this won't achieve what they are trying to do and telling them how to edit the GAN template on the article talk page. Besides confusing newer editors and leading to disappearing notes/co-noms, this issue also causes watchlist clutter. I was thinking it would be easy to fix by template-protecting the page and giving edit privileges to ChristieBot and any other bots that need to edit the page. Mike Christie suggested bringing this issue for discussion here in case there is any difficulty I am overlooking. ( t · c) buidhe 01:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be getting close to a consensus. I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Template_editor for ChristieBot to get the template editor permission if there are no objections here over the next couple of days. I'll post a note here when I do so in case there are any questions there. Once that's done any of the admins in this discussion can change the GAN page. I don't believe any code changes to ChristieBot will be needed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Eurohunter currently has fifteen reviews open, all of which were opened during the August GAN backlog drive. Of these, one has been awaiting a second opinion for over eight weeks ( Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA1), one received a brief comment from them in late September ( Talk:Kwyet Kinks/GA1) but a request in response to complete the review one way or the other has been ignored, and the rest haven't been touched since sometime in August despite Eurohunter being pinged on their talk page. It could be that they burned out before the end of the backlog drive; it has happened to a number of participants in the past. One way or another, the reviews need attention.
Two of these review pages were opened but no review ever posted; I have requested a G6 speedy deletion for them both, since it has been eight weeks without action for both noms, and Eurohunter has another dozen reviews that clearly have a higher priority. It would be great if an admin could delete the two review pages— Talk:Mis Mejores Canciones – 17 Super Éxitos/GA1 and Talk:16 Super Exitos Originales/GA1—so these can go back into the pool of unreviewed nominations, where they would be the eighth- and ninth-oldest nominations awaiting review.
Even with those two deleted, there are still thirteen open reviews. The other eleven not yet mentioned are:
Some of these may be awaiting nominator action, in which case the nominator should be contacted on their talk page (unless they post here) and if they aren't prepared to address the issues in a timely fashion—they've had as much as a couple of months already—the reviews should probably be closed by someone here. Thanks to anyone who can help move these along in some fashion. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I need assistance with handling cases of reviewer's revenge. During the article review process, I requested certain edits from the nominating editor and placed the review on hold at Talk:Mammalian_kidney/GA1.
However, it seems that the reviewer went through my contributions and discovered that I had nominated an article for GA status on Russian Wikipedia. It is worth noting that this happened only after I provided my opinion on the Mammalian_kidney article. Then the nominating editor enrolled as a reviewer and expressed opposition to granting GA status to my article at ru:Википедия:Кандидаты_в_хорошие_статьи/16_ноября_2023#Против_(Обходной_путь_биосинтеза_андрогенов)
Please advise on how to handle these situations effectively in order to prevent such objectionable behavior in the future.
I would not have taken on the role of reviewing this editor's work if I had known that retaliatory actions would ensue. Unless this situation is clarified and resolved appropriately, future reviewers may also face similar retaliatory actions.
Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 09:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, can someone remove the nomination for Misti? I was too quick, the article needs some work still. JoJo Eumerus mobile ( main talk) 17:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to close Talk:Cross-site leaks/GA2. When I go to the (absurdly long) "Topic, subtopic, and sub-subtopic" menu, there's no "Computing and engineering" item. Digging into the HTML, I find:
<option value="Engineering and technology" disabled="">===Computing and engineering===</option>
Why is this disabled? RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
===Computing and engineering===
, it would allow inserting articles
here. That doesn't seem like a good spot to insert articles. I think we're instead supposed to choose a heading farther down. So I am leaning towards keeping ===Computing and engineering===
disabled. Does that seem reasonable? I also notice
you manually added this article to the similar-sounding =====Engineering technology=====
, which is an option farther down in the drop-down list and is not disabled. So hopefully this is all resolved? :) –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 08:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
{{GA nominee|...|subtopic=Geography...}}
Let me propose an idea of GA apprenticeship, where all editors are by default considered "GA reviewer apprentices". They can do reviews, but their verdict is not binding until approved by any "GA master", a status received by an editor with N reviews (similar to the Extended autoconfirmed status received by K number of edits). GA masters may supervise apprentices or may not, but they guide the process and should review the quality of the review process made by the apprentice, all communication, arguments and the verdict. After an apprentice made N/2 edits, such apprentices' verdicts are binding, but a nominated editor has a simplified appeal procedure whereas any master can review and uphold or change the apprentices' verdict in a lightway procedure. After an apprentice does N reviews (of which N/2 must be approved by a master0 and becomes master, such review verdicts cannot be appealed by the simplified procedure, and the contestation should be done as it is done now.
This process will attract the new editors to the review process because they would feel safe under guidance and would not fear to do anything bad. Also, it will make review process fair and will also not frighten new reviewers who may be subject of attacks by the editors who disagree. The master will guide the apprentice on how to withstand such attacks. It may add extra work to the masters, but this will pay up by the bigger number of reviewers that such system may potentially bring. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 06:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this review could needs some eyes, zero issues at the article??? 2001:4455:663:D600:3DB4:2299:F74E:C668 ( talk) 20:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, we have difficulty on understanding and disagreement p. 1b of the GA criteria. See discussion at Talk:XXXYY_syndrome#Conclusion
As a second reviewer, I believe that the article does not meet the criteria because it lacks proper layout guidelines. Certain sections were missing from the article without any justification provided by the author. In my opinion, these sections are essential for that particular article to be considered GA unless a solid justification is provided on why these sections are not needed; they cannot be just silently ommitted. However, the first reviewer argued that I cannot insist on including specific sections in order for an article to be considered GA. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 09:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
there are other definitions that take into account other factors such as hormonal balance, reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics...by which definition, it's a male SCA. It's not a condition that causes people to have DSDed reproductive organs or secondary sex characteristics -- none of the SCAs are. Some sex chromosome disorders are, but that's not the normal phenotype for any of the polysomy SCAs. (This is why I never worked on the male X-polysomy articles, despite the constant begging amongst XXY support groups for literally any information about those disorders that isn't deeply stigmatizing and several decades out of date.) Vaticidal prophet 22:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
[c]onsidering the low prevalence of XXXYY syndrome, what factors should be taken into account when deciding whether to include it in routine newborn screenings? Others are beyond the scope of this specific article, such as:
[w]hat other genetic conditions or abnormalities are typically included in newborn screening programs? You've also now twice repeated the concern that the article excludes material
that I consider important. The nominator is de-facto justified to ignore such concerns (though this isn't what happened as demonstrated by PMC). Wikipedia is explicitly disinterested in what any editor believes should be there. That's the basis of WP:V. Articles cover the subject matter as discussed within RS (in this case MEDRS) directly related to the topic. If you've identified material contained within MEDRS that is missing from the article, that is worth discussing. Otherwise, the generalized concern behind 'why does x section not exist?' can be addressed with 'because it isn't discussed in the relevant literature'. Mr rnddude ( talk) 01:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Few adults with the disorder have been reported, and there are no reports of people diagnosed prenatally who survived to birth. This lack of prognosis information is common in sex chromosome tetrasomy and pentasomy; though longitudal studies exist for the sex chromosome trisomies, higher-level aneuploidies are far rarer and information more sparseand
These assumptions were later disproven by longitudinal studies of people diagnosed at birth with sex chromosome trisomies, which found people with 47,XXY, 47,XXX, and 47,XYY karyotypes blended into the general population and had little unusual propensity for criminality. Despite these advances regarding sex chromosome trisomies, the tetrasomy and pentasomy variants remain understudied. Due to their extreme rarity, none were detected in these cohort studies, and no unbiased information exists on their long-term prognosis). This is the fourth article on a tetra/penta SCA I've nominated at GAN, and the rarest disorder of the bunch; the amount written here is generally representative of these articles and the sourcing that exists for them. Vaticidal prophet 02:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I think we've moved past the point of useful discussion above. It is crystal clear that the article's first reviewer is demanding original research from the nominator. I think the nominator is wise to decline. Vaticidalprophet, would you like to renominate and ask for a new reviewer? I would be happy to create the review page and add a note pointing to this discussion, explicitly asking the new reviewer to disregard the quickfail criterion about addressing issues from a prior review. Is this option ok with VP, and would anyone else oppose it? Is there a better next step? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 17:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)I understand your drive to have as many GAs as possibleI'd appreciate if you struck that. I do not have a drive to "collect GAs" -- I have a drive to write high-quality articles. The article suite does consistently define things such as how these disorders originate, and will do so regardless of how it's long-term organized. I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by saying it doesn't -- are you only looking at section headers? This is the question I had before about "what do you mean by it not discussing newborn screening and prenatal diagnosis" -- it does! Vaticidal prophet 22:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Just at the end here...it seems something about how the GAN was passed (never technically being reopened) resulted in the bot not processing it properly, such that it e.g. was never given a GA icon. Would just manually adding the GA icon be enough for e.g. it to be properly read and categorized as a GA? Vaticidal prophet 00:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I retracted as a reviewer and copied the GA review discussion to the page talk. Still, a new reviewer should get a non-existing GA page Talk:Mammalian kidney/GA1, but I cannot delete it. Can an administrator please mark this page as deleted, preserving history, so the new reviewer will start the review from scratch? Emptying the page didn't because a potential new reviewer would not find a page pre-filled with the required templates when clicking on the review link. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 17:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Closed per request on my user talk
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 14:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
== Clarifying the process of retracting the reviewer and returning the nominated article to backlog == I propose to update slightly the instruction, without altering the meaning, but to improve clarity, so that the process of retracting the reviewer and returning the nominated article to backlog will be easier to understand. 1. Update slightly the wording in Step 4a to emphasize that this action return article to backlog; 2. Adding section 4b or a separate item somewhere else with explicit purpose "What to do if I need to retract as a reviewer" (to be able to find easier). A possible proposed version is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions&oldid=1186395619 Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 12:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Check out Talk:Eileen Niedfield/GA1. On top of everything else they've done, they took on this review. They found some missing dates and decided to fix it themselves, sourced to ancestry.com, which is such a well-known non-RS it's got it's own shortcut: WP:ANCESTRY. This guy is a menace. Either he's trolling us or this is the worst case of WP:CIR I've seen in a long time. Either way, he can't be allowed to continue to wreak havok on GA. I'm way too WP:INVOLVED so I can't block them. Could some non-involved admin please deal with this? RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
In Talk:Guillermo Torrez/GA1#General comments, I objected to the way multiple sources were lumped together in a single citation, but I'm not sure my objection is justified. Could somebody who knows better please comment directly on the review page please? RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
How do I notify the nominator that I have begun reviewing their article, or is it done automatically? —M3ATH ( Moazfargal · Talk) 20:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
For Raymond Flynn and Mario Choque (and maybe some others?) the short description is duplicated: "American politician (born 1939)American politician (born 1939)" and "Bolivian politician (born 1954)Bolivian politician (born 1954)" respectively. a455bcd9 (Antoine) ( talk) 09:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
If I WP:G6 a review under WP:GAN/I#N4a, I assume I should leave the page= attribute of the {{ GA nominee}} template unincremented, yes? RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I saw History of transgender people in Brazil was nominated for GA. I've been looking to learn GAN reviewing, and thought that could be a good one to do, as I got my first GA on a similar article. However, it's written by a WikiFriend of mine. Is it considered bad form to review nominations from friends? -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 22:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you please help me understand the concerns of the reviewer User:BeingObjective on two of my failed GA nominations:
The reviewer mentioned that articles did not meet certain GA criteria without any particular hint on how the articles could be improved so they for sure pass GA on renomination.
I asked the reviewer for help in understanding on how can I improve the articles.
The reviewer provided a reply at Talk:Ketotifen/GA1 that I could not understand. Can you please help and give me guidance? The reviewer also indicated that the articles fail but did not formally conclude the review, so the status of those reviews are still in progress.
Please help me understand the reviewer's concerns. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 22:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Iztwoz, @ D6194c-1cc, can you please help? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 16:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I am unable to disclose this review of Talk:Walter Tull/GA1, is there anyone available or would like to take over and review it? JC Kotisow ( talk) 02:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good article nominations has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
185.69.6.18 ( talk) 07:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
See Talk:Arithmetic/GA1 (recent checkbox review by User:ThatChemist25), discussion on User talk:ThatChemist25#GA review of Arithmetic by nominator User:Phlsph7, and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Arithmetic/1 (initiated by User:DannyMusicEditor). I'm not sure an immediate GAR is the right process for handling checkbox reviews; shouldn't we just void the review and return the article to the nomination queue? (Potential COI: I am the nominator of another article that ThatChemist25 has promised to review but has not yet reviewed, Talk:Erdős–Anning theorem/GA1. I know a checkbox review is not what I want to get out of this process and I expect Phlsph7 feels similarly.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
An in-depth review must be performed in all other caseswith
An in-depth review must be provided in all other cases? This would close the backdoor to reviewers who retroactively claim that they indeed performed an in-depth review but just didn't write it down. Phlsph7 ( talk) 09:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Update: Situation now resolved. Reviewer has been blocked as a sockpuppet and the bad reviews speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Both articles should be back on the queue where they belong. I restored the review-number count of the arithmetic nomination back to 1 to avoid the issue of eventually having a review 2 with no review 1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
How to find out if there is copyvio in an article. Is there a bot or tool that does that? Also, how can I check if an image used is appropriately licensed and/or has a fair use rationale.
I need this information for my first review: Killing of Wadea al-Fayoume. Since that is my first review, can I request a more experienced reviewer to chip in with their thoughts on the review page?
—M3ATH ( Moazfargal · Talk) 17:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The article for a recent WP:DYK hook I reviewed has now been nominated for GA. DYK rules prevent users from reviewing hooks for articles they also reviewed for GA. Before proceeding, I wanted to make sure there wasn't a similar rule the other way around here on GA. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 10:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I just got my account renamed from Moazfargal to M3ATH. Prior to the rename, I had reviewed one article and had two nominations (still unreviewed). However, now when checking on the GAN page I find that my nominations have been pushed to the bottom of the list (they were the first noms in Places and Politics and government) and my number of GAs and reviews also got messed up. Is this a bot issue? P.S. the nominations in question are Jenin refugee camp and Mohammed Deif. — M3ATH ( See · Say) 22:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
In case participants here might not have seen it yet: there is a long discussion of editor FuzzyMagma and alleged close paraphrasing of translated sources ongoing at WT:DYK#september 1983 laws (where it started), WP:CCI#FuzzyMagma, and WP:ANI#User:FuzzyMagma and close paraphrasing. This affects several current unreviewed GA nominees: Mafeje affair, September 1983 Laws, 1976 Sudanese coup attempt, BlueforSudan, Marianne Bachmeier, Satti Majid, Ukuthwasa, Makwerekwere, Khalwa (school), Bona Malwal, Archie Mafeje, and Child abuse in association football; for the relevant GA criteria see WP:GAFAIL #2 and WP:GACR #2d. As well, the bot counts 8 already-passed GAs by FuzzyMagma which might need re-review with an eye to paraphrasing from foreign-language sources. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I have concerns about this very recent promotion of November 2023 (nominator Vanderwaalforces, reviewer Reading Beans). The GA review did not follow the instructions, which require "an in-depth review to be provided", together with a source-spotcheck to ensure text-source integrity. The review was not in-depth, and a spotcheck was not carried out.
This is bad news, as a quick look shows that some information is not verified by the source. See for example the final paragraph: Eweka Osagie Osifo is an author who has made substantial contributions to Edo literature through his novels, short stories, and essays. Works such as Tales of a Village Schoolmaster and Echoes from Eden (1998) offer insightful glimpses into Edo's way of life, tradition, and societal issues. This is cited to Usuanlele & Agbontaen 2000, but a quick look at the source shows that Osifo is not even mentioned. The article also contains large amounts of semi-promotional phrasing and weasel words. I think the review should be considered invalid, and that the article should be returned to the GAN queue.
Full disclosure: I have previously queried Vanderwaalforces on how they picked up a GA nomination from Reading Beans within seven minutes, before it appeared at WP:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Would it make sense to update Wikipedia:Good articles/By length? Maybe with readable prose size? It would be an easy way to identify some GA that have grown a lot in size since their promotion and that may require some trimming and/or re-assessment. a455bcd9 (Antoine) ( talk) 11:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Early life of L. Ron Hubbard -> Life of L. Ron Hubbard from 1911 to 1950 per a talk page discussion. Could someone please update the bookkeeping properly? Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Certain subcategories have so many members that it becomes almost impossible to parse them as a reader. I think that it might improve the usefulness of the GA listing to have these be broken up. Some ideas on how this might be done:
I bet there would be a lot of other splits we can make to make these listings more human-readable. Much above a hundred articles, the lists get very hard to parse. Generalissima ( talk) 03:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
( Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Meteorology) I have split up the large "Storm sciences, tropical cyclone seasons, and storm effects" category. This brought to light that the original subsection included items that don't seem to fit into either of those 3 titles, with the remnant grabbag now left in the Storm sciences subsection. "Meteorological observatories" (currently 6 articles) is also odd, with some of the 6 not being meteorological observatories. My current thought is to merge that into "Storm sciences", and pull the ill-fitting items into the (currently empty) general "Meteorology" subsection. CMD ( talk) 16:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Are there any problems with a COI editor nominating an article for GA? I'm talking about User:CommunityNotesContributor who nominated Community Notes. They haven't officially declared a COI, but it's pretty obvious from the user name. There's almost certainly a WP:PROMONAME problem as well, but that's another issue. RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, organization, website, product.. Fortunately I'm not representing the product here, I'm representing myself as a contributor. So I'll assume exemption for now, but maybe someone could post at WP:RFCN for clarity? CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 19:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm reviewing Talk:Doctor Who (series 2)/GA2. The nominator is OlifanofmrTennant. We were chugging along steadily, when some of the changes that the nominator made in response to my comments were evidently noticed by a third editor, Alex 21. One of the issues at hand is the reliability of a certain website, DoctorWhoNews.net. Based on my judgment and an WP:RSN thread opened by the nominator, I think it is not reliable enough for GA, and urged the nominator to remove it and replace with a more reliable source. Alex has begun giving the nominator directly contradictory advice in the review thread, on this and on a related topic. I think this is confusing and unfair to the nominator.
While Alex is certainly acting in good faith and trying to improve the article, we can't have multiple reviewers simultaneously giving contradictory advice. My understanding has always been that there is only 1 reviewer at a time, for precisely this reason. What's your advice for resolving this issue? Thanks everyone! — Ganesha811 ( talk) 13:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all for your thoughts. I'll see if we can land on consensus re: Doctor Who News. Otherwise, it's looking likely the review will fail this time around, unfortunately. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 22:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if a drive-by nomination should be removed when its review has long started, and there is considerable work done. Do we automatically stop the review or respect the effort put and allow the review to continue? Aintabli ( talk) 01:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
If the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, it can be uncontroversially considered a drive-by nomination.
I don't think there is anything to further discuss. If Keivan.f sees this and gives a thumbs up like CMD, the review will continue, so there is no need to further this discussion. Thanks, Aintabli ( talk) 07:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The point of disallowing drive-by nominations is to ensure that nominators are sufficiently familiar with the article and its sources to be able to deal with any issues brought up by the reviewer. If the nominator has that familiarity, there is no problem—in principle, it should be fine even if they have not made any contributions to the article whatsoever (though it might be difficult to demonstrate that familiarity to whoever happens to come across their nomination). So basically, what Kusma said. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe GAN eligibility criteria should not be within a footnote. The text isn't dense, so having a footnote only hides important details. Having them visible to all would be much more helpful and would prevent GF drive-by nominations. Aintabli ( talk) 06:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
uncontroversially, though. But I am okay with any decision to be made here. We can wait or change the wording. Either is fine by me. Aintabli ( talk) 15:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I would like to request for opinions regarding a recent quick fail of the article Virtual Self (EP) ( review here) by TechnoSquirrel69, which was followed by the addition of the {{ primary sources}} tag to the article. The article was quick failed because the "Background" and "Concept and inspiration" sections are almost entirely based on interviews. However, as I see it, sections like these and similar ones, such as "Development" and "Production", in works such as albums, video games and what not, will tend to be referenced to mostly, if not entirely, of interviews and primary sources, as they generally address the creator's personal feelings, motivation and what not. I've seen many GAs and even some FAs promoted with such sections being entirely, or at least a very big portion of it, composed of such sources, and I thought the high usage of interviews in such sections was widely considered acceptable. We tried to reach a consensus on the talk page of the article without success. Any opinions from uninvolved editors would be widely appreciated. Skyshifter talk 01:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
User:Vanderwaalforces left a warning [7] on User:Harukkaaario's talk page earlier today. In response, Harukkaaario instantly failed one of Vanderwaalforces' nominations with zero comment, refusing to even create the review page. I fail to see how this is anything other than overt misconduct which should be undone. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
There is also the Talk:Small set expansion hypothesis/GA1 review page that Harukkaaario opened. Rather than start a review, 11 minutes later they quick passed the nomination on the article's talk page with a GA template. The pass was reverted by Vanderwaalforces, but the effectively empty review page remains, and the bot will continue transcluding it as long as the page is there. If the review page is deleted, we can revert the talk page to the point just after the GAN, but not until the page is gone. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I think this is going to need an admin: the GA1 page linked above is basically empty; the review itself has been conducted on the article's talk page under where the GA1 page has been transcluded.
Can those portions of the talk page below the transclusion and the related edits be merged with the GA1 review page and its history? Thank you for taking care of this; I didn't want to copy the review onto the GA1 and lose the history thereby. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what to do with Talk:Portsmouth Square pedestrian bridge/GA1. The article is in okay shape - not yet GA quality, but close enough to get there in the course of a review. I left the first portion of my comments; after they sat for a week, I pinged the nominator, User:Kylelovesyou, who hadn't been active during that time, asking if they were still interested. They left a noncommital response and removed the GAN template from the article talk. Should I fail the nomination (with no prejudice to a renomination) since they're no longer interested? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 01:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Legal trouble may have been introduced during a GA review of an article I had worked on. The reviewer suggested the addition of a compatibly-licensed image from Flickr, which I then imported to Commons, but now there is a deletion request pending for that image since it might be infringing copyright regardless of the license attached to it. If the file does get deleted, since it was introduced per a suggestion on the GA review, will this invalidate the GA assessment and cause the article to be stripped of GA status? Additionally, does this require getting an admin involved to redact the revisions that link to the image (including the revision that had been GA-approved)? This is my first time getting involved in the GA process and I am unsure how to proceed, as well as how to ensure this does not jeopardize my ability to contribute to Wikipedia or Commons in the future. huntertur ( talk) 06:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi y'all! Recently @ Maury Markowitz opened a GA review for DOM clobbering. They mentioned that they were not doing a full review and raised some issues which I subsequently fixed. However, based on comments on Discord and my own understanding of recently reading the GA guidelines, there doesn't seem to be a scope/established procedure for a partial review. Given that, I'm unsure how to proceed with the nom going forward ? Sohom ( talk) 08:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The "review" at Talk:Eddie Gossage/GA1 does not appear proper. Perhaps someone who knows how to "unstart" a review could handle that one, so that it no longer shows up as under review in the list? Ljleppan ( talk) 14:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I recently failed Fyappiy for a number of reasons, one of which was over-use of lists as opposed to prose. The nom has asked me for help on this, and while I do feel an obligation to give them assistance, I'm afraid I'm coming up short on concrete suggestions for how to rewrite this in a WP:GACR compliant way. Any assistance folks could provide would be appreciated. RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there anybody willing enough to assist me with the backlog at Biology and medicine? Of the 28 articles nominated, only 5 are under review. I wish GA nominaters were more willing to review articles and help with the backlog. 20 upper ( talk) 06:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The article
Arithmetic was just promoted to GA status
after a checkbox review without any review text. After I
prompted the reviewer (
History6042), they added a few minimal comments. I was wondering whether this fulfills the GA instruction of providing an in-depth review
(see
WP:GAN/I#R3).
There was a similar issue about one month ago, see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_30#Potential_issue_with_check-the-boxes_review and Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Arithmetic/1. In that case, the review was considered to be invalid. I'll ping the editors that commented back then: @ David Eppstein, DannyMusicEditor, AirshipJungleman29, Chipmunkdavis, Jacobolus, and Sergecross73:.
Phlsph7 ( talk) 18:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Not a sock (based on technical evidence), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eluike. -- Yamla ( talk) 21:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I noted in the
#Potential issue with review of Arithmetic (again) thread directly above,, there isn't a source spotcheck, so yes, the review is invalid
. I'm embarrassed to admit that after doing 29 reviews, I wasn't aware that doing a reference spot-check was required. I generally just look at the reference list to see if I notice any that don't seem to meet
WP:RS, and look through the article text to see if there's anything that's not sourced. And I run earwig's tool to check for copyvios. If I see anything suspicious, I'll drill down, but otherwise I haven't been doing spot checks in the way
WP:GAN/I#R3 requires. To assuage my embarrassment, I looked at a dozen random historical reviews:
The two I listed first are the only ones that had any tangible evidence of a spot check having been done. So I guess I'm not alone in my ignorance? Or maybe people are doing them and just not saying anything about it?
And, yes, before I do my next review, I'll go back and re-read the instructions to see what else I've been doing wrong. RoySmith (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
This looks to me like a misreading of the source citedand at another
what in the source cited supports this?
Strangers' Hall was nominated in September by User:Willbb234, recently indef-blocked for harassing another editor. Is there some way to place the nomination on hold, in case they successfully appeal their block (as has happened before)? Or should it just be removed? — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Goodreg3: has nominated Scotland, but has then opened a review. Could someone delete Talk:Scotland/GA1 please? Mertbiol ( talk) 10:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Is there any reason why Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives is located on the old WikiProject area, and not at Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives? Other than that's where a pair of shortcuts point to. Thanks. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 14:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Killing of Wadea al-Fayoume - reviewed by M3ATH, who currently has 257 edits and had less at the time of the review.
I’m not sure what the appropriate response is here?
In general, I’m not sure if editors who are not extended-confirmed have the experience to review these articles. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Can we redirect Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment to this page ( WT:GAN) as was done last year with Wikipedia talk:Good articles? Occasionally I want to ask a GA criteria-related question, but know that it'll get a lot more views here than on WT:GAR. As Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria already redirects here, I think it makes sense to have a centralised talk page for all GA-related processes. @ WP:GAR coordinators: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Posting here to encourage participation in reassessments from more people than the regulars at the GAR page. These are older discussions where improvement is not ongoing and which could use more participation.
Any comments on the above would be useful. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This change [8] was made to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions years ago, citing this discussion [9].
It added the text below to the nominating and reviewing instructions:
Ensure all articles meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article, including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and notability.
But: the cited discussion actually came to a consensus against adding notability as a criteria to review against, and a consensus for using existing procedures for notability. The language is also confusing as WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V are already explicitly in the criteria. I'm going to propose the below language as a more clear description of norms. To be clear, I don't intend to change the process. I am looking for wording that best reflects existing practice.
If an article does not meet Wikipedia's notability policy, instead of reviewing you may nominate the article for deletion or propose merging.
More clear alternative wording ideas are of course welcome, Rjjiii ( talk) 12:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Could somebody who is more experienced in the GA process than I am please take a look at Talk:Janko Drašković/GA1. This is a review which has been dragging on for a couple of months. I tried to prod the participants into picking things up and now it's devolved into a content battle between the reviewer and the nominator. RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, anyone know what happened with this change of numbers from March last year? Special:Diff/1142554023 Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
My article Shilling (New Zealand coin) recently has been passed by a reviewer (see Talk:Shilling (New Zealand coin)/GA1. However, I think the reviewer passed it manually instead of using the GAN tool; it was miscategorised as a Media and Drama article instead of an Economics and Business article, and was not put on either section's listing of articles.
(On a side note, the "List of all Good Articles" fails to transclude a number of sections.) Generalissima ( talk) 18:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that MLS Cup 2010 was listed as a failed GAN from back in 2011, however looking at the review page, there was never an actual review. Is it possible for the review page to be deleted in this case? -- Zoo Blazer 06:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Not that I really care about being bumped from #13 to #14 in a list (solution in either case: pick up some reviews!), but am I forgetting some bit of elementary school math and/or some quirk of the ranking rules that explains why at 4:5 I'm a spot behind someone at 1:2? I perused the source code and couldn't find an obvious cause. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 19:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello again,
See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_30#Troubleshooting_review_count_mismatches and User_talk:ChristieBot#Inaccurate_GA's_reviewed_count. The short version is I performed a GA review, but wasn't credited by the bot because I didn't create the GA subpage. I have asked MikeChristie to just manually add a credit anyway, because, well, that's what actually happened. He has refused and said that I need to get a consensus that this is okay first. So... if any community members watching this page think that manually adjusting the GA reviewed count in such circumstances is acceptable, please chime in. It feels weird to do a pseudo-RFC like this, but this is apparently the standard required.
Since I suppose I need to formulate an "argument", the map is not the territory. There was no warning about needing to be the one to create the subpage at the time, and it'd be ridiculous to perversely reward creating the subpage but not the actual work. If a bug happens, just fix it. If it happens all the time, then update the documentation to make it less likely. I wouldn't have cared before, but per the GA reforms last year, the nominated-to-reveiwed ratio actually matters, and I don't particularly want to look like I'm cheating the system by nominating articles and not reviewing them. And while I'm not trying to threaten WP:DIVA-esque behavior, I will say that as a general principle, this feels absolutely shitty to have happen, and I presume would be equally awful for others. Why piss people off over what's basically a bug? It's so easily correctable that not correcting it makes it feel like a petty slight. But I don't want to make this about me personally - this is the kind of thing that should just be quietly fixed regardless. SnowFire ( talk) 23:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
|reviewer=
parameter which was briefly a part of the template before (
test case example). The instructions on incrementing at
WP:GAN/I#N4a are both technical and kind of obscure. I just recently did this wrong until RoySmith fixed it for me.
[11] I think we should either [a] re-introduce the |reviewer=
parameter for record-keeping or [b] streamline the incrementing procedure. If we take route [b] then the
GAN Review Tool used to close GAs should likely have a bullet point option for new reviewers starting a new review. Also if [b] is the community norm, then the norm should also be that abandoned reviews discussed here are incremented forward as a result of discussion.
Rjjiii (
talk) 06:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
|reviewer=
approach will work unless the parameter is also added to {{
FailedGA}} and {{
Article history}}. I suggested the latter
here and got no response, and changing Article history would definitely require both consensus and some thought about the implications (e.g. would we need a followup bot run to populate the parameter?). I also raised the question
here and got some pushback, so I think something closer to consensus would be needed before the parameter solution could be implemented. That's one reason why I proposed the simple "log it on a page and it gets picked up by the bot" as the approach. CMD, yes, I think a link to the relevant review, plus perhaps a permalink to whatever discussion happened, would work. In a case like SnowFire's I think SnowFire could just add the relevant row to the table, write whatever text they want in the explanations column, and if someone later feels the explanation is insufficient they can revert or raise a discussion here. I am a bit concerned that someone would later come along and put in +10 for themselves because they recall doing ten second-opinion reviews over the last few years but can't remember which articles they are, but if we don't mind policing that sort of thing from this page then it should work.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 11:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Per the spirit of the concerns expressed here, I have boldly closed Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident/GA1, where the reviewer withdrew before significant engagement, and reopened a new GAN at the original nomination date. This should ensure that any reviewer, who will have to perform a full review given the incompleteness of the previous one, is appropriately credited. CMD ( talk) 04:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
There was a contentious GAR at Talk:John von Neumann last year where the article writers were, in my view, able to get around 3b by arguing that an article with over 15,000 words complied with the idea of "without going into unnecessary detail" and that WP:Article size and WP:Summary style are not a firm upper bound on how long an article can be.
As a result, I'd like to propose strengthening WP:GA? criterion 3b by mandating compliance with WP:TOOBIG in addition to the link that's already there (to summary style). Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
andVon Neumann was a child prodigy who at six years old could divide two eight-digit numbers in his head[24][25] and could converse in Ancient Greek. When the six-year-old von Neumann caught his mother staring aimlessly, he asked her, "What are you calculating?"[26]
What? These are von Neumann's notable contributions to science that an encyclopedia is meant to summarise? It would be an embarrassment for a Buzzfeed 'Top 10 things you didn't known about von Neumann' claptrap, clickbait, brainrot piece; but it passes for 'focused and on topic' on Wikipedia. It took me two minutes to find a section with excise-able trivia in it, yet those editors couldn't for one and a half months ofHe was also interested in history, reading his way through Wilhelm Oncken's 46-volume world history series Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen (General History in Monographs).[29]
What is someone with such an extreme anti-intellectual point of view doing editing Wikipedia?by an administrator as? That was a targeted personal attack levied by David Eppstein against AirshipJungleman29 in that discussion. And what do you mean continue a conduct dispute? I wasn't even remotely involved in that discussion and have never edited either that talk page or that article (I think). I am outright accusing two editors of disrupting the encyclopedia based on the evidence on that talk page. However, that disruption ended two months ago. It is not feasible to start an AN/I discussion now. Had I seen such commentary at the time, I might have intervened to seek sanction then. Mr rnddude ( talk) 03:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
[a]n encyclopedia (American English) or encyclopædia (British English) is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge, either general or special, to a particular field or discipline. Mr rnddude ( talk) 03:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is considered to be a tertiary source.[i] Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Mr rnddude ( talk) 03:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I have opinions here, but I am not going to participate in a thread that Mr rnddude has so thoroughly poisoned with preemptive personal attacks, still quite visible. I will just say that the description of my behavior on that GAR is false; I contributed some significant simplifications to material in that article, in an attempt to cut its length while preserving its important content, until driven away by the toxic attitude still on display here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
[r]ather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't(emphasis as in original). This is the only emphasized content in that section. Further, the policy provides a subsection with justifications for removal. One such is the policy WP:NOT, which under WP:NOTEVERYTHING opens with:
[i]nformation should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Mr rnddude ( talk) 21:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.TompaDompa ( talk) 03:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm creating a new sub-section to make sure people see the new database report Legoktm put together that lists every good article and its prose size: Wikipedia:Database reports/Good articles by size. I imagine this will have applications beyond the above discussion, which has gotten slightly derailed by my inadvertent restarting of a content debate. (Apologies for that.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I am reviewing an article that uses miles but no kilometers. I have always been told to use {{convert|60|mi}} to show miles and kilometers for my GA. Is this mandatory for GA? I have also had a similar experience with dollar amounts from long ago, and have been told to use code similar to ({{Inflation|US|595|1982|fmt=eq}}). Is this a requirement for GA? It seems like a writer would want to put this type of stuff in their article, but I have had some resistance. TwoScars ( talk) 15:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate Wiki-Links: I run the Highlight duplicate links Tool, and it finds duplicate links. Shouldn't these be fixed for GA?
Image location: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Location, "...avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other". Shouldn't that be fixed for GA? TwoScars ( talk) 17:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a section.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia CD Selection has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Schierbecker ( talk) 03:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
As seen at Ed's Wikipedia:Database reports/Good articles by size, there are about 650-700 GA's under 500 words in length. While I know that there are certainly mixed tastes on what size meets the breadth requirements required by GAs (I personally don't feel comfortable nominating or promoting anything under 800 words), I think sub-500 words definitely falls into the lack of breadth territory.
Most of these articles are certainly high quality! But I think it's also important to note that breadth is a factor in the GA standard purely beyond quality, and I'm not sure a lot of these make it. I think it's also important to note that some topics will never have the breadth of coverage to meet GA in quality, no matter how well-written the article is.
Let's take a look at some of the shortest GAs in this range:
I'd like to reiterate that these articles are certainly high quality, and by current GA criteria standards, where "breadth" is extremely loosely defined, there is no reason to assume they don't meet it. But I think some sort of actual definition of what constitutes breadth of coverage would be very helpful. Can we really look at a few hundred words about a single athlete's performance at one Olympic games, or an obscure exoplanet, or a 20 mile Michigan state highway, and assume that any encyclopedic coverage of those topics will be able to reach the level we expect of GAs? In my opinion, these articles fall under what is described at WP:PERMASTUB.
I think that there should be a clear delineation of what constitutes the breadth of coverage and sourcing available for an article to be "GA-able" to begin with, and most importantly some sort of other signifier for short articles where all known coverage of them has been incorporated, and that the prose has been looked over for quality. We already separate out lists as FLs, so why not some sort of "Quality Stub" criteria, to recognize that not all articles can be expanded beyond their size? Generalissima ( talk) 01:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
My feeling is that trying to categorize these separately would introduce a perverse incentive, encouraging editors to pad out articles with filler to avoid this categorization and aim for a real GA. Instead, we should encourage adherence to WP:GACR 3b and reward articles whose shortness is appropriate. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Personally, any notable article can meet GA (or more specifically, WP:GACR). Point 3a is "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". If there aren't many aspects of the topic to begin with, it's impossible to force an article to address "main aspects" that don't exist (and as said above, this requirement could mean filler content being added to GANs -> fail of 3b). If the article isn't notable, then it can go through AfD or other processes and that is unrelated to the article's breadth. Skyshifter talk 02:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, I would say an article needs 1500 bytes of prose, which is what DYK mandates. Anything less than that ballpark figure is probably a likely candidate to be merged and redirected to another article. I know I was vexed about size when nominating Fender Contempo Organ for GA, but that's three times the size of the Michigan state road article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
GabrielPenn4223 has listed a number of articles for GAR, but they were not aware of the notifications step. Pinging @ WP:GAR coordinators: ; for an organized response to make sure all users and projects who need notified get notifications. Hog Farm Talk 18:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I will stop creating up GARs until I properly know what "Good Article" is. I've heard feedback from others that I was causing problems, My bad! Sorry guys! GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 03:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I've closed the first GA I did on this due to feedback from others, and I am posting this first before nominating again per request, and this is on the 2023 Sweeps list.
Anyone give me pointers for me to clearly examine other than a dead link? GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 03:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I think so, but I don't know. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 06:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I am extremely sorry for misusing the "GA" formula. I am going to stop talking about this topic. Articles have to be improved. What I did was wrong. What was I thinking in the first place? I promise I will not make new reassessments and reviews for a while. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 12:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Does the "good article" symbol which appears at the top right of some articles imply that the article is censored in a similar fashion to other articles which have a padlock in the top right-hand corner of them? Or does it not have any bearing on censorship of the article?
There is a certain confusion because the green plus symbol, if I may call it that, is in the same location as the padlock symbol which indicates censorship of the article. 220.245.249.73 ( talk) 13:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I began reviewing Pruemopterus for GA status but found that it relies almost entirely on one source. There is a second source that only covers a few sentences worth of information. I've been looking for alternative sources that could be included, the two I've found really just function as padding rather than adding something substantive. I do not think there is any explicit policy against single source GA, and WP:SPECIES states that recognized taxonomy pages are inherently notable (nor is it WP:GA's place to operate as AfD). I am just looking for clarification to see if this isn't an obscure quick-fail criteria, or if we need to pen some kind of guideline about it. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 19:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I admit that it has been a few years since I was last here to review articles, but I will say that I'm rather disoriented by the lack of organization of nominations by date. I don't recall this being a big problem in the past. I always try to do the older nominations first, but I'm having a hard time figuring out where those are. Any ways in which we can improve this, such as putting a notice to nominators or having a bot correct for improper placement? Thanks. Tea with toast (話) 05:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Good article tools § Template-protected edit request on 25 January 2024. Sohom ( talk) 09:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Just to ask, should there be another GAN backlog drive soon? Because there's over 500 articles awaiting review. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 ( talk) 03:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to check in on this: is a backlog drive still happening in February? If so, I want to give a couple of day's warning to WP:DYK as GAN drives lead to an increase in nominations there. Thanks! Z1720 ( talk) 14:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I expressed support above for a backlog drive in February. Is such an event planned anytime soon? I think it is a huge necessity, as the one in August seemed to miss a lot of the older nominations. Bneu2013 ( talk) 05:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet, Ganesha811, I have created the draft of a page for the drive, on the assumption that there is still a desire and ability to run the drive for February 2024, at Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/February 2024. ( Shushugah, I couldn't tell whether you were volunteering as a helper with the checks or as a coordinator, so I haven't specifically included you on the draft page; that's an easy fix if you wish to be a coordinator.) It's based on the August 2023 page; there were only two fewer 90+ day old unreviewed GANs vs. that August drive. As usual, I'm happy to keep the "Progress" section and "List of qualifying old articles" section up to date over the course of the month; the former is going to be trickier since the GAN Report page is being updated at 11:08 UTC rather than the traditional 01:00 UTC. If this drive isn't going forward, we should be clear about that as soon as possible, and either delete the page or rename it to March 2024. We're nearly up to 700 GANs in toto, so it would be helpful if we could do a drive soon. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I have moved the page to March 2024, and updated it to reflect that month. I've also listed it on the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives page as a Proposed drive for March 2024. Thank you for all the responses. I hope we're able to mount a drive in March; I'll update the List of qualifying old articles in late February. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
An in-depth review must be provided in all other cases [than quickfails]. This must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers, and that no copyrighted material has been added to the article from the source.(In my view, spotchecks can be evidenced through an explicit list or through reviewer comments about sourcing.)It would be worth highlighting this in backlog drives for those volunteers who have not noticed this change. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
At the moment, the sports section has, with 95, by far the greatest number of nominations, meaning that it is hard to pick out ones you find interesting. Splitting the section into football and non-football sections would make it far more equal, at (right now) 46 and 49 nominations each. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
These changes happen rarely so I have to refamiliarize myself with what's needed. Right now the following keywords on a nomination put it in the "Sports" category:
I assume we want to keep these keywords as valid? And these keywords should presumably put the nomination in the "Sports (Other)" rather than "Sports (Football)" subsections? New keywords could be:
all of which would put the nomination in the new subsection. That would mean all the existing nominations would stay in "Sports (Other)" until the nomination parameters were changed. Is there a better way to do this?
I recall that {{ GA/Subtopic}} will need to be updated. CMD, I know you have a good institutional memory for this sort of thing: is there anything else that will need tweaking? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why we have not gone with the GA subtopics of Football
and Other sports
, but instead invented different names for GAN? In the past, we have attempted to match our topic and subtopic naming for the two. Admittedly, "Other sports" is less inclusive there than here, since there are additional subdivisions at GA, but "Football" should be one-to-one.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 03:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This might have some overlap with the discussion above but I am curious as to whether we could add some sort of "other" subheader under the "Football" section. I just passed Winchester College football and it didn't seem to fit anywhere other than "Sports miscellanea" since none of the existing football sections applied to it, though that didn't seem satisfying since there is a dedicated "Football" section. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 17:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Posting here to encourage participation in reassessments from more people than the regulars at the GAR page. These are older discussions where improvement is not ongoing and which could use more participation.
Any comments would be useful. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Could another reviewer take a look at Talk:U.S. Route 101/GA1? A new user has quick-passed the article, but I would look a more comprehensive one to be performed for the sake of transparency. Sounder Bruce 06:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
its good enough for good article) and added a wrong template to the review page. There was a similar case recently involving a minimal review of Arithmetic, see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_30#Potential_issue_with_review_of_Arithmetic_(again). The conclusion in that case was that the review was invalid because it did not follow the review requirements at WP:GAN/I#R3. That would mean that the article goes back to being a GA candidate. I'll ping @ AirshipJungleman29: who also was involved in that discussion. Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
No reply from the user despite further edits, can an admin delete Talk:U.S. Route 101/GA1? CMD ( talk) 16:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, could someone please look at Talk:Grimace Shake/GA2? We want the review voided and the article put back in the queue with its old timestamp. However, my question is whether to delete the GA2 page (undesirable as it removes conversation history from view of non-admins) or to increment the tally to GA3 (undesirable as it would be the second GA review, not the third). — Bilorv ( talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, all. I recently passed Avengers assemble scene as a GA, but I am unsure where to list it at Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama, as there seem to be no similar GAs. It was nominated as a film GA so I'm inclined to put it somewhere in the film section—the closest I can find is "Film franchises, overview articles and production articles". Does anyone have any suggestions on where to list this? Thanks. Pamzeis ( talk) 10:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The article has been promoted immediately for such a popular article without minor issues? Not only that, but also this Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted/GA1. It definitely needs some attention. 2001:4455:3AA:B000:FC6F:73B8:1BD8:E9E2 ( talk) 21:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted the approvals of both Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted/GA1 and Talk:Waluigi/GA1, removed the GA listings at WP:GA, reset the article talk pages, and removed the GA icon from the article itself. The nominations were reset, retaining their original nomination dates, and are now awaiting new reviewers. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Recently, there were several checkbox GA reviews that failed the review requirements at WP:GAN/I#R3. For example, see the discussions at:
What do you think about implementing some kind of assessment system where each review gets a very short assessment by an experienced reviewer? This could take the form of having a table on a new page that is updated by a bot with the GA reviews that are passed. It could be limited to GA reviews by inexperienced editors. The table has a column for experienced reviewers to assess whether the review fulfills the basic requirements. An in-depth assessment would probably take up too much time so it might be better to just have something very basic, like checking whether a source review was done or not. The assessment would not mean that the reviewer agrees with the promotion but only that certain minimal requirements are met.
I'm not 100% sure that this is the way to go so I wanted to hear what others think. Some questions would be
The current GA instructions at
WP:GAN/I#R3 state that An in-depth review must be provided
but give very little information on what that means besides requiring a source check. It might be helpful both to new reviewers and experienced reviewers assessing their reviews to be a little more precise on what "in-depth" means.
One idea would be that, at the absolute minimum, a review should include at least one sentence for each of the six good article criteria. This sentence should not just restate the criterion but explain how the reviewer came to the conclusion that this specific article passes it. For example, when assessing the broadness criterion, the reviewer could list the main topics discussed in the article and mention that these same topics are covered in one or several of the main overview sources.
Having this type of minimal structure would push new reviewers to seriously think about every single criterion and decrease the risk that the article is just waved through because it looks good overall. It would also help experienced reviewers assess whether the new reviewer actually engaged with all the criteria. In most cases, a single sentence is not sufficient and the GA instructions should not imply that. Phlsph7 ( talk) 18:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
GA community please look straight over to this page, I will ping the GA contributors /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/The_Wiggles_Pty_Ltd/1 GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 20:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Moss was once nominated for GA status, and failed. I'd like to bring Moss up to GA status. Is the original GA nomination + discussion archived somewhere? If so, can anyone help me find it? I need to read everything that was ever written on the topic. Polytrichum commune ( talk) 16:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey everyone, could someone take a look at Talk:NAFO (group)#GA Review? The review (which is for the article NAFO (group)) was recently speedily closed but per the advice of another editor, I think the article is good enough to qualify for a renomination as-is. Feel free to see the linked discussion and thanks in advance for the help! Cheers, Dan the Animator 21:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I recently passed a GA nomination. See Talk:Stuart Memorial, Dunedin/GA1. In the process, a reasonably lengthy set of feedback and responses was recorded. As well as this review content appearing on the GA1 review page, it is also transcluded onto the article talk page. Once the review is complete, it is not clear to me that there is a need for the full content of the review to be in two places. My question is about the policy/practice. I know that Talk pages can be archived, but is it really necessary to retain the review comments on the main article talk page ? I was not able to quickly find any guidance about this point. Marshelec ( talk) 08:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Another rushed GA review by an inexperienced editor. I am still very much in support of a 500-edit minimum for reviews. Sounder Bruce 22:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've just passed a GA for a weightifter. Please could someone create a subheading for weightlifting, or let me know how to categorise the article? Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)