Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsOctober 2024 Backlog DriveMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport

Good article nominations

This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN) and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

Problematic review

Talk:Arrangement of lines/GA1 was started by User:Electrou over a week ago with a two-sentence "review" with no depth, detail, or source checking, and no action to change the actual nomination status of the article. The reviewer is apparently a very new Wikipedia editor. I pinged the reviewer and suggested mentorship, several days later, but have received no response and their only edit after the ping was to claim to go on wikibreak for a week (an odd thing for a brand-new editor to know how to do, but whatever). This nomination is over nine months old; it was, until Electrou picked it up, one of the five oldest unreviewed nominations, and is in the stretch goals for the current reviewing drive, but I am concerned that the outcome of this non-review will be to put it back in the pool after the drive is over and let it continue to languish. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've been out of the loop for too long to say if it's couth to consider the review a non-review, but I know as a lay person, I had questions about the comprehensiveness of the lede as well as some of the phrasing ("intuitively") and the fact that the first reference doesn't show up until the fifth paragraph (counting the three in the block). So yes, I agree that this definitely needs a review that looks at the article vis-a-vis the GA criteria. That being said, I felt my eyes glazing over before I reached the end of the discussion of the planes, so I wouldn't be competent to give a review if a new review became needed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! This is already more useful for improvement than the review. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m willing to take over the review if no one more competent than me can (i’m not great at math stuff) IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's my first review, anything can be better, and I went on a wikibreak due to rapid edit conflicts. I'll give a more detailed review later. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

To be blunt: it is not merely a case of "could be better": this review clearly paid no heed to our norms or explicit written guidelines for GAN reviews. An attempt was not properly made. Remsense ‥ 论 18:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein What did you just say! You called me a "new editor". Excuse me, I have 500+ edits, I took wikibreak due to rapid edit conflicts. I even gave you the response, look at the message above. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You are inexperienced by GAN standards, and given your apparent ignorance of those standards, this characterization is what you probably want, rather than the alternative being "experienced but clearly negligent". Remsense ‥ 论 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It appears I didn't read the GA standards. I'm just not very good at reviewing, trying to get help Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Before any of this continues, I'd like to drop a quick reminder of WP:BITE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If they claim themselves not to be a new editor, I would presume they would like to hear an unvarnished appraisal of their conduct. Remsense ‥ 论 18:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

With an account only two months old and only 462 edits in mainspace, I would like to gently advise Electrou that they are, indeed, very new and inexperienced by Wikipedia standards, and would do well to thoroughly read and understand the guidelines for any focused activity here, whether that be reviewing GA nominations or requesting advanced permissions. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh shut up, I have 855+ edits it we count all namespaces, I'll thoroughly review the policies and guidelines. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

For your first reading assignment: never speak to another editor like that ever again. I'm not an administrator, but I wouldn't blame any admin who blocked you the next time you told another editor to "shut up". Remsense ‥ 论 02:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense bro I'm not reading a very long policy Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Then stop wasting everyone else's time pretending you want to improve. You do not. Remsense ‥ 论 11:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense bro what does that even mean Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely do hope things go well and you get advice that helps you, but the things I am saying do not seem to be helping, so I'm disengaging from this conversation. Remsense ‥ 论 11:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I got a new message on my talk page saying to AGF (assume good faith). Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

civility is one of our 5 pillars and it is expected that all editors, new or not, understand and adhere to it. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 11:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

462 edits is better than the average newcomer Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Per the link to policy above: experienced editors are trying in good faith to give you advice. You need to change your attitude considerably: stop arguing with them as if you would know better or as if you have some impressive reputation you have to defend—you do not. Remsense ‥ 论 02:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense bro, have you read the good faith policy or it's related policies, the reason why I said "shut up" is because they called me "very new", but I have 855 total edits and 462 mainspace edits. That's literally better than the average newcomer with 10 edits. Do you actually understand who is a newcomer and who isn't? A newcomer is an editor with 10 edits (autoconfirmed). Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Electrou, while you are indeed past the threshold of "new" used to identify autoconfirmed editors, 462 mainspace edits does not mean that you are a seasoned and experienced editor with a firm grasp of Wikipedia and Wikimedia policies, guidelines, and manuals of style. When choosing to review articles at the GA level, at least a basic understanding of the expectations should be shown.

Also, Remsense is correct that your decision to tell another editor to "shut up" is unconstructive; people are trying to advise you, help you learn, and you are rebuffing them in a manner that will only cause offense and alienate them. Continued personal attacks and combative behaviour could readily lead to a block. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Bro, have you read the civility policy that Remsense helpfully pointed out to you? And sure, you have made more edits than most casual visitors to Wikipedia ever make, but constantly showing off your edit count, especially in a discussion that's supposed to be about improving article quality, is giving the rest of us a poor impression of you. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I hope you reconsider and take my advice above: frankly, I would expect a block sooner rather than later if you continue with your present attitude, and there's no use in me mincing words about that. Remsense ‥ 论 11:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

R.I.P. Now I'm going to get blocked (just a chance). Atleast most of them are only for a few days (like 2). And editors are giving me advice, so the more I listen to it, the less chance of getting blocked. I'll try to thoroughly review the policies and guidelines. Sorry for the rude "shut up". Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I have started a conflict, or possibly a war. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

A minor scuffle and in any case not really something to be proud of. Now how about that in-depth review? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If the reviewer does not review the article (seems like they are on a wiki-break), I am willing (and would like) to take it up for review too, as part of the backlog drive. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that as nominator I should be approving takeover reviewers, but I'd be happy to have any willing reviewer give the article a proper review. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asking in general if a new review could be started, as it seems this conversation fizzled out. I should have edited in-source instead of clicking reply. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry DoctorWhoFan91, I didn't see that you had already volunteered. I just dropped some comments. If you feel more comfortable with the math aspect, please do feel free to take over.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, you're doing great, and I was only gonna do it in a few days if the review became available, so you're also better on the aspect of time, feel free to continue. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, sounds good. Thanks! - and do feel free to comment if you see anything someone with a better grasp of maths might catch. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Scoring system

Hello, I just wanted to drop in and say that I think the bonus point system (2500 words=1 point) is way better than the bonus system used in the July 2024 drive (.5 points for every 2000 words in a single article), and I would be supportive of it being the system used in future drives. Kimikel (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, @Kimikel! I like it a lot better too. We'll have to see what other people think once when we debrief the experiment. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to retroactively change GA subtopic?

Generally. I know most people don't care, but I do, haha PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Just make sure you change the location of the link at WP:GA too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer not responding

The reviewer for one of my GANs, was started by an editor (am I supposed to ping them here?) more than 2 weeks ago, and there has been no further reviewing actions from their side for almost a week (and the prev two times they suggested changes was also a week apart). And they have also barely responding to my queries about the progress, answering vaguely. I think they might be too busy to complete the review, and unwilling to step back. Can something be done about it, bcs the GAN backlog drive is ending, and in case the GAN is readded to the list/the review gets completed, it might get reviewed properly more promptly. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like they replied and said they were going to do it. If DaniloDaysOfOurLives decides to drop it, however, I would be happy to take it on. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "not responding"? The last time they replied was yesterday! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing gameplay sections of game show articles

At Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jeopardy!/2, TenPoundHammer argues that the "Gameplay" section of articles such as Jeopardy! or Wheel of Fortune (American game show) are equivalent to a plot summary and can thus be uncited per WP:PLOTREF. I don't believe that factual elements of gameplay can be governed by the writing about fiction guideline, and that the section needs citations. Opinions from others would be helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

A better guideline for this would be MOS:TVPLOT, especially the last paragraph:

For non-fiction series, such as talk shows, game shows, news programming or reality shows, a "plot summary" may be interpreted as an outline of the show's format or gameplay rules; in such cases, the heading may be changed to "Format" or "Gameplay" as appropriate. This will likely be enough for news programming or talk shows. However, some non-scripted reality series may require summaries similar to scripted series, in which case they should follow the guidelines above.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course, MOS:TVPLOT says Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, such as its credits, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given. Exceptions to this include lost episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources. Any content that is analytical, interpretive or evaluative should not be in the plot summary, unless it is necessary to clarify an unclear or contentious plot point, in which case it must be accompanied by a secondary source. So the question is to what extent the 3000-word long(!) §Gameplay section of Jeopardy! is a "basic description" verifiable from watching the show. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

GAN backlog drive almost over

Hi all, we have fewer than 90 articles left in the first list (nominations by people with fewer than 10 GAs) and three and a half days to get through them. If you haven't been taking part in the drive so far, it's not too late to join up and take on one of these, or even a handful of them! The goal we set was well in line with previous GAN backlog drive outcomes, so I know it's possible to clear this. Either way it's been a big success - we've gotten almost 200 articles off of that list! - but it would be great to get it right down to the wire.

Thanks to everyone who has participated so far! -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who joined. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

One might suspect that the Internet Archive outage threw a monkey wrench into things, which could be considered an extenuating circumstance if the goal of clearing the first list is not attained. TompaDompa (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, but you may be right. I think a more likely factor is "data insufficient to predict result" - most of the previous drives were held in a different month, in years where we held fewer drives. -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Now it's actually over!

Aaaaand done! Postmortem incoming eventually, but for now: thanks to everyone who participated! If you've still got reviews outstanding, that's fine - just try to clear them up soon so that you can get barnstars for all your hard work. -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The Bill reassessment closed too quickly

Hi everyone,

So The Bill was listed as a Good Article Reassessment. An editor was literally in the article today to address the issues raised when someone just delisted it and closed the GAR before they'd had the chance to post what they'd done.

Are you able to list it again and reopen the discussion? It was delisted literally as we were removing the information it was nominated for including and also adding sources!

We didn't think it would just be delisted as nobody had voted whether to keep or delist it. If I'm honest i thought the nominator had abandoned it! 5 albert square (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll reopen it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@5 albert square: and also GAR watchers: If nobody comments in the GAR, I assume that no one is interested in fixing up the article and do not include additional comments. I cannot comment on whether GAR closers look at the article history. It helps immensely if editors who are interested in fixing up the article post their intentions in the GAR. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor opened a review for his own nomination.

Putting this here, as I'm not sure what the correct course of action is:

@Absolutiva has started a review for an article he has nominated: Talk:Sex offender/GA1. SSSB (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

In the past when this has happened it's been because the editor didn't understand how GAs work. I would suggest leaving them a note and G6ing the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves nomination

I nominated Atlanta Braves back in February and an editor picked it up for review today. Forgive me if this is the wrong venue, but the editor reviewing appears to be inexperienced in this area and could use some help. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I sadly do not have time to review an article of such length but that looks like a drive by review to me. Someone should re-review the article again, considering that the reviewer already promoted it to GA. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Can someone remove the botched review? I realize it's a large article and it's already been waiting several months. This attempt it just a waste of time and it's clear the person who is attempting to review the article lacks the experience to do it correctly. Nemov (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviews being done in under a minute??

I'm starting this convo because I'm confused and I'm sure others are as well. I've found three different GANR passed within one minute, all by the same reviewer and nominator. Talk:Jim Dillard (gridiron football)/GA2, Talk:Henry Janzen/GA2, Talk:Tony Pajaczkowski/GA2. I know these are all second time reviews but the reviews being done show no proof that the nominator source checked anything. Pinging the editors involved: BeanieFan11 and WikiOriginal-9. I am a fairly newer reviewer so I could just be missing something here but I am confused. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The points were addressed on the talk pages of the articles, see Talk:Jim_Dillard_(gridiron_football)#GA_comments. Thanks. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To explain: WikiOriginal-9 had previously performed all the checks in the GA1, but it was failed due to me being unable to get to all the issues at the time. Recently, I copied all the comments on each talk page (e.g. Talk:Jim Dillard (gridiron football)), addressed them there, and once the issues were all fixed, I re-nominated and he passed them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Looks like it's happened six times:

Date	Article	Talk page discussion	GAN	Time between GANR and pass
August 22, 2024 (UTC)	C. A. Clingenpeel	Talk:C. A. Clingenpeel#GA	Link	3 minutes
August 27, 2024 (UTC)	Cedric Oglesby	Talk:Cedric Oglesby#GA notes	Link	1 minute
August 29, 2024 (UTC)	Lewis Manly	Talk:Lewis Manly#GA	Link	1 minute
October 30, 2024 (UTC)	Jim Dillard (gridiron football)	Talk:Jim Dillard (gridiron football)#GA comments	Link	Same minute
October 31, 2024 (UTC)	Tony Pajaczkowski	Talk:Tony Pajaczkowski#GA comments	Link	1 minute
October 31, 2024 (UTC)	Henry Janzen	Talk:Henry Janzen#GA comments	Link	Same minute

As someone not involved with GANRs, I'm curious, is it normal to complete reviews outside of the review page? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not typically done like this, but I don't think it is a problem for GAN per se. The issue here is the complete lack of evidence of source spotchecks in any of these reviews. Per WP:GAN/I#R3, these must be done. @WikiOriginal-9, please undo your promotions and perform spot checks for these. If you do mass GA reviews, your reviews should be absolutely up to scratch. Your reviews are "prose reviews" only and do not qualify as proper GA reviews. —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Rather than de-promote, could spot checks just be done, and if there's any issues I'll make sure to address them? I assume that sources are usually checked though; e.g. Talk:Paul Loudon (another nom that I was going to work on) has comments such as "winning All-American honors by Walter Camp." Dont see that in ref 3 / don't see birthdate in ref 1 etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the reviews above, Talk:Kim Bong-hwan/GA1, Talk:Oh Yoon-kyung/GA1, Talk:Madeo Molinari/GA1, Talk:Karl Thielscher/GA1, Talk:Fran Foley/GA1, Talk:Armwell Long/GA1, Talk:Bethwel Henry/GA1, Talk:Rod Taylor (American football)/GA1, Talk:Grant Hermanns/GA1, Talk:Henri Claireaux/GA1, Talk:J. Nash McCrea/GA1, Talk:Graham Kernwein/GA1, Talk:Lonny Calicchio/GA1, Talk:Bob Hainlen/GA1, Talk:Joseph L. Cahall/GA1, Talk:Paul Chadick/GA1, Talk:Fred Narganes/GA1, Talk:Garnett Wikoff/GA1, Talk:Herbert Gidney/GA1, Talk:Cliff Brumbaugh/GA1, Talk:Larry Kennedy (baseball)/GA1, Talk:Herbert Polzhuber/GA1 lack spotchecks (basically WikiOriginal's reviews. Gonzofan's appear to have consistent spotchecks.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This is partially in reply to BeanieFan but doing spot checks after the fact for ALL of these articles seems unrealistic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do checks for sources. I just don't specifically write that unless I find anything off. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If you check sources, then say what sources you have checked in your reviews as is standard practice in GA reviews these days. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I just looked over C. A. Clingenpeel to check if anything important was missed. I do find the lead a bit short. Spotchecks throw up the following issues (both of them small but real). Again, it would be good to know which sources were checked to see whether the reviewer noticed these issues.

• "Clingenpeel worked for seven years as a journalist for The Kansas City Star" source says he was a pressman, which does not necessarily mean "journalist".
• A few years later, he began operating a news agency bearing his name. source does not say when he started, could have been immediately. All we know is he was operating it in 1948.

On Ancestry, I found him both as "Clarence Albert" and as "Clarence Albertus", no idea which is true (he signed with both of these names in different places). It is 100% clear that this is the same person from some of the records there, so the primary source for the date and place of birth is fine. He was married (but I did not find out anything about his wife). —Kusma (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that there's been a previous discussion about these reviews at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Is teaming with reviewers in the spirit of the cup?. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to move this convo over there as well? (idk how to do that but i’m sure i could figure it out). IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The cause of these problems is the WikiCup, but the need to maintain standards is a GAN issue, so I would prefer the discussion to be here. —Kusma (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is more about the GA process, regardless of how it affects the cup, but it provides context that might be helpful, as well as GAN stats for BeanieFan11 and WikiOriginal-9. Also, I'll raise the same point that I raised there: WikiOriginal-9 said on 18 October that they spent 3 hours this morning to review the 12 articles he asked me about yesterday, which comes down to 15 minutes per review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good in regards to where this convo belongs. As for the 15 minutes per review part, I personally (and this may just be my lack of experience) find it hard to believe that 12 different reviews took 15 minutes each. I don’t even think my quickfails are that short. I’m not trying to make any accusations here I just find it hard to believe that that level of speed could be established without some of the thoroughness being lost along the way. IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the bolded spot check requirement at WP:GAN/I#R3 but I unfortunately I didn't realize that meant you were supposed to list out the sources that you didn't find problems with. Oops. If you look at my reviews, you can find lots of instances where I look at sources and then question the text. Also, I assumed the spot check requirement was always there, I didn't realize it was just added in 2023. In my past reviews and nominations before 2023, reviewers didn't specifically write out the sources like that, so I didn't realize I was supposed to do that now. Sorry. I'll start listing out all the sources from now on. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Standard articles" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Standard articles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31 § Wikipedia:Standard articles until a consensus is reached. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)