Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

User:Jonas Vinther alphabetization issues

There was no response before this got archived at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 20#User:Jonas Vinther is insisting it is not his responsibility to list nominations that he passes at WP:GA from what I can tell. From what I recall, User:Jonas Vinther still had a few alphabetization issues to resolve:

1. Rise seems to remain malplaced after your effort

   My last comment: "For some reason you understand where Rise belongs alphabetically, but seem to be challenged in terms of being able to actually move it to the right location in the list. at 21:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)" --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

   I will fix this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Your effort to correct these edits with these edits leaves Walther von Brauchitsch and Charles Heaphy out of place.

   My last comment: "It seems that these entries are in the W part of the alphabetical listing where the issue is wheather Walter comes before Walther. at 21:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)" --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

   Will also fix this today. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

   Jonas Vinther, which today?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

   Jonas Vinther, Why do you think this edit is the proper correction?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

   Jonas Vinther, I see you tried this, but I think von Brauchitsch belongs with the Vs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

   No, the usual way for people with the noble particle "von" is to alphabetise by the name, rather than the particle. RGloucester — ☎ 04:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

   Hmm. I don't know if there is a difference between van X and von X, but having a last name starting with Ver, I know vans have always been alphabetized to be near me. I don't know any von Xs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference. Unlike the Dutch "van", "von" in German is a particle that indicates nobility. That is to say, it was granted to a family by a monarch. Therefore, it is not actually part of the name. RGloucester — ☎ 05:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

1. What gives with this edit?

   When you get a chance please respond.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

   I don't understand this question? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

   This had already been fixed when I took a look at the page, so no longer relevant. Wizardman 04:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

   Yes. He corrected this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Tony, I will be home very soon. I will respond then. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther, I hope you have made it home safely.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Good one, Tony. I was actually in process of correcting the last two articles in question ... until you disturbed me with your pinging. Oh well. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, I believe I have now corrected both Rise and Brauchitsch. Are you satisfied with the latest edits? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I had to fix the your recent entry of Egon Mayer, who had been placed between Sidney Mashbir and Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik‎. Mayer however belongs between Charles A. May and Jan Mazurkiewicz. No big deal. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Adamdaley

Adamdaley has started a bunch of good article reassessments and plopped a bunch of citation needed tags where they were not needed or already inline. I picked one at random and got found obvious signs of alteration on the Nanbu clan. I restored the page, but the editor seems not to be checking sources very well or looking for obvious vandalism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And to elaborate the problem, all the reassessments are all copy pasted and he has not even attempted to resolve the issue or give time to correct it before listing it for removal. A clear example is Cornwallis in India which he called for reassessment after adding just one citation needed tag despite it being sourced within the next paragraphs. It is hard to take Adamdaley seriously in light of this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So what if I am hard on Cornwallis in India all because of one {{citation needed}}. I will say this, I do not have any of the resources for this article. Obviously, ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) doesn't know me that well and I know of at least one person on Wikipedia who does know I have a high standard for sources/references/inline citations and/or whatever you want to call them. If there isn't one at the end of a paragraph I'm not going to go buy a book just to make sure it's there. Hence the {{citation needed}} template. It's sad to say that there has been quite a lot of people who do not patrol these pages such as the Nanbu clan article, yet while it is a "GA-class". You'll be amazed what I've found among not only "GA-class" but other assessed articles in WikiProject Military History. Some of it funny (in a sad way, these people obviously didn't read the template's correctly hence lack to detail of entering such attributes) and some are clearly templates not being correctly done which I have managed to correct not only several hundred but into a few thousand articles. Adamdaley (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Adamdaley, a single "citation needed" template is not a valid reason to call for a GAR, especially one you have just added. Indeed, your explanation on each of the GARs you've initiated, Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment let alone a "B-class" assessment., is not a valid reason, even ignoring its grammatical infelicities. The good article criteria are specific, and it is up to you to explain which of those criteria are not met by a particular article. The goal of a reassessment is to, if at all possible, fix those facets of the article that fall short of the GA criteria: without an explanation from you of what is actually wrong with the article beyond inline citations, you're not helping it to be improved. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. A GAR should only be carried out after asking projects, former editors, and experienced editors, and then it should be a final All points bulletin to pool together and get the article back up to GA status. I admit I sent Linda McCartney to GAR a while back without too much pre-activity, but the nominator and reviewer had disappeared, the review was inadequate, and there was too much for me to fix in a short frame of time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll withdraw all of them except for: Mars (mythology) and Omar Khadr. Adamdaley (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Adamdaley, how soon? It doesn't take long to withdraw them. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As the author of the uncited statement on Cornwallis in India, I would like to highlight that it is a prime example of a place where a citation is not needed at the end of a paragraph. The sentence in question is an introductory sentence whose summary is (IMHO of course) amply supported by the immediately following (and fully cited) paragraphs. Editors who do not read for comprehension have more than once failed to pay attention on this and other articles I've worked on. I concur with the criticism of Adamdaley's GARs, they were not constructively phrased, but I was also assuming that such a criticism would be forthcoming, especially given the unsubstantiatedly harsh assessment on Cornwallis in India vis a vis the others. (If Adamdaley wishes to dispute the idea that the subsequent material doesn't meet the introduction adequately, he can elaborate on the talk page of the article.) Magic♪piano 01:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What reference is "citing" the following: Part of Cornwallis's work was the introduction of criminal and judicial regulations that to a significant degree still underpin the Indian judicial system.? Reference 23? Adamdaley (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you should actually read the article before just slapping citation needed on it. Just incase you don't understand it is a summation of the section. It tells readers what the section is about. The fact you do not know, even now, is a sign of the problem. To begin with, references 26-33 and 35 are all indicative of Cornwallis's work and their impact on the Indian judicial system. Magicpiano not only did a great job on the article's flow, but on providing the detail in a textbook fashion. Again, he's not making an argument, he is summarizing in a single sentence what the next four paragraphs (the entire section) are going to demonstrate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disputing what the content is about in the "Judicial reforms" section. I am clearly asking what citation is being referenced at the end of the first paragraph which states: Part of Cornwallis's work was the introduction of criminal and judicial regulations that to a significant degree still underpin the Indian judicial system. ..... Is it citation 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 or 33? Mind you the citations of these ones are from two books. I do not have these books or resources, that is why I asked in my last comment to clarify what citation it is, so I could put the citation at the end of the paragraph. Not a major problem, I would even add it. Which would clearly stop all the comments on this page and others. Not hard, it's a simple request. I really don't want this to be going on day after day, because we will not get anywhere that is why I asked what citation and I'll correct it in the article. Adamdaley (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As explained twice already: that is a summation sentence to tell the reader the content of the section. Adamdaley - The fact you do not have the source does not change the fact that the sentence serves as a lead-in for the section and references 26-33 and 35 are used to cite examples and give the reader the information which not only comprises the section, but completes it. If you are incapable of understanding this concept you are clearly demonstrating your lack of competence. Magicpiano explained this is a prime example of an instance where a citation at the end of the paragraph is not needed. If you don't understand this, read it again and again until you do understand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri and BlueMoonset – mahal kita and gwapo. As I said, they can be withdrawn and therefore you can do the rest. Adamdaley (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I closed all of them as withdrawn except for Mars (mythology) and Omar Khadr; those two remain at GAR. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggested change to the Al template

The {{al}} template is the one that shows the toolbar links at the top of each GA review: "Article", "edit", "history" and so on. I've suggested a change to it at Template_talk:Al but want to make sure the suggestion is widely seen, and I know GA reviewers use this template all the time. Please comment at that page. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

David Hume review

I want to withdraw my nomination for David Hume, as I can see no possibility if accommodation with its reviewer. Do I simply delete the entries in GAN? Myrvin (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Myrvin, perhaps I can take over? This topic deserves GA and I would not wish you to become disillusioned with the GA process. I have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and of the GA (and FA) criteria. I am reading the article and current review now; please feel free to elaborate on the GA page or my Talk page with any frustrations or expectations you have. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm also prepared to chip in, if you want me to. J Milburn (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

J Milburn, thank-you, what an honour. I just spoke with the current reviewer and he is good with this idea of a new reviewer. I advised him to fail the review now so that his decision will have it's ending from his point of view, and enable me to start with a clean sheet. Then I would like to call upon you for assistance from the new GA4 page, after I give the article a good read and make the first review attempt.

Myrvin, please go ahead and submit the article for GAN when you see the previous review is done. Cheers all. Prhartcom (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Review count

My review count count didn't go up after a recent review. I suspect that it is because I automatically failed the article (without triggering the bot with a "reviewing" edit), then changed the talk page to a failed GAN. I suspect the bot treated it as a withdrawn nomination, however, this is my theory, and I would like someone more knowledgeable about the bot to confirm if this is correct or not. If it is, I guess I will always trigger the bot first before failing an article.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I could be wrong, Esprit, but think the bot only counts reviews that you pass. Whenever I failed a nomination in the past, my review count never increased. It also for some reason reset when I had my username changed back in June. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've failed a good number of articles and the count still went up. But most of the ones I failed I failed because the editors never came back or because the editors asked me to fail it. Still, the count always goes up the minute I post the "I'll be reviewing this article" notice, which I didn't do this time, because the article was too poor to even thoroughly review. When your count did't go up, was it on articles that you failed on contact, without leaving a message first? If so, I'm learning that, even if you fail an article outright, you need to "trip the bot" with a message first, to have an accurate count.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It seemed to happen whether I failed "on contact" or not. Leaving a message beforehand made no difference. Maybe the bot stopped adding failed nominations to the count some point before I started doing GA reviews. I'm pretty sure that for articles where I failed in one review and passed during another, it only added the passed nomination to my count. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not alone. Sometimes the bot seems to discount some reviews, for example it says I have reviewed 79 but in truth I have reviewed 82. Failing and passing doesn't seem to affect it, the only thing I can pin it down to is a glitch... ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 16:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least I know I'm not alone :P --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:GA nominee regarding wording change

I've posted at Template talk:GA nominee#On hold wording and anyone is welcome to join it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

CBGB image in Black Eye (album)

Hello, the person who is reviewing the Black Eye article, Sparklism, has concerns about the use of the CBGB image in the article. Are the pink notices that appear in the image's commons page suitable for a good article? Thanks in advance. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, the question has been answered at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Cheers --Niwi3 (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer may have retired from Wikipedia

I nominated History of the New York Yankees for GA several months ago. After a long wait at GAN, Secret agreed to review the article about a week ago. While checking to see whether he had made progress with his review, I noticed that he may be retiring from the site, per User talk:Secret. If he's gone, then the article will require a new reviewer. It's a shame since he had strong subject knowledge, but those are the breaks you get sometimes. I know this is a long article and will take time to go through, but the latest development is disappointing all the same. Is there anything I should be doing, and would anyone be willing to provide a fresh review if he doesn't come back? Thanks to anybody who can help. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it a week before deleting and placing back in the queue. Secret disappears frequently enough only to return that I'm not going to jump to anything. Wizardman 03:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(watching) I wonder if a ping works which goes to a red link user page. Easy to see that Secret edited yesterday, perhaps ask on the reviewers talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Which category for Magna Carta

If someone was working on getting Magna Carta ready for a GA nomination which category should they nominate it in? It could potentially fit World History or Law. Does the fact that it is listed as a vital article at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences in the law section mean that it has to go under law rather than history?— Rod ^talk 19:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rod, sorry that no one has answered you yet. I am no expert but I like your reasoning; of course it's history, most things are, but it seems to be among the foundations of law. Investigate which categories it is in, for example, is it in a law category? Perhaps posting this question at Portal:Law? Prhartcom (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Are there any basketball knowledgeable people who can help with this GA nomination?

I recently failed the 2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, but it seems that a few people think I was too hasty. I listed some of my concerns at the review page, and I'd appreciate it if an experienced user who is knowledgeable about basketball could read through the article and give their opinion on it. Thanks! --Biblioworm 22:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

N.B. a discussion regarding this nomination is now being held at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/1, which is probably a more procedurally correct reconsideration of the nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Outrageous

I nominated Shaina NC 6 months ago. Waited for 6 long months for this review to start. Then User:SNUGGUMS took 12 days for review. He was aware that I am checking review page several times a day. But still he failed the article without giving me even 1 day or few hours. I don't think this is proper way reviewing article. Abhi (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. SNUGGUMS, this doesn't seem to comport with WP:GANI. The article isn't worthy of quickfail yet you didn't give the nominator an opportunity to fix what was wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I hate to pile up, but I have to agree too. I think you were quite a bit too hasty here, SNUGGUMS. The article had its problems, certainly, but they were not nearly abundant enough to warrant a quickfail. While it's plausible that the article would've failed anyway, Abhi deserved a shot to do some revising. You listed many critiques that could've been utilized to get the article up to GA in very little time. You said four criteria were met, four were not, and three were iffy. That is not quick fail material, at least not to me. Sock (tock talk) 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for the duration as I was caught up with other things in the middle of it. Secondly, I failed because there were too many issues (particularly prose) for me to put it on hold. Third, it wasn't a quick-fail, it was simply a fail. A quick-fail is for when only brief comments are left and the nomination is failed, such as for unstable articles or those with maintenance tags ("copyedit", "POV", "refimprove", etc.) prior to review. A reviewer can fail an article if the problems are extensive, and I felt there were too many concerns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Snuggums also failed Terry Kath without giving me a chance to respond. Personally I'm okay with it being B-class, yet with 30 successful GAs under my belt, I'd have hoped someone could have believed I could have added three totally reliably sourced paragraphs in an evening. Anyway, slow down a bit and assume good faith. Only fail things that have totally and utterly unfixable problems, generally severe edit warring or large amounts of unsourced or badly BLP-violating sourced content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me there, I didn't mean to accuse you of something you didn't do. I still disagree with your decision to close the nomination as a fail so soon, considering that you left many constructive remarks that could have easily been fixed, but I can see your side as well. Unfortunately, Abhi, GAN isn't very busy and there are only a handful of people that review articles regularly. Looking at the backlog, you'll see that there are a huge amount of articles already nominated, and many more that will be nominated before the backlog can ever be caught up with. While SNUGGUMS may have decided in a way I would not have, it was SNUGGUMS' decision to make, not mine. Feel free to re-nominate your article after a week or so, and after you've made the suggested changes and improvements, and you'll probably get it passed. Sock (tock talk) 21:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Abhi: Yes, renominate the article once you've addressed all of the present issues brought up in the review. I work in India-related articles and don't mind reviewing your work. So don't hesitate to notify me when you've renominated it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Songs from the Black Hole

I've put Talk:Songs from the Black Hole/GA1 on "second opinion". The review is currently stalled because I asked for specific time locations for some audio interview citations, but the nominator couldn't easily access them. What should we do in that instance. The review has been queued up since July so it would be good to make a decision soon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry no one ever got back to you on this question and I'm glad it was resolved. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think Popcornduff (the nominator) wanted things held up any longer on what turned out to be a fairly insignificant detail, so we just pulled the quotation and passed the review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sybil Plumlee

I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but I would like to nominate the article Sybil Plumlee for Good status. I am not sure which "|subtopic=" field is most appropriate, though. Any recommendation? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I went with "Culture, sociology and psychology", but if someone has a better idea… ----Another Believer _(Talk) 20:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked the article and its sources over and I'm afraid I have my doubts about that category and even the article itself. I actually don't think the subject of the article is notable. Yes, there are six sources mentioning this person including her obituary, but try this: Go to that category of good articles you picked and see what kind of notable people it contains. I am only one voice but I don't think this person belongs with those notable people or even on Wikipedia. It could be pushing your luck to try to get it to GA. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. I've had another editor question notability, but then I've also received compliments on the article. I've had lots of experience promoting Good articles and editing Wikipedia. I am familiar with notability criteria but I admit that I have been on the fence about this one. Maybe I am a bit of an inclusionist, but I don't see the harm in having a short but well-written article about a pioneering individual, even if her work was mostly influential at the local level. I think it makes a good companion piece to Lola Baldwin, and there should also be a Wikipedia article for the Women's Auxiliary to the Police Department for the Protection of Girls or Women's Protective Division, whichever is more appropriate. There are likely more sources about Plumlee that are not as accessible as just Googling her name. For two years the article has sat there and I've debated what to do with it. I am open to having a conversation about her notability. Is there a place you recommend starting a conversation or a process the article should go through? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I glanced at Lola Baldwin; are its sources really from a single author? Now you have me wondering about that article. As for your question, perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon is an active enough place to post such a question and get a few well-reasoned responses? Not many editors watch the page we are writing on now. I glanced at the book you just added to this article and I believe I saw that Plumlee was mentioned in it one single time. I'm sure she was "amazing" but I continue to doubt her notability. Good luck. Prhartcom (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Lola Baldwin is most certainly notable. I can't comment on the article's completion, as I have not worked on it, but we can't assume articles represent non-notable topics just because they may be incomplete. I am currently going through the Oregonian archives to add more sources for the Plumlee article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Good, and good luck with your research there. Not satisfied with my answer to your question of where else to ask, I just remembered to check at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions for discussions of notability; perhaps you could ask the friendly people there if your subject is notable. Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I can recruit a couple WikiProject Oregon participants for a little help, too. I have removed the GAN template but hope to be able to nominate the article again soon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Questions

A few questions on a GA review I'm doing ...

• My understanding has always been that placing inline refs at the end of a sentence is advisable but not necessarily covered by the MOS - is it okay to pass this with inline refs in the middle of a sentence?
• There are no images in this article, but I'm inclined to believe it's possible to add images to it, and I've delayed promoting it on the grounds the GA criteria say "illustrated, if possible, by images." Am I being too much of a stickler on this point and is it okay to pass it?

Thanks for feedback - DOCUMENT★ERROR 05:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Inline refs in the middle of the sentence is best when the source backs up only the first half of the sentence but not the second half; usually the editor places another ref at the end of the sentence (or soon thereafter) that sources the second half of the sentence. I have placed my refs in this way when I want to provide more accuracy to my sourcing. Doing so doesn't harm readability, if that was your concern. You might check the refs to ensure this is what is occurring in the sentence. I would agree with you about the lack of images, but after seeing the type and size of this article I would change my mind and soften my position. Zero images would not be right but the one image in the Infobox satisfies the criteria. If you know of a specific free image that would improve the article then by all means locate and suggest it. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! DOCUMENT★ERROR 21:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikicup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Citing sources

I am reviewing Sahure here and objected that in many cases a whole work is cited without page numbers. The nominator has argued that page numbers are only required for FA, not GA. I think page numbers are needed as otherwise it is difficult or impossible to check references, but I would like confirmation of the GAN requirements. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The essay "What GAC are not" has a good explanation here: "Page numbers (or similar details) are only needed when the inline citation concerns one of the above five types of statement and it would be difficult for the reader to find the location in the source without a page number (or similar detail)." I would like someone more experienced in this to back me up. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a contradiction in the essay as it lists as a mistake "Not checking at least a substantial proportion of sources", and it would require an inordinate amount of work to check them without page numbers. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The quote that you are providing means that facts that should be cited with WP:ICs should include a page number when "it would be difficult for the reader to find the location in the source without a page number (or similar detail)". For a 3 page magazine or newspaper article, page numbers may not be necessary. When the source is more than a handful of pages an IC is necessary. to satisfy WP:V.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

When I do GA reviews, if I spot an offline source without a page number, I ask for it. Usually, either one is added, the source is replaced, or they give a good explanation why it's missing (eg: it was a government fold-out pamphlet which is a reliable source but doesn't have the concept of page numbers). That usually sorts it out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I did ask for it and the explanation was to query whether page numbers are required for GA. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh right. I meant that when I've asked for page numbers I've never had my query challenged. WP:CITE says for books, you normally include a chapter or page number(s) if appropriate. As for what "appropriate" means - I do check offline sources if I have them (or Google Books offers them) and anything bigger than maybe 6 pages maximum has to have a page number otherwise for all practical purposes the information is not verifiable. And if it's not verifiable, it can't pass a GA review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I would fail a review if it did not provide the page numbers I asked for. I would consider it disrespectful for a nominator both to the reviewer and to the future readers of the article to point to the letter of the guidelines in refusing such a request. I always provide pages numbers of my book sources when I prepare my own articles, whether I am going to be submitting them for GA or not, as I want the article to be of the highest quality and to help the most number of readers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Just as I thought. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Pulling and ineligible nomination

One of the current nominees, List of Narcissus horticultural divisions appears to be ineligible for GA since it is a standalone list. I notified the nominator, but I wasn't sure if there was any process for removing the nomination. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You can quickfail it, and notify the author that they can go to WP:FLC instead. Sock (tock talk) 21:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing and reliability at GA

I have a couple of questions about sourcing and reliability related to the review I'm currently doing of Wings (Bonnie Tyler album). I'm more familiar with the FA criteria than I am with GA, and I hope some experienced GA reviewer can help me out here.

First, there are some statements sourced to a TV interview, which as far as I can tell is correctly cited using {{cite episode}}. I asked how the nominator had been able to access it, and they gave me a url to a Youtube clip of the interview, here. It's clearly the original show, so the fact that it was accessed via YouTube doesn't make it unreliable. But the clip is a copyright violation, and we are not supposed to post links to copyright violations. However, without the link, a reader of the article can't verify the statements sourced to the interview. I think the rules say not to include the link, but would like to get that confirmed.

The second issue is about some statements that are sourced to freecovers.net, which is a member upload site, which makes it not a reliable source. The facts that are being sourced to freecovers.net are not exactly controversial -- the existence of a promotional single CD version of one song is sourced here, for example. Clearly that promo single exists. Since the website includes a picture of the CD cover, can we ignore the fact the site is not an RS in general, and assert that it's good enough for this? Or would it be better, as I suspect, to drop the references to this site, and instead cite the CD single itself -- it may be a primary source, but it's OK to cite a primary source as evidence that something physically exists. You could argue that the lack of mention of this in a secondary source indicates it should not be mentioned in the article but I don't think we need to be that legalistic.

Any opinions would be appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not require a online version of any work as long as the information is complete and sufficient for a reader to be able to locate the work. The cite episode template should give enough information (show name, date, etc.) that a user can search the archives of that show to find that interview, but that might require some physical groundwork to complete. But the URL should NOT be included if it is a clear copyvio at YT (eg not uploaded by the show's owner). And yes, it should be okay to cite the single itself, avoiding the unreliable site. Again, WP:V requires the information be able to be pointed to and can be accessible, but it doesn't have to be online or immediate. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; that's very helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Bot malfunctions on single edit reviews

For some time, I've wondered why the bot doesn't update my review counts or correctly notify nominators of the review status. I think I've found this happens if you start a review, perform the whole review in a single edit (for The Rambling Man's boat race GAs, this is particularly common), save it, and immediately switch the talk page template from blank to "onhold". If the bot doesn't detect a change from (blank) to "onreview", it doesn't seem to log the review correctly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333, you may be right. Again, sorry that no one has answered this. I wish I knew how to locate the bot and its Talk page; that would be the place to post questions about it. Prhartcom (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I can second that this is happening. I recently reviewed The Other Woman, failing it, but I'm still at 4 reviews on the nominations page as I'm reviewing Begin Again. I'm pretty sure this one won't count either, since it was also added to the list after I'd placed it on hold. Sock (tock talk) 19:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me ping @Legoktm: so he's aware of the thread before it gets archived, though I believe he only maintains the bot and didn't write the code. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Stuart Scott

Where would I put Stuart Scott? User talk:dghavens 23:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dghavens: First off, I applaud you for trying to bring this to GA status. His death at 49 is such a tragedy; you would have never known he was sick by the way he ushered in the new SportsCenter set, handled the Spurs' trophy presentation, and gave that speech at the ESPY's, all seemingly effortlessly.

Now to answer your question, I would put him under Media and drama, though he could probably pass as a Sports and recreation nominee as well. I strongly recommend, however, that you take care those citation needed tags first, and perhaps wait until the article's activity level drops as his death has been a major news story and the article could be seen as unstable. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you pass a GA with tags on it?

I've been GA reviewing Widener Library for the last week and EEng and I have generally had a productive time working together to improve it. Pretty much the last sticking point now in the review are the tags left on it. EEng says they're not required to be fixed before passing, I disagree. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If a GAN has a citation needed tag in it, I would at least put it on hold and request that a citation gets added to the unsourced statement. If there are a lot of unsourced statements that it might take more than a week to fix, then I would fail the article. Dough4872 22:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no way an article with any tags can be a GA. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The review's been on hold for the last week or so. There are currently 3 s, a and three s (and a partridge in a pear tree?) I'd really rather not fail the review if I can possibly avoid it as EEng has put a lot of work into this, and would be a bit of a kick in the nuts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend that you request EEng to address the tags by looking for sources. Otherwise, I would fail the article as a GA should not have maintenance tags in it. Dough4872 22:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Whenever there's a citation needed sentence that's a sticking point, I usually just have them comment it out until they can find a source, presuming it's not something that absolutely has to be in the article (none of the sentences with the tags look to be that). That being said, having multiple tags in the article like that is its own concern. Wizardman 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The tags seem like they should not be that difficult to find sources to verify. Since it is an article about a reference library, it would be a bit twisted to have it pass GA review with tags for poor referencing still in place. (Maybe email somebody working at the library?) Gaff (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Let me first that Ritchie's attention has improved the article greatly, and I'm glad he's on this. This is my first GA nomination, so pardon me if I'm being dense. Template:QF-tags says

There is no specific rule against the existence of tags in a Good article. The tags may be invalid (e.g., added by someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) or may address issues not covered by the WP:Good article criteria (e.g., a request for an additional image). Do not use this template if the tags are invalid or irrelevant.

Here's where the comes up:

After Harry's death, and (soon after) that of his grandfather, the Bible passed to Harry's uncle; at the uncle's death Harry's brother and sister added the Bible to the Harry Elkins Widener Collection.

The source doesn't say who the uncle is, so I put the there to stimulate someone to fill that detail in if they can find some source that gives it. In the meantime it makes no sense (as someone suggested) to remove the "uncle" detail, which is informative even if incomplete, just to avoid the "imperfection" of a tag highlighting a missing detail which is certainly out there to be found sooner or later.

If the guidelines actually called for its removal I would happily do so, but I just don't see anything in WP:GACR calling for that, and based on link I mentioned above it seems I'm not the only one. And that makes perfect sense, because tags like this are not badges of shame, nor signs of something being wrong with the article, but aids to making a perfectly good article even better. (I'm speaking, for the moment, specifically about -- we can come back later to , which certainly might bring up a WP:V question, depending on the circumstances.)

Could someone please explain what I'm missing? How is this a inconsistent with any of the six GA requirements? EEng (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a or even the more specific tag would be a problem in this case, though they could be in other cases. In fact, I'd probably remove it in this particular instance as unnecessary and bring it up on the article talk page instead. The tags are a different story, of course. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: - There is a bigger issue with the article. About a third is fluff that does not explain anything of importance to the reader about the library in a coherent and disinterested way. The actual lead states The library's [facts] comprise a "labyrinth" which one student "could not enter without feeling that she ought to carry a compass, a sandwich, and a whistle."‍ The article is so full of purple prose that the article which is not encyclopedic so much as it is whimsical. This article is pretty shameful because readers instead get a gushy self-admiring load of trivia and quips that should have been paraphrased or discarded. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: - I don't think I'd go quite that far but I have remarked that the article is rather quotation-heavy, though some of this has been addressed. Pop into the review and have your say. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How to re-open a GAN?

I recently failed Talk:Mud Creek (Chillisquaque Creek)/GA1. The nominator has asked me to keep the nomination open as they are willing to put in significant work to fix it. I've agreed, but I'm not sure how to reopen it -- if I just reinstate the old nomination template and removed the FailedGA template, will that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• The easiest way to do this is to revert your edit to the talk page adding the {{FailedGA}} template. I've just done this for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

GA being considered for deletion

FYI, there is a discussion of a GA (and FA) improved by an experienced editor/administrator being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name. Prhartcom (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am loathe to start drama, but the undercurrent of conduct and editor issues raised on those AfDs probably wants to be raised at ANI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls

I just started reviewing this article which had been queued since last August, only to find with appalling timing that the nominator has just retired. Can anyone else help? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I'm sorry no one answered this call. I saw earlier today that, after a proper review, you were forced to fail it, which made me quite sad. You did everything you could. I wish the nominator was still around, but perhaps someday they or someone else will pick up the mantle and follow the advice in your review. Prhartcom (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: Ritchie333, FYI, there is a discussion you may be interested in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name. Prhartcom (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I haven't read the articles closely enough, though my gut feeling is a GA should, assuming process is followed correctly, never go to AfD ever. If somebody tries the same with this article, I'll defend it. In the meantime, I think given a lack of takers on this article, that I should probably improve it myself based on my own findings and put it up for GA2 myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, although I see you have just expressed the opposite at the discussion? I respect that decision though. And yes, hopefully this article will see an improvement, hopefully by yourself (let me know if you need a reviewer when that day comes). Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Texan schooner Invincible : copyvio

I discovered that the article Texan schooner Invincible, which is currently listed as GA, was heavily plagiarized from Handbook of Texas online. I've removed the offending text, but that leaves big content gaps in the article. I'm unsure what the process is at this point for having the GA status removed, so I hope someone here can take care of that. Karanacs (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Karanacs, good catch. This message should be posted at Talk:Texan schooner Invincible#Texan schooner Invincible : copyvio, so I have done so; read my message there. A warning to us all: Don't copy and paste, instead we must read our source then type out what we read in our own words. Thanks again for bringing it up. Prhartcom (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just started a GAR for the article, which I expect will result in the GA status being removed unless someone starts doing extensive work on the article before the reassessment is closed. There's still very significant copyvio from another Handbook of Texas page, and what's already been removed makes the article insufficiently broad. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Django Unchained suspect review

For some reason I was personally summoned to the review at Talk:Django Unchained/GA1, which seems to be suspect. I think it may need to be recalled for further review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi TonyTheTiger; good to see you around. I see what you mean; I have read all the discussions involved. I think I see what happened; BlueMoonset has been helpful and deduced much of what happened. This was simply an inexperienced user at their first GA review. Fortunately, no harm was done; I have not read the article but it appears to be in good shape and I would venture to say it deserves its GA. I would like to invite the nominator Captain Assassin! to submit the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors; a competent team of volunteers who can give the article a critical second pair of eyes. I would like to invite the reviewer Metal121, the next time they provide a GA review, to paste Template:GAList2 into their next GA review page; this will guide them into providing a more structured review, something that the nominator will appreciate. Cheers to all. Prhartcom (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Prhartcom for the guide. But what after the copy-edit, I mean does the article need to be reviewed again or we'll keep it as a GA? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we keep it as GA. The reviewer has passed it and there are no rules that say they cannot do so in the way that they did. I have seen other articles pass in a similar way. Like I said, in this case, I don't think it's much of a problem because I would venture to say it deserves GA. It's sources appear to be in very good shape. It probably needs a thorough copy edit, which is why I suggested it, for example, running the Peer Review script returns a few copy edit issues. You could use either the group I suggested or use Wikipedia:Peer review (I just finished copy editing an article there). Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have completed the requested copy edit on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Very well Jonesey95 and thank you. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What does "number of reviews" mean?

This can't be the number of times the article has been reviewed for GA status, can it? Popcornduff (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to this: "Bad Words (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | links | watch | logs | page views (90d)) (discuss review) (Reviews: 87) 97198 (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)"? If so, no, it refers to the amount of reviews the nominator/reviewer have performed. So in this case, 97198 has reviewed 87 articles at GAN. Sock (tock talk) 19:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Man, that isn't clear at all, because it looks like it's referring to the article, not the nominator/reviewer. Popcornduff (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. It should probably come after the reviewer's name. Sock (tock talk) 21:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it should probably be moved to just after the (talk) and before the datestamp, if possible. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the formatting is being done by Legobot. @Legoktm: Is this something that you could change? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, my counter appears to be on the fritz. I initiate my 11th review today, but my counter immediately jumped from 10 to 14 instead of just going up to 11. Upon initiating my 12th review a couple hours later my counter jumped to 16. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this if it isn't fixed, I just thought whoever does the formatting should be aware of the glitch. Freikorp (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Freikorp: It's an error that was brought up a long time ago but was never fixed. Very few reviewers actually have the correct number listed beside their name.--Dom497 (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please Review

Can someone review my Josh Walker or Cillian Sheridan - GAN. It has been very long I nominated them. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Josh Walker was in the pink box of oldest nominations, so I've reviewed that. In general, there is a backlog, so I can only advise to sit back and be patient. Hopefully, the experience of the GA Cup has brought the average wait time down a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sleaford GAR

Hello. On the 4th of February, I nominated Sleaford for GA and it was reviewed within an hour by a user with only 16 edits (review: Talk:Sleaford/GA1). He/she has opened the review and states that he/she thinks it is a good article and has made no suggestions for improvement. There must be some issues with the article and I wonder if it might be better for a more experienced editor to either take over or work with him/her to review it. I have suggested they speak to a mentor but I haven't had a response yet. I am aware that the process is an open one in which everyone is able to review, but I am concerned that it might not have been scrutinised as thoroughly as it should be; aside from the issue of maintaining standards, I could do with a thorough review now because I am to take it FA in the future. I am not quite sure what to do in this situation. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

I had the same situation with Ashford, Kent's GA review, where I didn't believe a satisfactory job had been done on it. I pinged an editor who I trusted to do a good and thorough job (which they did), left the review open, reverted the {{GA}} tag on the talk page. Once the action points were done per a usual review, it was closed and listed in the normal manner. The important point here is to not represent an article as meeting the GA criteria when consensus is it doesn't. I'm happy to take on the GA review and do a "proper" job on it, but I need to close down Talk:Ones (album)/GA2 as I've been procrastinating on that for too long now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have time, then that would be greatly appreciated, Ritchie. I just want to see it reviewed properly and scrutinised. I am sure you will do that well. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

Very short articles

I have scanned the archives for discussion of the minimum length for articles to be nominated (eg Article size, Long enough for GAs?, Very short articles acceptable?, How short may a GA be? and "Featured short articles" etc) and don't wish to flog a dead horse but.... I have a couple of articles Dunster Butter Cross and Gallox Bridge, Dunster which are very short, but as far as I can ascertain from the sources available are comprehensive. As I was aiming for a "Good Topic" of English Heritage Properties in Somerset (see box below with current status) I asked at FT questions what "audited article of limited subject matter" means and whether I could use this to achieve a good topic? I was told that this was only for lists too short to be FL and that as GAN has no minimum length I should submit them here. Can anyone advise whether a nomination would be possible or how I might expand them for a GA nomination?— Rod ^talk 21:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

List of English Heritage properties in Somerset

13 articles

Cleeve Abbey

Dunster Butter Cross

Farleigh Hungerford Castle

Gallox Bridge, Dunster

Muchelney Abbey

Nunney Castle

Sir Bevil Grenville's Monument

Stanton Drew stone circles

Stoney Littleton Long Barrow

The Abbot's Fish House, Meare

The Tribunal, Glastonbury

Yarn Market, Dunster

What an impressive number of articles in a nice topic! Yes, those two articles are quite short: I see from the Prose size script that Dunster Butter Cross has a readable prose size of one single kilobyte (1K) while Gallox Bridge, Dunster is much larger 1.5K. ;-) Here is a useful page: Good articles by prose size that shows that these two articles would indeed be at the bottom of the list, but which shows that such a thing is not unprecedented. I took a look at both articles and have to agree that they each appear notable, well-sourced, and "broad in its coverage"; the GA requirement, so I would remain encouraged. Suggestion: Perhaps they can really can be expanded. Go spend some time at your local or university library and begin looking deep through local secondary sources. Maybe there is some interesting history about these that you may have missed. Prhartcom (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Google books has some really old works that pop up, but in general - this may be all that can be done for the topic. Sometimes I merge topics together, but these may be better kept separate. When in doubt - do background for obscure or niche topics to give the reader some context. I have many small prose articles that gather up and produce almost all the information on some topics, but let reason be your guide. In this case, two or three times the text could be expanded for the purposes of letting it stand alone. This is a good source for more detail on three known crosses in the vicinity. Another minor source. Some of the sources are not fully mined for context and background. Always check your database sources for additional details on status of your monuments. I like to do this for bridges. With the amount of detail you can extract 3kb - 4kb of prose might be your end result. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking for further sources. I have used some (although most of the information was already included) and followed your advice to expand them a bit.— Rod ^talk 13:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Mississippi Highway 548 (just over stub size at 1.5K of prose) went to GA (though I said it shouldn't) and was quickly delisted and a related DYK review also failed due to questionable sourcing. In general, I question any GA nomination under 4K - ideally getting the nominator to expand it to a larger size to meet the "broad in coverage" criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you suggest how I might "broaden the coverage" of these two articles?— Rod ^talk 13:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Rod, have you been to the libraries as I suggested? I have seen good results come of that. ChrisGualtieri also mentioned the library databases. Ritchie333, With respect, a single short article with poor sourcing is not applicable to the question. 4K is not a requirement (but is a good idea of course, if possible.) The helpful list I gave above provides several articles which remain GA, many of which even have the word "highway" in their title, which are apparently broad in their coverage, the actual requirement. Kudos to ChrisGualtieri for helping Rod with his research! Prhartcom (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Things were slightly confusing from my view by the articles expanding (thanks to other's research) before I got to them! For things like British bridges, really useful sources include the British Newspaper Archives (if you have access), the London Gazette and the Parliamentary Hansard. In my experience (eg: Barmouth Bridge - which doubled in prose size), you can squeeze at least another 1K of prose out of those, sometimes more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've only just seen this discussion. An interesting case similar to this is at Talk:Feologild/GA1, a 2011 review. The nominator is very experienced and the article well sourced. In my opinion, it is as complete as it could be given coverage in available sources, but it did not pass and the reviewer left this note: "Wikipedia's standards for Good Articles state that the article must be "broad" and cover the major elements of the topic. This article does not meet that standard, and regardless of whether or not the limited sources are the cause I do not feel comfortable awarding GA to what amounts to a stub." Ealdgyth, the nominator, never renominated it. I think it is a shame, because the ODNB entry is hardly any longer, but I thought it seemed relevant as precedent. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

And another interesting similar case is Ladislaus III of Hungary, where the reviewer decided that this is all that human knowledge can be possibly say about the nominated article. Refer also to any of the small articles in the list I provided. We could come up with interesting examples in either direction all day, but I believe we should go back to the criteria, which asks the nominator and reviewer to decide if the article is as "broad in its coverage" as possible. Prhartcom (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. That's probably the way I would lean too. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

GA review of James Balfour (died 1845)

Last June I wrote an article James Balfour (died 1845), which I nominated for GA in (I think) early July.

The article was reviewed in October 2014 (see Talk:James_Balfour_(died_1845)/GA1#GA_Review), at a time when I was taking a long wikibreak. It was failed outright, despite the objections of an uninvolved editor.

I have now responded in detail to the review, at Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)/GA1#Reply_to_review, noting my view that the review was multiply flawed. I have left a note for the reviewer (Jonas Vinther) at their talk page (User talk:Jonas Vinther#Your_GA_review_of_James_Balfour_.28died_1845.29). However, I see that JV has marked their talk page as "semi-retired".

I have not been in this situation before, and am not sure where to go from here. The note on the article's talk page says "Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake" ... but "reassessment" links to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, which seems to relate solely to considering whether to delist existing good articles.

I think that this article is fairly close to GA status, and would like to get it across the line. What do I do now? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl, glad you are back. I'm afraid my opinion is that you must get in line again and hope for the best with GA2. The next reviewer will certainly want to refer to GA1. Pinging Ritchie333, who I'm sure will offer wise advice. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Prhartcom. If I gotta join the queue then so be it, but I'm not sure how many months I'll be around until my commitments take me away again, so the chances are I'd miss it.

Anyway ... sorry if this sounds silly, but how would I request a GA2? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Add {{subst:GAN|page=2|subtopic=World history}} to the top of the article's talk page. I could do the GA review myself, but I am struggling to keep up with three GA reviews at the moment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie333. I'll give Jonas Vinther a few days to decide whether they want to reconsider their review, and if we haven't sorted anything out then I now know how to relist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, Jonas Vinther recommends a fresh review, so I have nominated the article per Ritchie333's helpful instructions.

I think it's a pity that one rushed reviewer can throw an article out of the queue and back to the start. Some day, somebody might want to consider revising the proicedures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had an unfortunate experience on this GAN and apparently the reviewer has apologized also, although the reviewer is certainly within their right to quick fail it, and as I understand it, you were not available to reply to their review anyway (i.e if they had perhaps given you a week to respond). Tell you what, perhaps I can take a look at it myself; give me a little time. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Prhartcom! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Aren't so many of these issues (at least partly) down to GAN not being consensus-based? It seems to me that it is hard to check that an editor is not being lax, whether intentionally or not. The case in point is a good example of this; when considering the reviewer has reviewed many other articles, is it not something of a cause for concern about consistency (especially noticing the number of his own noms which have failed recently)? That's not to cause offence - I am sure they are all good and certainly done in good faith, but it seems odd that PR, A-class noms and FAC/FLC are based on multiple editors giving consensus yet GA leaves it down to (nearly always) one editor to assess the entire article. Might it not also be a contributing factor to the back-log? I wonder whether editors relatively new to the process might be more reluctant to take responsibility for determining what meets GA because it is entirely down to them to do so; after all, assuming good faith, I doubt anyone wants to undermine standards, so it might appear "safer" to them to defer reviewing articles to "more experienced" editors. It's just an observation and rather speculative, but I wonder what people think about this. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

Query

It seems that Socialist Party (Ireland) may meet the criteria. However, I am unable to nominate. Could someone please include it under the "Politics and government" if they agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.248.241 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

95.44.248.241, I glanced over the article and see that you are right; it looks like you yourself have done good work on it, expanding it and adding reliable sources and generally improving it. Look over the Wikipedia:Good article criteria and decide for yourself if the article indeed measures up to those criteria. But of course the reason you cannot proceed is because you have not acquired a Wikipedia account. Perhaps you should decide that now is the time to do that. There are many advantages to doing so and let me tell you there are many disadvantages to not doing so (for one, we can currently see the location from where you are editing). Read through this: Wikipedia:Why create an account?, consider officially becoming a member of the community, then get the credit for the GA nomination yourself. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Black Creek (Susquehanna River)

I've just nominated the article Black Creek (Susquehanna River) and I'd like to request that it be reviewed in a fairly timely manner. I normally wouldn't ask for this, but the main source for the article is a library book that I'll only have until March and I want to have the book on hand during the review in case sourcing/factual questions arise. Thanks in advance, --Jakob (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Jakob, well done. I'm sure the article will be reviewed in turn and I'm sure you can renew the library book. Good luck on your review, Prhartcom (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: The thing is that I already renewed it and so cannot do so again. As I said, I have to return it in another four weeks and sometimes reviews can take a while to complete. Hence my request for a review. --Jakob (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, there isn't a process to accelerate the waiting time. I see that there are very few Geography GANs, so that is one good thing. Please don't stress over this; even if you have to return the book, I'm thinking there will still be a way to return to the library and access it again if needed. Good luck! Prhartcom (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Closing Reviews by other reviewers

Could we add some text somewhere to the effect that one should not close ongoing reviews by other reviewers unless the reviewer is inactive for a long time. Some people are very strict on closing reviews that look "stale", I am personally against that, as I see no harm or inconvenience in having protracted reviews. In professional academic publishing reviews can last many months, even more than a year. However since some people apparently disagree I do understand that perhaps sometimes there is a need to speed up review processes, but I think this should be done with the active involvement of the reviewer and nominator - unless they are unresponsive. Another reason why third parties should not close other reviewers' reviews is that the GA-bot sends an automated message in the reviewers name with the decision. That should not be done unless the decision is made by the reviewer. When I make a review I enter into a process of dialogue with the nominator and I commit to doing my best in collaborating with the nominator to get the review through the process, regardless of how much time they need to do that. Only if the nominator decides they are unable or unwilling to go through that process with me do I fail the article. If someone else interferes with my review by closing it they break the understanding and agreement I have with the nominator, in effect making me break my word. That is why I take exception to others doing that. I think the very least would be to consult me on my talkpage and give me a specific deadline for when the review should supposedly be closed (which should be based in some kind of policy not just in someone's subjective feeling of when it has taken too long).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, I am only one voice but I completely agree. Note, however, that the report page lists reviews that have gone on longer than a week and makes obvious the protracted review situation that you describe; I personally would not allow my reviews a lengthy extension for that reason. At the end of the second week perhaps you could fail the review and explain to the nominator that this is only temporary; that when they renominate it you would be glad to continue where you left off. Has this happened more than once, or from more than one other outside reviewer? We could probably make a small edit to the instruction page in the way that you suggest. Prhartcom (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

About three times people have come along to my protracted reviews and started hurrying us. Only one time one of them actually closed the review without y involvement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, I also agree; we should not be closing reviews started by others unless we are in dialogue with the reviewer, have taken over the review (of course, the conditions under which this is appropriate are a separate question), the reviewer is unresponsive (and has been for some considerable amount of time) or possibly if the reviewer is clearly incompetent. I'm not really sure what motivates objections to protracted reviews generally. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a made an edit at the bottom of the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions page. Prhartcom (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Another doubtful GA review

I think that Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/GA2 is way too short and scanty for a satisfactory GA review. It is the first one conducted by Vincent60030 (talk · contribs), so they probably need some guidance from the team. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you're right; this is not much of a review. The article does appear to be in great shape; however just running the Peer review script turns up a few points, and I'm guessing it could also use a thorough copy edit and maybe a source review, two things it doesn't look like were done by the reviewer. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors is a fine group of volunteers and has agreed to help out with this kind of situation before. Pinging nominator AHeneen to get his thoughts on the matter. We must respect the decision of the reviewer, though.

I think we should suggest on the Instructions page that reviewers should use the Template:GAList2 to guide them in their review. Prhartcom (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the review is short and was really disappointed to not receive valuable feedback for problems and improvements (especially coming the day after spending a few hours working on Talk:Palestine/GA1, to which the nominator doesn't seem likely to respond besides a thanks).

The peer reviewer does not show anything except 30 dead links (the bulleted list at the top begins with "Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question"). Of course, having worked to improve the article and nominate it, I think it meets the GA criteria. A lot of copyedits have been made by other users, but I don't think any have read the entire article to fix all issues. The most likely problem would be spelling because Commonwealth English is most closely associated with this article (Malaysia & Australia) and, while familiar with many spelling differences, I use American English and so a word with an American rather than Commonwealth spelling won't stand out. You shouldn't be able to find any original research; all citations are online and relatively easy to verify, except dead links and a few articles behind a pay-wall.

I welcome any feedback added to the review. If there are any problems with the article, feel free to nominate it for reassessment. The use of a review template should be required for GARs to prevent issues like this. AHeneen (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

AHeneen, it's reassuring to hear that you agree, and I feel certain that this article deserves its GA; no one is suggesting it be reassessed. In other words, I don't believe there was any harm done this time but there could have been in another situation. As for your well-deserved feedback, I hope you do consider taking it to the Guild that I mentioned above and another possibility is taking it to Wikipedia:Peer review; I have found both to be a rewarding experience. Pinging uninvolved but trustworthy editor J Milburn (who has commented on other topics on this page) as well as Vincent60030 (who first brought this topic to this page): What do you think about AHeneen's final statement above? We could consider somehow opening a broader discussion to propose making such an edit to the Instructions#Reviewing page. Prhartcom (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: It wasn't Vincent60030 that brought it here, it was me. Vincent60030 conducted the GA review that I am questioning. This user has a recent history of reassessing articles way above their previous class - from stub or start to B (including several where the six WP:BCLASS criteria were clearly not met), raising from C-class to GA without a WP:GAN, or altering an existing GA-class article as A-class when no formal WP:ACLASS review had taken place. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, Redrose64, you're right, I somehow looked in the wrong place to find out who posted above. I'm glad you provided yet another example of anyone's inadequate GA review. What are your thoughts about the suggested change to the Instructions page? Prhartcom (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: @Redrose64: @AHeneen: Sorry for all the problems that I have caused to all of you, especially Redrose, I am new to all of this assessment thing. By the way, can someone give me some guidance please?Vincent60030 (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Vincent60030, we appreciate that. Yes, read the Instructions#Reviewing page, then look at several other completed GA reviews (GA page, any category, any article, Talk, then click "Review" or "Good article nominee") and most important: Click here: {{GAList2}}, read its documentation, highlight what you see in the Usage section, copy and paste it into the GA review page, then fill it out. Prhartcom (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggested minor final step in review process

Could I suggest that we add a step in the review process, somewhere near the end (possibly after success, or just as a final review point):

• Check that all class entries in Wikiproject banners are present (and not clearly wrong, such as stub, and for a GA nominee start is probably wrong too) and all topics, including sub-topics, have an importance (or priority) level. Specifically, none should convert to an Unknown-importance category.

At worst this just means that some sub-topics need their sub-topic-importance field copied from the main topic's importance field, but, of course, it should be considered against that sub-topic's specific assessment (quality) scale.

Mark Hurd (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I should say, I know I could just do it, but I've not actually participated in any reviews -- only noticed these "dangling" importances after the fact. Mark Hurd (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. I also suggest that the talk page should be properly formatted as part of the GA review. At a minimum: {{Talk header}} is present and there are banners for relevant Wikiprojects (I doubt there are many articles where at least one Wikiproject is not relevant) and filled in properly (per this discussion topic). A mention of Wikipedia:Talk page layout should be made suggesting, but not requiring, that the templates/banners at the top are cleaned up & ordered. AHeneen (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that (IIRC) not all projects use importance/priority ratings. As for quality class... isn't this immediately negated by passing the article? Once that happens, any existing quality status is going to be replaced by GA (saving the rare cases of A-class). Requiring the reviewer to check it's updated before that seems a bit moot. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, not all subtopics have their own importance ratings. For example, {{WikiProject Trains}} has |UK-importance= which is used when |UK=yes is set; it has several other such pairings. However, it does not have an importance rating that corresponds to |stations=yes, |locos=yes and others. There are also some WikIprojects where the main project does not use importance ratings; the biggest of these is {{WikiProject Military history}}

I also don't think that ensuring that an importance is set - or even that a blank |importance= parameter is present - is at all necessary. The importance rating is independent of the class; and indeed, it is set differently between WikiProjects - and intentionally so. A medium-size railway station in the UK might have |UK-importance=mid but |importance=low in its {{WikiProject Trains}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting no Unknown-Importance categories remain. The subtopics that don't support importance/priority levels won't generate Unknown categories. (And, yes, I was reviewing a number of definitely not GA-class articles, which is why I mentioned the class entries.) Mark Hurd (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Markhurd: I deal mainly in railways. If I'm looking at an article about, say, a railway station in Yorkshire that has distinctive features about its buildings, and its talk page has been tagged for {{WikiProject Trains}} {{WikiProject Yorkshire}} and {{WikiProject Architecture}}, I can easily assess the |importance= for Trains, but have no idea of what to assign for the other two - I leave that to members of those projects to decide.

@AHeneen: I just re-read your post of 16:00, 21 February 2015. The FA criteria do not include anything at all about the standard of talk pages; and since GA is not as strict as FA, GA assessment cannot require that talk pages be of a particular standard either. Even if we take a separate guideline like WP:TPL as a yardstick, we cannot impose any stronger criteria than those on that page, for the simple reason that FA doesn't. You mentioned {{talk header}}: there should be be no requirement for this, since it is not required by WP:TPL; moreover, that template's doc page states "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page.", and restates that in several different ways. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the comment that the FAC doesn't currently mention the talk page, I've "upped" my request to that review. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Redrose64's points, and believe that this proposal should not be added to the GA review requirements. GA is about articles, not their talk pages; if WikiProjects are truly concerned with these issues, it's up to them to monitor the talk pages under their purview, rather than load more onto GA reviewers. Frankly, I think it's highly inappropriate, too, since WikiProjects have their own ways of determining "importance", and it's impractical to make GA reviewers go out and learn the nuances of each WikiProject and its task forces associated with an article they're reviewing. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per Redrose and BlueMoonset. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Isn't necessary for FAs, so shouldn't be necessary here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Core Contest

is being run again in March - see Wikipedia:The Core Contest for details. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Error parsing timestamp

An entry at WP:GAN (Vietnamese Cambodians) has "Error parsing timestamp" in place of the time stamp although the article's talk page seems to be stamped correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, TonyTheTiger, the article's talk page has a messed up GA nominee template; it is not stamped correctly. This is because Mr Tan consistently creates his own GA nominee templates rather than substituting the GAN template per the instructions. The time field instead includes both account info and time, rather than the time field having only the time and the nominee field having the user and talk page links. I've had to fix a number of Mr Tan's nominations so far, as I've just fixed this one. It'll get picked up by the bot shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr Tan also adds his nominations by hand to the WP:GAN page, something he shouldn't do. The bot takes care of that, and will replace whatever's there with a proper parsing of the GA nominee template, which is how this error was highlighted. It would have gone on the GAN Reports page as an error later today. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for Review

Hi, can anyone please review my articles/any of my article Cillian Sheridan, Alan Carvalho, George Taft. I would be very much pleased. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone please review my article Ion Agârbiceanu? Gug01 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer needed at GTC

Never made a request for more people to take a look at Good Topic Candidates here before but hopefully there are people here willing to help review. The oldest nomination has been up since January so its been stalled a bit. The help will be much appreciated. GamerPro64 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Shaygan Kheradpir

The review for this page has been accepted by @Kai Tak:, however the article is not GA or stable, due to an SPA and likely covert COI @Intchar*: that keeps adding information that mis-represents or isn't actually supported by the sources, or just adds original research. I brought this up at COIN and the discussion was archived without a response from Intchar or anyone else. I've pinged both @Drmies: and @Crisco 1492:, but the editor just restores poor edits after they leave and keeps repeating the same arguments to omit sourced content and add unsourced content in a manner that suggests a COI. Because I myself have a disclosed COI and have been complying with WP:COI, I've been unable to resolve the issue without bold editing for two months now.

I realize GA reviewers don't deal with any of this. So should the review just be rejected? I won't break from WP:COI by doing bold editing and the page is unlikely to meet GA without it, so I don't see it going anywhere. CorporateM (Talk) 22:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to @CorporateM:’s claim, I (Intchar*) am not a “SPA," nor a "covert COI.” And although CorporateM has nominally declared COI, he has unabashedly lobbied others to remove material that is both verifiable and neutral. See the Talk page to see what I mean.

Now a couple of specifics:

First, I take strong issue with CorporateM’s statement that I’ve added information that “mis-represents or isn't actually supported by the sources.” Quite the contrary. For example, my latest edit says that Kheradpir “played a major role in initiatives such as FiOS at Verizon,” but for some reason, CorporateM has worked to remove/diminish information about Kheradpir’s role on FiOS. In this case, the references provided are pretty indisputable: [1] Verizon’s executive bio of Kheradpir says he “led technology development and innovation for key Verizon initiatives, including developing and implementing the systems supporting the rollout of Verizon’s all-fiber network and the FiOS broadband voice and TV services provided over that network”; [2] an IT World article from 2013 says Kheradpir is “credited with leading the team that brought Verizon’s FiOS Internet/voice/cable network to the public”; and [3] a CNET article from 2008 says that Kheradpir himself hosted journalists for a sneak preview of the latest enhancements to Verizon’s FiOS TV service. It's clearly not a misrepresentation to say that Kheradpir played a major role in FiOS, and this is strongly supported by the references. FiOS was a $20 billion program, and this guy was at the center of it. So why shouldn’t that be in the article?

Second, CorporateM says I have argued "to omit sourced content.” This is, in fact, true. Per WP:VER “verifiability does not guarantee inclusion,” and I have tried to identify and remove content that, although sourced somewhere, is not significant in his biography (especially in an article of this length). I believe CorporateM is referring to my deletion of references to two products that were recently added to the lead section (iobi and Verizon One). Although these were interesting products, they are orders of magnitude less important than FiOS, as evidenced by their absence in Verizon’s own bio of Kheradpir (which discusses FiOS, but none of the many other products he worked on). If every product Kheradpir touched were included in the article, it would be a long article indeed. Or CorporateM might be referring to my deletion of the sentence: “Kheradpir also reduced the company's technology spending about 30 percent by negotiating with vendors, outsourcing to India, and improving utilization of IT assets.” For starters, this sentence provided neither a reference, nor a timeframe (though I think it is WSJ, William Bulkeley, 2003). But the main reason for taking it out is that it describes a specific IT budgeting fact, from a specific period, 2000-03(?). Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and this kind of factoid simply doesn’t belong in the lead section of a biographical article covering a more than 25 year career.

I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia, but I take the integrity of my work very seriously. I welcome Wikipedia editors to carefully review and constructively add to this article. Thanks. Intchar* (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of Good article II

Further to my comments at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 20#Misuse of Good article, I've just fixed this which had been there for over 8 weeks. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass nominations

User:Luvcookies made 14 GA nominations about 14 hours ago, in addition to 4 nominations made on March 23. The same user has made Wikipedia edits on only two days before the 23rd and 25th: on October 17, 2014, and on February 11, 2015. This is clearly insufficient experience to shepherd a single GA through the process, much less 18 of them.

Luvcookies has also been adding multiple FACs without contacting the article's editors, to the point where Dank has said on the Luvcookies talk page, if you keep doing this, I'm sorry, but I'll have to block your account.

One of the 18 nominations is under review; I think we should revert the other 17 nominations, and request that Luvcookies stop making GA nominations until significantly more Wikipedia experience has been gained. Unless someone objects, I plan to do so in the next few hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I will undo what I did on some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvcookies (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Luvcookies, it's clear to me that you don't understand the GAN process, or even what criteria Good Articles are supposed to meet. (See WP:WIAGA, which gives the criteria, and links to what the various criteria mean.) You reversed 13 of the 18 nominations, but left 5 intact. Your recent FAC for Imelda Marcos was opposed by Brianboulton for a number of reasons, and he specifically mentions issues such as neutrality and clunky prose. Neutrality and "clear and concise" prose are both GAN requirements, and both issues should have been addressed before any further nomination. Instead, you went ahead and nominated it anyway, and it's one of the five that you left up. Four of the five clearly don't meet the criteria of WP:LEAD in terms of having sufficient information, and one is far too short (guidelines for an article of that length indicate three to four paragraphs, not a single short paragraph).

I'll leave the Talk:Lapu-Lapu/GA1 nomination review up, since Calvin999 has already opened it. I imagine he's going to point out a number of issues with it, including the WP:LEAD problems noted above, but it will be good experience for you working on a nomination, assuming the article's issues aren't so severe that he fails it out of hand. Given that you clearly want to participate in the Good Article process, it behooves you to familiarize yourself with the level of quality expected for such articles, and in the work required to get articles to that quality. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Nominations requesting second opinions?

Is it normal for a nominator to dispute a fail by reverting the fail to request a second opinion? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not allowed, pure and simple, and I have reverted the reversion, restoring your fail. The two options the nominator has are to come here to discuss perceived issues, or to open a Good Article Reassessment; while GARs are more frequently used to look over existing Good Articles that seem not to meet the criteria, this is also the process when a nominator or anyone else believes that a completed review did not arrive at the correct result. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Argument accepted. But to set the record straight I was very shocked at the type of comments that User:Curly Turkey made in the GA review. I was just trying to make a proposal the reviewer to commit more time to the review but in the end I received the first of such comment:

"Holy Christ—look, I'm simply not going to waste my time reading through another wall of text like this. If you have a point to make, find a better way to make it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)"

I see that Curly Turkey has done a lot of good work to improving articles but I was taken aback that the reviewer appeared to take my comments in bad faith. I had posted a lengthy argument preceding this comment, but I merely provided my own viewpoints and suggestions. The reviewer could have just given a principled or measured response such as declining or explaining a little further, but frankly from what I see the tone of the comment appears to be an emotional one. Furthermore, it must be noted that he failed the article only within a few hours time from the posting of this comment above. Everybody are welcome to review the page at Talk:Norodom_Chakrapong/GA1 and the edit history of the GAN1. I'm not going to dwell who is right or wrong, but I deeply regret that a review exercise has become such an ugly incident. I will decide whether to submit a Reassessment or 2nd GAN at a later date.

PS: Apologies to User:BlueMoonset for my oversight on seeking a 2nd opinion review, since this edit is only permitted for reviewers. Mr Tan (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How to withdraw a review?

I'm trying to withdraw as a reviewer of Talk:Norodom Ranariddh/GA1. I don't see in the instructions how to do it. Can someone help? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, because the review never really began and you're the only one who has edited it, you can simply tag the Talk:Norodom Ranariddh/GA1 page with a speedy delete request (see WP:G7 for instructions), and once the page has been deleted, edit the article talk page to remove "onreview" from the status parameter in the GA nominee template, and also the transclusion of the review page. (If you like, I can take care of the article talk page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It will be my pleasure. Mr Tan (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:A Christmas Carol/GA2

This review had surprisingly little initial commentary for such a long article, and was written on the reviewer's most recent day editing, now over two months old. The few issues have apparently been addressed by the nominator, but I think that either someone should take on the review and do a thorough check, or that the review be ended as effectively abandoned and the nomination put back into the reviewing pool with its seniority intact. Does anyone want to take it on? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have just removed an inappropriately added GA icon placed on the article by the nominator last week, and note that a "huh" template was added to the article a few hours after my post above, along with some fairly significant edits. One way or another, it seems that more reviewing needs to be done, given what the original reviewer clearly missed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

May I try to take over it? It sounds pretty bad not to get reviewed properly. :pVincent60030 (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Vincent60030, thanks for offering, but I really think we should have a more experienced GA reviewer take over. You're still a new reviewer, and there were issues with a review of yours last month that ended up on this page. In a case where a review had a problematic first round, it's better to get someone experienced to shepherd it the rest of the way, and fairest to the nominator as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been over a week; I'm going to put this back into the reviewing pool in the hopes that an experienced reviewer decides to take it on. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church article

Hello! I am currently reviewing the article for the Catholic Church article, and I have about the proper usage of citations. I asked the question in the criteria section, but I'm not sure if that was the right place to ask. There are a few instances in the article were lists of particular groups/organizations e.g.: Social services. Do the last two paragraphs still need a citation at the end of the paragraph?(I might have a few more questions to ask before this process is over, too...but not now) LeftAire (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Boeing 787 Dreamliner

The second GA review of Boeing 787 Dreamliner (done by AlanZhu314159265358979 (talk · contribs · count), who has made less than 100 edits and created his account last October) seems very short for such a detailed article. I don't oppose his reasons for passing (other than that there are a couple of dead links), but since I'm not very familiar with this process maybe someone else should check it? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm always suspicious of any review that doesn't find a single prose issue and the reviewer hasn't corrected any during the course of the review: even the best editor makes mistakes, and the review invariably finds some. Looking at some random paragraphs, I found several places where the prose is not up to GA standards—not that these aren't fixable, but they were neither identified nor fixed, and the article was listed when it clearly shouldn't have been. I think AlanZhu314159265358979 should be discouraged from reviewing any further GANs until he has far more experience with good articles and Wikipedia in general, or agrees to work with a mentor. He had passed his sole previous review, Talk:Abortion/GA1, before Binksternet intervened a few hours later by reverting the GA and posting significant concerns on the review page, and the review was eventually closed as unsuccessful. I suspect the same thing should be done here, even if several days have passed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bikini/GA3

It would seem that the nominator is conducting the GA review of this article. Per WP:GAI, "Articles can be ... reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator". What should be done about this? Thanks, C679 06:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3]. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't wait for another user to nominate? Would anybody else like to comment on this? C679 10:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Just read the links. Short story: Aditya nominated it for GA (Talk:Bikini/GA2); it failed due to the strict imposition of a seven-day timeframe; I offered, in the discussion at the top of this page, to right the wrong by conducting another review straight away without Aditya needing to sit in the GAN queue again; Aditya accepted the offer. Nothing to see here. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Facts only: nominator and reviewer from the same account. Requesting comment from uninvolved editors. Thanks, C679 15:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem, here. Yes, the same account is the "nominator" (scarequotes because that seems to be true only technically) and the reviewer, but Mkativerata does not seem to have edited the article prior to taking up the review, nor do I see any reason to assume that (s)he has any kind of conflict of interest. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudz679: If you bothered to scroll up to the top of the page you would see the context behind this. Don't you have better things to do than pursue this minutia? ResMar 03:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Gene article

Hi, The gene article still doesn't have an official reviewer. There are a number of editors already working on improving the article (discussion), but it would be helpful to have someone act as an impartial GA reviewer. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 23:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the current assessment by one of those editors, There's a lot of clunky prose in this article at the moment, it would probably be better if the article was substantially improved before the GA review actually began. If the prose is that clunky, the article might be failed right off the bat, which I doubt is what you want. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I made that comment last week and since then have been too busy IRL to keep up, so don't read it as a comment on the current state of the article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I see someone did start a review in the meantime; I told you I can't keep up :) Never mind! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting Admin close duplicate nomination

Requesting Admin assistance. Kit Carson/GA2 was closed January 31, 2015, because of unresolved issues. The same editor re-nominated the article again on April 11, and issues have not been resolved. Now the editor has been Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of an editor who has been permanently banned for years. — Maile (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically, a nominator does not have to do anything else during the GA review, provided somebody acts on all the points raised by the reviewer. (Example : Talk:Symphony Six/GA1) However, I have quickfailed the review on stability grounds and updated the talk page headers, so I don't think we need any administrative action. That should suffice for now. I think Walter Görlitz should consult his wider range of sources and improve the article with them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make the nomination. I only monitor the article for vandalism to help resolve disputes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Walter, I wasn't suggesting you did - rather that from a look on the talk page, you seemed to be in a good position to improve it to GA standard in the future. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for closing this. — Maile (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Just for the record, this same blocked sock of a banned editor nominated other articles that are sitting out there:

• A Christmas Carol listed on the noms as Dec 15 - this one needs to be looked at GA1 failed by Ritchie333 Dec 11, 2014; GA2 Jan 2 2015 incomplete review; GA3 this is the link on GA noms, but is a deleted page as of Apr 9, 2015
• Horatio Alger, Jr. nominated March 14, 2015
• Ballet of the Nuns new article created by the blocked sock and nominated Feb 4, 2015

I think at least the one for A Christmas Carol needs to dealt with. — Maile (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll deal with A Christmas Carol. I note that the nominator put a Good Article icon on the article in mid-March, despite the fact that it had not actually been listed, and while I removed the icon then, the fact that this is a sock is enough for me to terminate the nomination. If someone else wants to nominate the article in future, they can. Since that's around the time that Horatio Alger, Jr. was nominated, I'm going to reverse that nomination as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. — Maile (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Today I would like to bring to the attention of the community an article that just today failed GAN, Bikini, and why this article's experience at GAN leads me to believe that the following element of the GA review criteria:

Note that the standard holding time is seven days; however, reviewers can shorten/extend the time limit if they wish.

Needs to be modified.

This article failed its first GA nomination in January of 2014 under the authorship of Azx2 for important structural reasons that were never addressed during the review; nonetheless despite minimal activity on the page I think it is important to point out that long-time reviewer TonyTheTiger started the review on 16 December 2013 and did not finally fail the article until 11 January 2014, a period of just under a month. This is an advisable level of discretion that I have also attempted to practice in my own reviews and have indeed come to expect from my reviewers as well.

For instance, when I reviewed Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles also in January 2014 nominator EnigmaMcmxc stated that "I am currently suffering from the flu. Is it possible for the deadline to be extended by about a week, until I am feeling better and able to work on the recommendations and the article?". My immediate reply was to assure him that "Take what time you need, I've always seen "two weeks" as more a suggestion than a rule." Later on the situation reversed itself; I was unavailable to finish the review and it was Enigma's turn to wait the week that was necessary for me to unbury myself. End result: the article passed GA. Everyone wins.

As you all know, GAN has an enormous and almost consistently-growing backlog of articles to review and as a result a lot of the article that are put up for GA review have been listed for months or more. In the intervening time a lot of things can happen IRL that take an editor's attention away from Wikipedia. Another example: in 2010 Casliber, another superlatively experienced editor, began reviewing my nomination at the time, Davidson Seamount. The original review came down on the 6th of February; my response did not come until the 17th—I had simply not logged into Wikipedia in the intervening time and quite frankly forgotten I had a nomination listed at all! When I "rediscovered" this fact I very nearly did a flip—I felt so lucky to have gotten a reviewer who knew the virtues of patience! The rest of the procedure was short and sweet. End result: article passed GA; everyone wins.

Aditya Kabir had been working to slowly but consistently bring the Bikini article up in quality from shortly after it failed its first GA nomination. In June of 2014 he listed his article for peer review; I reviewed it. All of my points were handled and we've maintained a cordial relationship since then; though I wasn't willing to handle the GA nomination (and didn't think that, having already been involved in a PR, that was advisable) I watched with interest and encouragement (something so rarely seen on here nowadays—but I digress). He finally felt confident enough to nominate the article in November. Between the time that he put it up for review to the time that it was reviewed and placed on hold, exactly three months passed (27 November to 27 February). SNUGGUMS was the reviewer, and an initial comment on the review page was "I don't think there's too many problems".

Then the following exchange occurred, which I strongly believe is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong:

1. this has made progress - S
2. I hope I can address all issues - Kabir
3. So do I. You've got 25 hours - S
4. Can you please extent the deadline a little bit? - Kabir (edit summary: please)
5. While this is being failed for now, but your efforts are commendable and you did well. [sic] - S (edit summary: failing)
6. GA Fail

My fellow Wikipedians. This is unacceptable. When an editor who is actively working on a nomination asks for an extension to allow them to continue the work they are doing on the article in question, you don't fail the GAN whilst doling out pity in your failing statement; you ought to have no right to do so; you ought to consider the activity of the editor in question and, gauging the situation, offer whichever length of an extension you deem necessary for the writer to do what they're there to do—improve the encyclopedia. This ought to be the way we operate, and it ought to be what the guidelines say. I don't know how quickly GA reviews were once handled in the past, when this particular element of the nominations procedure was created—perhaps S even felt generous, he had granted twice the allotted time after all—but if an editor has to wait three months for their article to finally be reviewed, the reviewer can wait more than one week for the necessary work to be finished.

I propose that the guidelines on review length be rewritten to better fit what I believe the situation has always been anyway and always ought to be:

Note that there is no standard holding time; reviewers can shorten/extend their time limit as they wish, taking into consideration the level of activity the nomination has generated and whether or not the nominator has asked for an extension given their off-wiki circumstances. The ultimate goal of a good article nomination is a good article—the reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen.

It's furthermore unfair to Kabir that he must wait another expected three months for his article to be reviewed again, and I petition that this review be reopened and the editor given a time extension.

Thank you. ResMar 01:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I quite clearly set a deadline of seven days when giving the review. Seven days is standard. I felt seven days would be enough when first reviewing, and in the end didn't feel enough progress had been made. However, if you feel I failed too soon, you may seek a WP:GAR. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Enforcing a deadline in this way is silly. It is being a dick to a fellow editor and it does nothing to help the common project which is about improving the encyclopedia. This is the place where IAR comes into effect for a sensible reviewer. What you did was simply arrogant powertripping·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re: standard time. Law over sensibility does an enormous amount of damage to the project every day—your actions are the BITE equivalent of crocodile threshing.

Re: not enough progress. This directly contradicts a statement you made on opening the review. I see plenty of progress. Besides, the amount of progress isn't the point—the amount of potential progress is what matters.

Re: "I felt seven days would be enough when first reviewing". You ought to change your expectations. ResMar 02:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I support your rewording in practice and agree that sort of counting-down-the-hours type thing is no good, but it seems like common sense to me. Your proposal makes it out to be an endemic kind of thing, when in my experience I've always been patient with other nominators and them the same toward me. If you could condense it to sound less urgent, I'd give a !support. Support per below. (00:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)) 23W 02:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it is personal; this is the one thing out here that raises my blood pressure. Apologies. ResMar 02:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I support this idea. we have quickfail for poorly-prepared noms. pedia is more and more rigorous, so would rather a thorough review than a quick one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support, by all means. I've seen this happen to people who had waited six months for a review, and it really is upsetting. It also happened to me, briefly, but the reviewer quickly understood his error and reopened the review. There needs to be a give and take, room for flexibility. This proposal does that. RGloucester — ☎ 03:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what the proposed change is. I've always taken the 7 day guideline as a rule of thumb and advise nominators I'm happy to leave it for as long as necessary, provided I can see work converging towards a GA. I have closed down reviews when there's been a complete lack of response despite pings, but that's not what's being discussed here. We need to work together on these things, not whack each other over the heads with petty rules. To me, that's what IAR is all about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The current rule allow reviewers to extend time if they wish and not laying the specific rationale for how this should be done has failed Kabir in this instance, and so the rules need to change to prevent this from occurring again elsewhere in the future. Although as I have enumerated the broad consensus is extension whenever possible some reviewers evidently still take it as word of law, and are seemingly allowed to do so because the phrasing of the guideline entirely implies the discretion of the reviewer. I want to take away this privilege from people that treat the timeline as word of law and/or have extraordinary definitions of what constitutes sufficient progress.ResMar 13:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. Striking my comment and adding support. 23W 00:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - sounds like common sense to me. We don't need to censure the reviewer in the example you mention, because they were following the guidelines, but anything we can do to make the process less onerous for people is of benefit.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - if an article is being actively worked on, you're much better offf waiting a day or 2 before closing it, than failing it simply because the improvements weren't fast enough. The point of GAN is to improve the quality of articles and recognize this improvenemt, not to set deadlines for fixing problems. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support with requirement to notify nominator - I support the changed wording, but given the problems discussed above, I suggest that there should be a requirement to notify the nominator on their talk page (if the nominator isn't active on WP, then a talk page message, with default preferences, will send the user an email whereas a ping won't). AHeneen (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• It takes several months to get a reviewer but asking that reviews be open-ended seem like it would make the backlog worse. Is that the trade-off we are willing to make? maclean (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The key is tht this proposal refers to cases where the article is actively being worked on. I would say at least 48 hours after the last edit in that direction without a request, or a up to a week if requested, as long as thew user doesn't appear to be trying to wikilawyer his way into an indefinite extension. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. I understand the motivation here, and I'd support a rewording phrased differently, but I cannot get behind a timeframe statement that includes this: "The ultimate goal of a good article nomination is a good article—the reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen." That may be the goal of a nomination, but not all nominations (even excluding the quick-fails) will meet that goal, and it is inappropriate to imply an expectation to the contrary. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resident Mario:, in response to your question below: no, it does not. I am not unsympathetic to the reason this proposal was opened. However, I think the approach that is being suggested here is the wrong solution. Currently, it is possible (albeit extremely rare), for a reviewer to "slam the door", as it were, after 7 days on hold. That's not good, because it's not collegiate editing behavior. Equally intransigent editors, under the proposed policy or something similar, would be encouraged to submit clearly deficient articles to GAC (knowing the backlog gives them a long buffer), then hold their reviewer hostage by making incremental improvements and demanding continual extensions. It will, after all, be GA-ready someday. Or, more succinctly: quickfails should not be the only fails. If the community really feels that the current guideline is insufficient in the light of a few instances of misuse, the solution is to be more explicit rather than merely change who has the power to control the process. Personally, I think what we have is fine, but in the interests of collaborative editing, a counter-proposal, below. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The standard holding time is seven days. The reviewer can and should extend this holding time, generally in seven-day increments, if there has been meaningful and substantive progress toward satisfying the Good Article Criteria. In recognition of the project's volunteer nature, nominators' reasonable requests for additional time should also be honored. However, held nominations should be closed as passing or failing within four weeks barring exceptional circumstances.

• Support A month with caveats for good sense extensions would be more reasonable. CorporateM (Talk) 22:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as written: like Squeamish Ossifrage, I'm leery of the "ultimate goal" statement. Not all nominations are in the sort of shape that will lead to a Good Article even with a significant amount of work. If the article is reasonably close to being a Good Article, and if the nominator is making progress on the improvements noted in the review, then there's no reason not to extend the hold beyond seven days, and even do more than one extension; if the nominator is not making progress and is unresponsive, then the nomination should not be held open. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Squeamish Ossifrage: If only specifically the statement that "The ultimate goal of a good article nomination is a good article" were to be removed would that be enough to sway you? ResMar 21:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

To me, the rest of that sentence wouldn't make much sense on its own once the first quoted part is removed: The reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen. The word "this" has lost its referent, and if what remains would take a month or two to fix, I don't think the reviewer should have to allow so long a time, since the article would have to be in very rough shape to require so much work. I think I'd drop the entire final sentence, not just the first half, but you might want to add another criterion in the sentence that remains (noted by italics): "... taking into consideration the level of activity the nomination has generated, the issues still to be addressed, and whether or not the nominator has asked for an extension given their off-wiki circumstances." BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dropping the final sentence entirely would neuter it so that it will be barely better than the policy that is currently in place in that it would fail to provide any protection to nominators whose reviewers define extraordinary terms in reviewing. Quickfails are quickfails, but if the nominator thinks that it is possible that the editor, given their track record and demonstrated commitment, can over some indefinite time bring the article to GA standard, then above the minimum threshold of a quick-fail for too much work being needed or not enough of it being done I believe that the editor should be given as much time as they need, within reason, so long as they continue to work consistently. Again, this isn't some novel revelation, this is how we've always—mostly, unfortunately—functioned. ResMar 02:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Then I am still opposed. The remainder of that sentence doesn't allow for the "within reason" you believe in, and its "this" still has no referent. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, this mindless deadline enforcement has been bothering me for awhile. A couple of weeks ago another editor even drive-by closed an ongoing but protracted review that I was conducting and which that editor had no involvement in whatsoever. Previously I have been forced by other editors to fail articles undergoing active but protracted reviews, both as a reviewer and a nominator - inspite of both reviewer and nominator being OK with the slow pace. There is no deadline. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of someone being forced to fail an article before against of their own reasonable opinion. That is extraordinary! If someone attempted to do that with a review I am in the process of making I would rollback their edits to the end of the Earth, as I consider that sort of behavior to be totally and completely out of bounds. ResMar 02:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - obviously. The quoted exchangeis absurd. I've left GANs open for as long as it took the nominator to improve the articles on many occasions. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - It should be done this way because you can't just have the nominators to instantly address the issues, especially when you review it at that specific time where the nominator is not free. As said, there is no limit in time for an article to be reviewed and some issues are difficult to address when there are no easy and reliable sources available. I also reviewed an article before and editing an article, especially a long one is not that easy.Vincent60030 (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support, with thanks to Resident Mario for bringing this issue to attention. Aditya Kabir: I would be happy to conduct a third GA review of Bikini, starting right now. Just let me know if you are ok with that. I see no need to re-list it at WP:GAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I will be there to address any issue with the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - makes sense! How can you leave only 25 hours for an editor to improve a GAN? However, I wonder by what you mean the section has to be modified. I was thinking something like this: "Note that the standard holding time is seven days; although reviewers can shorten/extend the time limit, the limit cannot be shortened to less than three days". Gug01 (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• Is this ready to be closed? I saw the request at ANI for an admin to close this discussion. If it had to be closed now, there are enough opinions, but it's desirable that there be a clear consensus on the new wording. People appear to support a change, but there are two versions offered and not everyone has taken a position which they prefer. Is anyone willing to draft up a compromise? Or alternatively, can anyone who hasn't specified what they want endorse one of the two versions? For clarity, the two versions appear to be:

First version (Resident Mario): Note that there is no standard holding time; reviewers can shorten/extend their time limit as they wish, taking into consideration the level of activity the nomination has generated and whether or not the nominator has asked for an extension given their off-wiki circumstances. The ultimate goal of a good article nomination is a good article—the reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen.

Second version (Squeamish Ossifrage): The standard holding time is seven days. The reviewer can and should extend this holding time, generally in seven-day increments, if there has been meaningful and substantive progress toward satisfying the Good Article Criteria. In recognition of the project's volunteer nature, nominators' reasonable requests for additional time should also be honored. However, held nominations should be closed as passing or failing within four weeks barring exceptional circumstances.

--Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the stronger wording need be adopted because the suggested edit simply neuters it too much to be of much use, as I believe it leaves too much room for definition on the part of the reviewers. I would conditionally support the second only if the first is not adopted, but I suspect that if this were allowed to continue support for the initial proposal would continue in that direction, as we are currently at 12/0/2. ResMar 05:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose original wording, because it implies that GA nominations could, in theory, stay up for years and just sit there. Squaeamish's modified wording, however, is entirely fine, since as written is a bit too rigid (although almost nobody enforces it anyway). The above notes about GAs failing after a day or being failed despite workbeing put into it is indeed a problem, but the proposition is going too far the other way, and giving reviewers permission to completely ignore the article if they are too lazy to finish what they started. Wizardman 02:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine, go with two, just get this closed already—it's been almost a month. ResMar 23:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a quick fail option for articles nominated way too early to warrant any nomination? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I never liked the idea of giving a seven day window. As stated, that can be unfair for few since not everyone is that active. I have always kept the reviews open for as long as the nominator took to address the issues. I most certainly agree with the proposal. — Yash! ^[talk] 10:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator indefinitely blocked

I don't know the GA procedure on this, but the nominator of The Figurine under Film has been blocked indefinitely. — Maile (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

In looking at the nomination history, I see it was once removed a year ago due to "nom indefblocked, plus likely copyvio". The block was eventually removed, and I'm guessing the copyvio issue was the non-free media image removed and now restored to infobox. Several months later, the same nominator restored the nomination under the same Page 1. Nominator is now indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I have removed the nomination from the article's talk page, based on reasoning by the original removal.— Maile (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer indefinitely blocked

Like the editor above, I don't know what the exact review procedures are, but the reviewer for Sonny Bill Williams has been blocked indefinitely. As an aside, I find it a bit curious that an IP address with an edit count of three is able to make a GA nomination; who is ever going to follow up if (or rather 'when') the review brings up any issues? As a further aside, may I suggest that the standard GA review form produces a link back to the project page? Schwede66 05:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I requested a second reviewer on the template, with an explanation that the original reviewer has been blocked. For some reason, the bot made it look like the original reviewer made the request. As for your second question, GA seems to be under the same rules as other nominating processes when it comes to who can do what, per WP:RGA: Anyone, including unregistered users, can nominate an article...The nominator is the person who listed the article at the Good article nominations page. It is not a special position, does not indicate that the person has had any involvement in improving the article, and the nominator has no duty to participate in the review... the nominator indicates that he or she believes the article to meet the criteria... I agree with you that an IP address with an edit count of three, assuming they have not otherwise more extensively edited under another identity, could not possibly have a grasp of "the criteria".— Maile (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Maile, I think it would be better that the review be ended and the nomination be placed back into the reviewing pool. The fact that the reviewer never did anything and has been indefinitely blocked means that a speedy deletion would almost certainly be granted, so I'm going to request one—it's more typically done with reviews that were opened but never started and were subsequently abandoned. As this user has been indeffed, it's abandoned. If you object, please feel free to remove the speedy template. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thank you for doing this and explaining how these things work. I was taking a stab in the dark on it. — Maile (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Good articles in the Signpost problems

Just giving a link to the discussion here. Basically, I'm going to have to drop the GAs from the Signpost (and thus Portal:Featured content) if the bot keeps going crazy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible bot issue?

It seems like twice this weekend, the bot has been hung up on GA reviews, not noting them in the status= box, causing the bot to continually count it without updating the status on the history. It's not a particularly major issue, but it's annoying to have the history making null edits over and over. Can someone either make a note or keep an eye out on this in the future? I'm not really touching GAN anymore so I'd rather not continually fix it if I don't have to. Wizardman 20:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The bot is giving credits again and again to SNUGGUMS, seemingly with no end - I don't think they are bothered about score like that, but something seems to be going wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know where the list of bot bugs are kept, but for anyone addressing this, I haven't received GA notifs/credits for over a month. Haven't received a reply on the bot maintainer's page either.  czar ⨹ 15:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll ping @Legoktm:, the bot's owner, so he's aware of this. In the meantime, I've disabled the Donkey Kong Country GA review template, and told the participants to just run the review manually for the minute. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The bot's doing its best, but when users try to create their own GA nominee template instead of substituting the GAN template like the instructions say, bad things can happen. In this case, Jaguar created a GA nominee template without either status or note fields, so the bot kept trying to work with a bad template. My suggestion to Legoktm would be to adjust the code so that if something goes wrong, review numbers don't get incremented (or, if the increment happens earlier, that a decrement step gets added in the case of error). Missing status or note fields is not a frequent cause of the bot failing to make the needed adjustment to the GAN page; the usual cause is an incorrect subtopic: it tries over and over again, until the GA nominee template is edited to have a valid subtopic. Maybe an invalid subtopic should be treated like an omitted subtopic and get dumped into Miscellaneous? Those are usually found and fixed within a couple of days. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment archive

Due to lack of response on the GAR talk page, I'll re-post my query here. I've recently opened a new GAR archive (number 60) and I wanted to ask whether I did it correctly. Appreciate your advice.--Retrohead (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

GAN closed during discussion ? because of page rename

@Eric Corbett: had made some comments at Talk:Dunkery Beacon/GA1 which I was addressing and then I received a message saying it had been failed. I think this is because I moved the article from Dunkery Beacon to Dunkery Hill (at his suggestion). The nomination list now points to a discussion at Talk:Dunkery Hill/GA1 which obviously doesn't exist. What should I have done/how can I fix this?— Rod ^talk 19:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears to no longer transclude any further comments on Talk:Dunkery Beacon/GA1 to the new talk page Talk:Dunkery Hill. I have obviously inadvertantly broken some connections in the system. Sorry.— Rod ^talk 20:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we need an admin to fix that Rod, but I can state categorically that I haven't failed the article. Eric Corbett 20:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know quite how all the links work for GA nom so I thought best to ask here rather than go fiddling about with them.— Rod ^talk 20:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've fiddled about. I've moved the review page and requested deletion of the now unnecessary redirect. But no doubt I'll have done something wrong as well. Eric Corbett 20:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we're sorted now Rod, thanks to J Milburn, so we're all set to carry on with the review tomorrow. Eric Corbett 22:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How important are up to date numbers?

Currently, I intend to close Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/British Bangladeshi/1 as no consensus. For really obvious GA flaws, I delist them if there is no opposition, and I don't think it applies in this case. Are up to date numbers that important to a GA? I understand it's usually more laxed for sales figures due to reasons like lack of available resources, but how about population numbers? Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

text being covered by "Please report any problems on the Good article nominations talk page"

I just tagged a talk page with {{subst:GAR}} and in the first paragraph, last sentence ("To start your reassessment you need to create this subpage (i.e., Talk:Impalement/GA3), and that is the purpose of the edit box below."), in italics "Please report any problems on the Good article nominations talk page" covers the "...box below." part.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dead links

Hi, does there any way, a tool or something like that through which I can identify dead reference links in an article? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Try putting the name of the article into Checklinks.— Rod ^talk 17:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Prose concerns at review

Hello, Miri, Malaysia looks like it's about to be passed despite what I believe are quite clear deficiencies in prose and some problems with its organisation. I have left a notice at the review page and politely asked the reviewer to take a closer look. I am not going to be around enough over the next few days to go over it in detail, so I've recommended that the nominator take it to the guild of copy-editors and suggested that it's not quite ready to pass yet. I thought I would notify people here in case anyone would like to take a look. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC).

Review

Hi, due to time issues I cannot complete the reviews of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire and Škabrnja massacre. I would be very happy if anyone can do it on my behalf. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Argo (2012 film)

Argo (2012 film) was nominated in good faith by User:Captain_Assassin! and I've just started the review. However, I just noticed that the nominator has not contributed significantly to the article (three edits) and his major contribution to the topic consists of splitting out the accolades section into a new article.‎ I prefer to review articles by significant contributors and/or people who are familiar with the subject. I'm afraid that this review may require some work that the nominator may not be able to do. What are the current guidelines on how to proceed? Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You can carry the review. In case of FAs, such type of nominations are failed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Fail the review immediately. This is what I call a "drive-by nomination" created by editors who apparently want reward with little effort. I once undertook such a review and found the drive-by nominator argued with almost everything I suggested with "no, it's fine the way it is." Prhartcom (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. I will fail the review immediately. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Redlinked GA reviews

If I edit a page that contains {{WikiProject Video Games}}, such as Talk:Amplitude Studios, the "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" list at the bottom of the page has about a dozen redlinks. They are all GA review pages, for example Talk:Angry Video Game Nerd/GA1, Talk:Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto IV/GA1, Talk:Development of The Last of Us/GA1 etc. Why are these being transcluded to a page which is nothing to do with any of those GA noms? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

GA-DYK process improvement

Currently, newly promoted GAs are eligible for DYK. There is currently a discussion at RFC DYK process improvement 2015. This is a solicitation for suggestions to streamline the DYK process in order that fewer errors appear on the main page. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Page hasn't updated for more than 18 hours.

 — Calvin999 18:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You could inform Legoktm (talk · contribs) since it's normally updated by Legobot (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Gene GA nomination needs new reviewer

Hello. The current reviewer of the gene article (User:ヒストリ案) put themselves forwards as reviewer by accident (I think intending to leave a normal talk page comment). Is it possible to reset the process so that a new editor can put themselves forwards? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo), I feel your pain, especially since there isn't a process for resetting back, only for "failing" the review and re-nominating it, which truly isn't a problem (there is no system that keeps track of a nominator's failed reviews, but you would lose your place in line). The simplest solution is to convince User:ヒストリ案 to undertake the review after all. Although you haven't asked and therefore we don't know their commitment level, this person actually seems to me to be quite capable of carrying out the review. I would certainly consider asking them to take a look at the GA criteria (and perhaps someone else's GA review that you could suggest to help them get the idea) and then committing to give it their best shot. We need more GA reviewers. (I would also help them use Template:GAList2.) However, if that doesn't work out, you should follow the instructions to fail the review yourself (change the opening template on the Talk page to: {{FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=Biology and medicine|page=3}}) and then re-nominate it to GA4, and then settle in for the long wait. I can help you if needed. Prhartcom (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and put it back in the queue, though if the user does in fact want to take over the review I can always rv myself. Wizardman 22:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And I managed to reset it on the GAN page so that someone can start the GA4 review from there (it was still showing as under review). Prhartcom (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Category choice

Is it better to select a subtopic which is a poor fit to the contents of an article, or make one up which is a good fit? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to choose one from the list, otherwise the bots will be confused. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. So we assume the users are less easily confused than the bots, and someone who is interested will probably find the nomination eventually. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

StatisticianBot down

The StatisticianBot that refreshes the GAN reports page hasn't run since Thursday, and the bot owner recommends using email to request repairs or restarts or the like. Since I don't use Wikipedia email myself, I thought maybe someone here could email a request to get the bot running again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note to the GA Cup runners (Dom497 and Figureskatingfan, you're the two I can remember offhand): you'll want the bot back in working order in time for the GA Cup start, since it generates the daily list of the oldest ten nominations and also tracks daily progress. I'll leave it to you to email the bot owner and pursue this until it's fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for letting us know. I'll look into it. :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiLabs problems have halted Legobot

With the Labs problems now into their second day, many bots (including Legobot) and tools (like the Copyvio and Duplication detectors) are down, and cannot be restarted until fixes have been completed. So if new nominations, reviews, holds, passes, and failures aren't showing up, it's because Legobot isn't able to be restarted yet. They don't yet have an estimated restoration time for Labs. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I just kicked the bot manually so it did a run through. Unsure when it will resume its normal schedule. Legoktm (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Legoktm, both the DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot are up and running, and the latter has made several updates since it came back on line a few hours ago. You might want to give it another try to see if the bot will resume normal operations. Thanks for doing the manual run. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I had to re-enable it manually. Should resume its normal schedule now. Legoktm (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

2nd Opinion requested

I have been having some differences with the reviewer for Bharatiya Janata Party on the review page. In particular, the reviewer has stated that a certain table contains original research and given me a deadline to fix it, but has not responded to my ideas on how to do so; therefore, more eyes would be most welcome there. The review page is here, and the particular issue is about the table of chief ministers. Since the review itself has been open for a month, any general input to speed the process up would also be welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have responded at your duplicate posting Wikipedia:Good article help#2nd Opinion requested. Prhartcom (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Another problem with Legobot

I had a review "On hold", and Legobot took it off 13 minutes later. What is going on? — Maile (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Maile66, unfortunately the method you used to put the review on hold was incorrect and was overwritten by Legobot, who is normally the only one who edits that page (notice that the edit you point out contains some unrelated routine work by Legobot). Recall that clicking Edit on that page displays a warning suggesting that page should normally not be edited by us humans. The proper way to put an article on hold is explained here: Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Putting an article on hold. Hope this helps. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops. — Maile (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tiny bug in Legobot?

It keeps on telling "New 1984 European Super Cup (sports and recreation)" in every edit, while nothing really happens with this article. Kareldorado (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kareldorado, which article? Could you provide a link showing us what you mean? Prhartcom (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Prhartcom, this was at the Revision History of the GA nominations during 29 and 30 June, but apparently this is already sorted out, thanks anyway. Kareldorado (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Black Creek (Susquehanna River)/GA1

Hello. I'm here to ask if someone else can takeover with the article and finish the review or pass it along to someone else. I had some things come up and was unable to tackle the review like I wanted. I'm very sorry I couldn't obtain the materials needed to finish the review. I should only aim to tackle articles that I can finish reviewing properly. Please respond as soon as you can. Please. Thanks for reading. LeftAire (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@LeftAire: I can take it over for you, if you haven't found someone yet. Wugapodes (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Sure, I'm glad that someone came to the review's aide. Thanks! LeftAire (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer using FA criteria on GA nominee

Please could someone with experience in GA reviewing please cast their eye over at Talk:Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1. The reviewer alone has admitted to only being familiar with doing FA reviews, yet they still conduct a FA-style review, using FA criteria, on a GA nomination. I find this somewhat bizarre, and the finickiness of the reviewer is just petty. For example, stating that the bolding of the article title in the opening line is not permitted. Suggesting that we should change the terms "contest" to "race". Not a clue what they mean by "Easter egg link" when it comes to linking to yearly terms. Telling us not to "shout" in ref titles. It is not our fault if the website uses capitalised headlines. And they also asked us "what happened after the tour". How the hell are we to know, if no sources are published about what happened back-stage. And he also has threatened to "fail the review" if a second opinion request is submitted. That is just down-right childish and tantrum-like behaviour.

Talk:Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1 which had a review a mere few days prior, is written in the same style, and was passed easily. The reviewer of that GAN carried out their style using the GA criteria, and they were more helpful when asked a question. This reviewer for the Netherlands article however, is just not being helpful, he assuming everyone knows everything, expects everyone to know where "phrases" are within the article that need to be changed by using "cmd-F" (something that even I didn't know could be done, be he assumed I MUST have known), rather than point them out. So please, could someone take a look and intervene and re-review if necessary. Thank you. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I had a look and aside from The Rambling Man's banter maybe not travelling internationally, I don't see any problem. Okay, maybe he could append "Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles" with ";-)" but does he really need to? He's put the article on hold and is waiting improvements. It's exactly what I do, except when I don't know the nominator I dial the snark right back to avoid these sort of issues. Anyway, I've always done GA reviews with the mindset that you should list any valid improvements, and then only fall back on the GA criteria if it's too much work or you disagree eg: "well, I know it would be nice to talk about 'x' but I don't haven't any really good sources, so I think we can make do with this news summary for the minute and I think that's good enough for GA". TRM has directly said he wants the review to pass, though by legitimate means - AGF and respond to the issues and there shouldn't be a problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not using FA criteria to conduct these reviews. If I were, I'd fail many more of the nominations I review. By all means "investigate" my reviews. I'm sorry to see that I'm not being helpful, by all means ask any of the recent review nominators that I've passed whether I was being "helpful". My sole aim is the improvement of the article. It's actually quite good, not anywhere near FA quality, and I would be inclined to pass it, but the indignation and lack of any form of gratitude astonishes me. I'm happy for someone else to pass this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I must confess that I see no reason for the shouting and tossing dust in the air here. RM's review of the article was quite reasonable and polite. If you don't know what CTRL-F or "Easter egg link" mean, then just ask. To be honest, I think you owe RM an apology for the excessive indignation. To take the long view,getting a Hold (not Fail) from an FA reviewer is a positive thing... I am busy now but if you want another reviewer to look I can do so next week. • Arch♦Reader 05:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, at least I know not to select any of the OPs GANs for review in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

2nd Opinion requested on Leni Riefenstahl

I have appropriately requested a 2nd Opinion on the talk page and explained on Talk:Leni Riefenstahl/GA1. I would appreciate the 2nd opinion coming from an editor who has much experience on GAN. The article evolved as patchwork, and correcting it with a little adjustment here and there isn't going to help much. I've literally been going through sentence by sentence, source by source, because so much is unreliable. This is Day 2 of doing that, and I'm not at the end. But in fairness to the nominator, I've asked for a second set of eyes on this. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said above (but sig is. ArchReader), I can take a look a week from now if no one else does• Lingzh♦(talk) 13:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. This has been taken care of now, and the nomination has Failed. — Maile (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Which topic for Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum

I think the article Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum is ready for GA nomination but I am unsure which topic to put it under. It is more about engineering technology than the building so it could go under "Engineering and technology" however I note that British Engineerium covering similar areas is under "Art and architecture". Any advice appreciated.— Rod ^talk 08:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rod, I would normally be happy to offer my opinion to answer your question, but I notice from the article Talk page that the article falls under WikiProject Somerset and WikiProject Museums; have you tried asking the page watchers at those places? You might get a more useful and knowledgeable response. Having said that, I suggest you trust your own instincts. Don't worry too much about the inconsistency you mention; it's not surprising to find that others may have struggled with this same question. If you went with engineering over art it would not be without president (i.e. the Kentucky Railway Museum). I notice you have contributed to this article for years and have expanded it recently; best of luck with your GAN! Prhartcom (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I've put it under Art and architecture, but happy for it to be assessed under either topic.— Rod ^talk 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob Muglia

The GA review has been abandoned for almost two months now and the reviewer is unresponsive. Is there a way to get it back into the queue for review? CorporateM (Talk) 06:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, yes agreed, the reviewer has apparently abandoned their responsibilities. I have left a message on their talk page and have reset the article back into the queue. Prhartcom (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking for help at TFA

This is a small attempt at outreach from one of the Featured Article guys ... I suggested this a few weeks back at WT:FAC and no one objected. What I'm looking for is a good writer who's familiar with Good Article standards to write some of the Today's Featured Article columns, maybe two per month. FAC experience is not required; I can help with FAC stuff, if necessary. For anyone who wants to apply for the job (here or on my talk page), take a look at the Today's Featured Article columns for this month at WP:TFAA, and compare those with the article leads ... if you're thinking "yeah, I see what's going on here, I could do that", then I'll give you some leads to play around with and we'll see how it goes. Part of what I'm hoping for here is that people who usually don't venture over to FAC might get an in-depth look at one small part of the process, and maybe that will humanize it and demystify it a bit. - Dank (push to talk) 01:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems like writing a TFA column entails finding the most important points in the lead and coherently summarizing it. There would certainly be a learning curve for me, and I'd need some practice, but if possible I'd like to volunteer. I do have one question, though: would I be able to choose the articles I want to write the columns for? I'd preferably write columns on article which I'm interested in. --Biblioworm 02:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, which articles are you most interested in? Brian (see WP:TFA) chooses the articles to run for odd months and Chris for even months, and I write the columns (co-write, really, since I try to keep as much of the article text as I can). Whoever gets the job will have their pick of two of each month's columns to write. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm mostly interested in articles concerning history, art, literature, etc. (Europe, in particular.) I'd have to evaluate each month's selected articles, though, since I might like to write the column for some other things. --Biblioworm 03:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1

I was wondering if and when someone has a spare moment, if they could kindly have a look at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1. The nomination was made almost 8 months ago, and the reviewer started to review; I carried out the proposed changes. The user then said they are going to pass the review, but nothing else has happened. The article talk page hasn't been updated and all the other loose ends that need tying up as part of the review closure. I have pinged the reviewer, and they have been active since I left that ping. But alas still nothing has happened. The user has got a GA Cup submissions page with points added, yet the review has still not been closed down properly. Thanks in advance. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The reviewer of this GAN is known to me, as they have been the subject of a few other issues regarding their GA review commitments. I have left a message on their talk page. Wesley Mouse, if you do not see any action by tomorrow, please ping me and I will take over the review myself. Prhartcom (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: this is where I have got confused with the review. Issues were pointed out. I addressed them. The reviewer said the article looks fine and they would pass it. But then didn't do the necessary procedures to close it down and pass it. Yet they have been given points towards their GA Cup thing, for passing it. Bamboozled me has that. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 22:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The reviewer has just listed the article for GA. Prhartcom (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Prhartcom. I really appreciate it. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

New reviewer needed

IndianBio began the GA review of Dreaming of You (Selena song) and believed that the majority of what makes up the lead is undue weight. I was told in my earlier days on Wikipedia that as a rule of thumb, I should incorporate a little of something for every section used in one article for the lead; this is how I have done my leads for every article I have helped or wrote on my own. He ended his first part of the review with "will the article be worth it?", which I believe he may fail the article based on the lead alone. I asked him if he can step down and allow someone else to review the article since he didn't really care to review it anyways (despite his constant activity on Wikipedia since the 6 June start of the review). He has since replied "Nope" in the edit summary. Am I in the wrong here or am I right to be worried that IndianBio is not taking his reviewing seriously. Best, jona^(talk) 21:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi AJona1992. I took at look at your review and I believe it is going well. This reviewer is known to me; this person has a lot of experience reviewing articles of the music industry. Therefore, I suggest you consider the fact that you might actually learn something from this reviewer. Go back and consider their suggestion again. Don't worry; your rule of thumb is not wrong, not at all, it is a great idea. Now, do you think it might be possible to follow your rule and follow the reviewer's suggestion? Because your reviewer's suggestion to avoid adding "minutia" to the lead is a good idea also. Trust that your reviewer has a good idea and wants to help you improve the article. Try to accommodate your reviewer and maybe, possibly, still get what you want also. For example, find a way to add your fact to the lead without mentioning too much detail about it (avoid that book title and author). But in the end, if you can't get even a little bit of what you want, I really do suggest you bow to your reviewer. Good luck, Prhartcom (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Query about GAN and WP:OVERCITE

Hello all. It appears that I have inadvertently offended the GAN nominator(s) of negative resistance by trying to request at least some adherence to the WP:OVERCITE essay. Essays are just guidelines, and WP:OVERCITE is not in WP:WIAGA, but in my opinion, there are limits to how much leeway any given article has in such matters.

WP:OVERCITE states: "A good rule of thumb is that, except for certain controversial topics, one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient. Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should usually be avoided; if more than three are truly beneficial as an additional range, consider WP:Bundling (merging) the citations."

The article negative resistance has the following count of cites per assertion (totals may be off by one; I banged this out in a hurry):

• 1 cite per statement, 187 instances
• 2 cites per statement, 95 instances
• 3 cites per statement, 42 instances
• 4 cites per statement, 17 instances
• 5 cites per statement, 9 instances
• 6 cites per statement, 4 instances
• 7 cites per statement, 1 instance
• 8 cites per statement, 1 instance

I admit that I am not qualified to judge the topic domain well enough to judge whether all the instances with more than one cite are controversial, but offhand I doubt it. examples follow:

• Thus power sources formally have negative static resistance (formula here).[19][20][21][42][48][49][50][51]
• This negative resistance model is an alternate way of analyzing feedback oscillator operation.[16][61][107][111][119][120][121] All linear oscillator circuits have negative resistance[61][89][107][120] although...
• Passive devices, which consume electric power, have positive static resistance; while active devices, which produce electric power, do not.[19][20][21][42][48][55]
• But a negative static resistance cannot function like this in reverse (right), converting ambient heat from the environment to electric power, because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.[19][63][72][73][74][75] which requires a temperature difference to produce work. Therefore a negative static resistance must have some other source of power.
• This shows that power can flow out of a device into the circuit (formula here) if and only if (formula here).[20][21][45][49][55][72]
• Negative differential resistances are commonly classified into two types:[9][18][24][65][81][82]

So the question is, should I completely drop my request that the nominator(s) thin the cites? Many thanks for your time and trouble. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 03:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The examples you provided here do look like overkill for WP:POPE-type statements, but maybe there was some underlying editing dispute or something? I think the answer could be, "it depends." The solution might be to look at the cited sources and maybe ping someone who knows about physics. I can think of a situation where (being a bit point-y, I admit) I had to cite multiple examples (6-8) to justify a "many foo" type of statement, which I probably would now use the {{efn}} endnotes to do instead. I would maybe ask the editor to clarify why they have so many and yes, suggest they prune a few; I've done 2 cites per statement in some of my articles, but maybe 4-5 times, not 93. Also, if a lot are to books or offline sources, that's a concern too. Have you run the check for deadlinks? That may also prune a few.... Montanabw^(talk) 05:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, adding many cites to a "many 'foo'" statement simply to support (by many examples) your assertion that it has been done "many times" is actually WP:OR, as one nominator of this article correctly pointed out to me. The only way to verify "many 'foo'" is to find a WP:RS that states "many 'foo'". As for dead links, yes I did, but that action was not well received by the nominator either. Finally, I don't believe there were any edit wars in the past. The nominator said he wanted to avoid link rot... But thanks for the comments! • Lingzhi♦(talk) 05:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

My objection to the reviewer was not that the issue of overciting had been raised. Nor do I approve of overciting. Rather, my problem was his declaration that he would not pass the article over a non-GA issue ("I could not personally pass one with this issue") and an apparent desire to impose a higher standard than the GA criteria ("[t]he goal is to work this article up to something near-ish academic standards").

Since he has chosen to open a new thread here rather than reply to the one I started on the main talk page (did I post in the wrong place?) I will repost my comment below and close the other thread. SpinningSpark 07:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The reviewer at Talk:Negative resistance/GA1 has put the article on hold and declared that he will not pass the article for reasons he admits himself are not part of the GA criteria (principally over-referencing). He has also declared that he will hand over to another reviewer. There is a discussion of the issue at the user's talk page. Comments? SpinningSpark 22:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the present version of the article. There was no edit conflict. When I wrote it I had no intention of putting it up for GA, so I didn't try to limit the citations. I just put in a lot of extra citations to avoid link rot, intending to compare them and cut them back gradually later to a reasonable number. But this is a long, complex article with extensive sourcing. I would rather not do a hurried job of cutting back the citations "under the gun" of a GA review. And as Spinningspark noted above, I don't see that the GA criteria require this. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As someone who is probably completely neutral on the topic (though Lingzhi pinged me for my input), my take is as follows:

1. 5 or more citations is, usually, overkill; if for the purpose of "avoiding linkrot," then definitely overkill.
2. The WP:OR standard is an issue, and I agree that it IS better to find one source that says "many foo"
3. GA criteria #2, "Verifiable with no original research" links to the MOS on footnotes, which doesn't address WP:OVERCITE directly, but the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citation_overkill#How_to_trim_excessive_citations are well worth considering; I'd bundle these citations, at a minimum, perhaps using the efn parameter or at least the guidelines provided in the guideline. At the very least, this is also a formatting problem in terms of GA criteria 1b.
4. If the lead editor really didn't intend it to go up for a GAN, perhaps that should be respected and the nomination withdrawn?

I hope that provides some food for thought here. Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I am intrigued why you think that criterion 1b is an issue here. That criterion lists the Manual of Style guidelines that are to be complied with. The only one listed that is even remotely relevant is WP:LAYOUT which does not address overcite, but does say "[e]ditors may use any citation method they choose" in the WP:FNNR section. I don't know where you got the idea that the lead editor did not support the nomination; Chetvorno enthusiastically agreed to taking this one to GAN. SpinningSpark 10:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a layout issue, each ref may be formatted acceptably (that guideline goes to format, not number), it's the overkill that's raising my eyebrows. It's possibly a laziness issue as well as possible OR. Do you REALLY need so many duplicate sources? Sure, sometimes you do, but I haven't seen anyone address why they are doing so here. Make your case why you need them, maybe we'll all be OK with it, but explain yourself. Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have read this thread with amazement. See Wikipedia:Snowball clause. I just came off a discussion in which not enough reliable sources was the issue, which is certainly an actual problem. Now we are taking about failing the article or asking the nominator to withdraw it because there are occasionally too many? I took a look at this article; it appears to be well-researched, well-written, and meets the GA criteria. We go by the criteria. Lingzhi, please, if you decide it otherwise meets the criteria, then pass the review. Prhartcom (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The overciting problem is one where the editors do have to look at overkill or undue repetition. I'd suggest at a minimum they use an efn format if they must have multiple citations. They also could solve the whole thing by just explaining why they think they need them all! Seriously, I don't think th GA criteria actualy would actually make someone approve an article that stated, "the Pope is Catholic.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]" when on RS would be enough. Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, I agree with you; I use the {{sfnm}} myself almost exclusively, as I do not prefer multiple footnotes per fact. I also agree that a reviewer can ask for things to improve the article that are over and above the GA criteria. However, the reviewer should not fail the review over it; pass or fail should go only by the written criteria. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Bot gave wrong verdict

I have passed Piotr Skarga but in the GA history it says I have failed it. Have I done something wrong? Should I have deleted the previous failure from the article talk page? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to have gotten confused when your article talk page edit gave both a passing and failing result, the latter appearing after and probably "overwriting" Legobot's interpretation of your review result. As the bot then proceeded to not put the GA icon on the article, would you please do that manually at this time? I'm guessing you wanted the previous failure to show on the article Talk page as a GAN history; I will provide that to now and you can then check to see how to do that. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. By the way if it helps: I always do provide the GA template to the talk page exactly they way you did it (but without the other failing template of course) first, as I know Legobot loves that template and I'm not sure it loves the Article history template. Then if I need the history, after I see the bot do its work, I will replace the GA template with the article history. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Accidentally marked as GAN reviewer

By making a comment at Talk:Gamergate controversy/GA1 I have unintentionally been marked as the reviewer. Can this be fixed, please? - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: I could just remove my name but I'm unsure how it might affect transclusions etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, you are the reviewer; you became this role when you clicked on the "start review" link and saved the GA1 page that appeared. However, in responding to your request here, rather than reverse your role as you request, I am stepping in to quick-fail the GAN for you, as I see the article is not yet stable (see the GA1 page), the nominator admits they are not a contributor to the article, and some of those that are contributors recommend this quick-fail. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't realistically be the reviewer due to my involvement, however recent. I basically screwed it up in trying to make a comment. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

second opinion or new reviewer needed

My nomination of Neepaulakating Creek at Talk:Neepaulakating Creek/GA1 needs a second opinion, or possibly a new reviewer. I think Jakec is reviewing the article based more on personal subjective demands of article content at the expense of actually judging the article on the GA criteria. He is presently stuck on insisting on information that doesnt exist. I've pointed out this isn't an FAC and the standard, per WP:WIAGA is not one of comprehensiveness. He's intimated that my article is too short for a GA although there is no size requirement. I can't add certain information to an article if no information or no reliable sources for such information exists, and he thinks that flaw justifies his belief that some articles aren't GA worthy, despite all other extant major aspects being addressed. SECOND OPINION OR NEW REVIEWER REQUESTED. JackTheVicar (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved; User:Wugapodes has offered a second opinion. FYI, the proper way to make this request is in the Instructions. Prhartcom (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: A second opinion has been offered, and the last few days the reviewer (User:Jakec aka Jakob) who was insisting on his personal prefernces beyond the GA criteria seems to have just given up, picked up his toys and gone home. He has proceeded to ignore his obligations to complete the review. He has been on-wiki doing work, but none of it would prevent him from completing the review. For some pointy reason hasn't been back to finish what he started....after walking off with a cavalier "you pass it, I don't care". Finish the review Jakob, or pass it to a new reviewer. JackTheVicar (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding topics/subtopics

G'day, apologies if this has been asked before, but shouldn't "Warfare" be a subtopic of "History"? Currently, the History topic has "World history" and "Royalty, nobility and heraldry" as subtopics, but I would see "Warfare" (which currently has its own topic towards the bottom of the GAN page) as a subtopic of History also (there certainly seems to be cross over at least). Obviously, this isn't a major issue, but I thought I'd ask (if only to satisfy my own curiosity). Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

AustralianRupert, I see what you mean, but continuing that logic: Couldn't everything be placed under History? Prhartcom (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, not all warfare is historical. Many conflicts are ongoing and some articles may even have to do with future warfare technology in development. CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the responses. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

South Bay Salt Works

Article was nominated by @RightCowLeftCoast: in June. I began the review here in early July, however almost a month has passed without any response even after directly notifying the nominator on their Talk page. What do we do with abandoned nominations? CorporateM (Talk) 17:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, and I see this nominator has not been active on Wikipedia at all for three weeks. You did the right thing by trying to notify them on their talk page. Well, no one is being inconvenienced by their absence, not even you, CorporateM, so let's just continue to wait awhile longer; they may return and the review can continue. To answer your question, we can back out the nomination if necessary. This is being reported in the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report so this may need to be done a few weeks from now if they do not return; please remind me then here and I will take care of it. Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, typically a nomination is put on hold when the review has been completed and the nominator needs to respond to the issues raised. If they don't respond within a reasonable time—a week is the usual minimum, but the reviewer is welcome to wait longer, and will frequently state how long the hold is when initiating it—the review is closed as unsuccessful. It isn't backing out of the nomination, it is closing an abandoned one, and happens more frequently than one might wish. In fact, another of RightCowLeftCoast's nominations was recently failed for just that reason: see Talk:Demographics of Filipino Americans/GA1 for how it was handled there. RightCowLeftCoast's talk page has a notice of a vacation from July 9 through 21, but it was supposed to have ended over two weeks ago now. Ultimately, it's your decision how long you wish to wait, but more than a month without a response is extremely generous, in my opinion; yesterday's report pegged the review as 23 days old. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Earl Warren and Chris Christie

Hi, can someone experienced please review these two articles (Earl Warren and Chris Christie) that I've nominated for GA and worked on to see if they meet the criteria? I know that things can get backlogged for as much as 3 months, and I'm mentioning this here so it doesn't happen here. Thank you. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone experienced will review them eventually, Spaghetti07205; they are on the list to be reviewed, but look how far down on their lists they both are. It could be awhile; the GAN backlog is always quite long; I had to wait six months for my last review. We can't expedite anyone's work. Patience. Consider reviewing someone's work yourself, if possible, to help out. Thanks for improving the articles; keep up the good work! Prhartcom (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: This editor has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and their GANs have been reverted. Prhartcom (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

SRI International

I was very surprised to see the article as GA-rated. A few excerpts include:

• "as a center of innovation to support economic development in the region."
• "SRI describes its mission as creating world-changing solutions to make people safer, healthier, and more productive."
• "As a pioneer of human computer interaction"

Also, it has an alarming number of citations to press release and the article-subject's own website, even given that a couple cites to summarize corporate structure might be ok.

Because I have a potential COI, I'm not comfortable sending it to GAR myself or performing the necessary cleanup and trimming, but I thought I would drop a line here and flag it. It was GA reviewed several years ago, so our standards were probably not as high back then. CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That does sound like it could use a reassessment. Although, the article appears otherwise to be of high quality, and after reading SRI's accomplishments, the company is obviously a pioneer. Flagging it here doesn't do anything, I'm afraid. My thoughts, CorporateM, are you could submit it to GAR yourself as your only objections would be fair ones such as those stated above, and you would clearly state your COI as you always do. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Progress report

You may recall I asked last month for someone to help regularly with Today's Featured Article. Biblioworm stepped up, with great results so far. While I'm here ... I'm copyediting yet another mushroom lead for TFA today. Before our readership starts to wonder about our phallic obsession, it would be really nice to get more variation among the articles at FAC. FAC isn't that bad, there's just more work to do than one person typically wants to do ... but if you're interested in taking your GAs to FAC, you can use that fact to your advantage: regular FAC nominators are usually delighted if someone offers to help out. And if you do that, maybe they'll help you get your articles through FAC as well. Of course, some articles are actually better as GAs than as FAs, if you prefer your articles "broad" rather than "comprehensive", I'm not saying FAs are superior ... but more people read about FAs, in the Signpost and on the Main Page. Let me know if I can help, if you're interested. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Dank is right. If the article you nominated became GA, consider taking it on to FA as well! Prhartcom (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Windows RT

User:Some Gadget Geek delisted the Windows RT article without allowing any time for other editors to respond. Some Gadget Geek also did not add the {{ArticleHistory}} template to the article talk page after delisting the article. The GAR is at Talk:Windows RT/GA2. What should be done in this situation? sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I am in the process of reverting the delisting, since the GAR was completely irregular and improperly done. The article had been unstable for two days at the most, and the GAR was opened and closed in a ten minute period, a very clear contravention of the GAR instructions. Article contributors should always be given a chance to respond, and the involved WikiProjects should be notified of the GAR (to help insure that happens). As a previous contributor to the article (though not a major one), it's borderline that Some Gadget Geek should have been the one to open the GAR to begin with; it's clear from the stealth review that he shouldn't be the one to pursue it. It is only to add that the article stabilized as soon as it was protected, and normal editing has been the case since it was unprotected a week ago, a clear indication that delisting was the wrong thing to do. Some Gadget Geek is a fairly new editor, and has never worked on a GA or GAR before; I strongly suggest far better familiarity with the processes before any new forays in the area. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this for the community as an uninvolved editor, BlueMoonset; your knowledge of the ins and outs of GA articles is appreciated, and I continue to learn from you as well. The only thing I would suggest is to please avoid assigning blame and shame to individual editors, as they probably acted in good faith, so a simple correction and instruction on how to do it next time should be sufficient. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion at Paulo Francis

I'm looking for a second opinion (or third, or fourth) at Talk:Paulo Francis/GA4. If you are willing to help, please do! Wugapodes (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Bulk reviews and nominations by new editor

Between 03:57 and 08:25, new Wikipedia editor Tortle nominated 18 articles for GAN (one of which was later rescinded), and opened five GA reviews, three of which were listed (two without any comment whatever). The reviews are:

• Talk:Ayrshire cattle/GA1: opened at 04:20; listed at 04:42. It's a pretty short article for a GA candidate, yet there was no discussion of the "broad in its coverage" criteria
• Talk:Boeing 717/GA1: opened at 05:28; listed at 05:45 without any comments on the review page
• Talk:IPhone 5S/GA1: opened at 05:28; objected to the lead length (only criterion discussed), then back-and-forth with nominator
• Talk:Agar.io/GA1: opened at 05:31; listed at 06:31 without any comments on the review page. The lack was noted by the nominator eight hours later, and Czar has subsequently made some suggestions.
• Talk:Bernie Sanders/GA1: opened at 05:31; objected at 06:29 to some lead issues (prepared to list article as GA otherwise unless someone else raised issues).

Tortle's first two edits were eight days ago, on August 18; it was as user Eheu!, requesting to usurp the Tortle username (first edit was on the Tortle username's talk page, since usurped, and the second edit was to formally submit that request, saying I would like to change my username because I dont like having the exclamation point in mine now and want a more simple one. This despite the fact that the account had been created mere hours before. The usurpation was processed late on August 22, and edits recommenced on August 23. The flood of nominations and reviews started three days later.

I have reverted all the GANs that Tortle submitted: Tortle had not edited any of them, nor contacted significant editors on any of them. While the bulk were technical, they also included Microsoft, Apple Inc. and Wikipedia.

I will be pre-emptively reverting the Boeing717 GA listing: no comment at all, nothing from the nominator, no reason not to. I'll request that the review page be speedy deleted. My inclination would be to revert the other two GA listings, Ayrshire cattle and Agar.io, since it's clear this editor is not yet equipped to give a valid review, and put the nominations back in the reviewing pool without a loss of seniority. If this had been an isolated review, then perhaps a reassessment would have been in order, but this was too extensive for that; we've generally reverted in the past when this level of damage has been done. The remaining incomplete reviews, iPhone 5S and Bernie Sanders, would be terminated and also put back into the reviewing pool with the same retention of seniority.

This has been a severe disruption to the GA process, even if not intended. I would like to propose that Tortle be required to refrain from nominating any articles for GA and opening any GA reviews for at least three months, and only allowed to resume reviewing and nominating one article at a time thereafter, and only with a mentor in place. Further loosening of the restrictions can certainly happen once Tortle has demonstrated competence in these areas. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Barring a reply from Tortle with the reasonable intention to add full reviews, I think it makes sense to revert their closures and relist the lot. Tortle, reviews should have text, even if it's just to say which points passed and which didn't and your thoughts on each. Otherwise how is anyone to know that any substantial review actually happened? I hope you'll be willing to do this. – czar 17:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Czar, Tortle has been actively editing for four days. Given that lack of experience, it would be extraordinary indeed if we had someone with the qualifications to properly judge all the criteria. Tortle may be willing to add text as you ask, but even with all the good faith in the world, I don't believe there should be listing or other closure without someone to first double check that all the WP:WIAGA requirements have been examined and correctly evaluated. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If Tortle can turn one of their sparse reviews into a solid review in the next 48 hours (or so), then great. If not, let's revert the lot. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt (though I think the hesitancy is not unwarranted) – czar 17:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, I pre-emptively reverted the Boeing 717 listing. I'll wait on the other four per your suggestion. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've reverted the GA status of Agar.io - the review was wholly improper (there should be really some requirements for GA reviewing, like AfC). Esquivalience ^t 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset and czar. First of all, I have edited on wikipedia before, maybe 5 or 6 years back so I just jumped right into it this time. And secondly, I didnt realize that there was an issue with nominating the articles if I didnt contribute. I had started my reviews and decided that some other articles should probably be assesed due to their importance but didnt understand that there were rules for nomination so I apologise. And thank you both for handling this with some rhyme and reason. But anyway as far as reviewing them, the ones that I passed passed all of the criteria and I believed that posting the new template was enough. I did post a closing comment for the cattle one though with future suggestions that couldnt be requirements due to them not fitting into the criteria. I judged all by the criteria and just failed to post a closing comment which isnt even a requirement so how would I have known to do that? I will post the closing comments as czar suggested if my reviews werent already relisted. But I did review these nominations with experience (which isnt required anyway), with competence, and by following the criteria. Tortle (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ok so the ayrshire cattle review was conducted properly and still stands.

• The iPhone 5s review is pending, and awaiting suggested changes.
• Bernie Sanders is awaiting changes and conversation is ongoing.

• Boeing 717 is relisted and another reviewer can take it.
• Agar.io is relisted and another reviewer can take it.

I think a good compromise would be to watch me close the iphone and bernie sanders requests with the new input you have all given me and lets see how I handle these. If you think I am handling them wrong, give input as the process progresses and you can always relist it if things get extremely out of hand which they most likely wont. Tortle (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Don't review or continue to review until you gain experience with Wikipedia content; only editors who have experienced good content (i.e. written or even read good content) know what to expect in good content.. Esquivalience ^t 18:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have experience with good content from a few years ago and I didnt loose it, its like riding a bike, I still understand the majority of it. I would like an opinion from the others involved in this conversation too before I stop the ongoing reviews. Tortle (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Can you please sign because I dont know who wrote the comment above mine above. Tortle (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Tortle, the signature was there before you deleted it during one of your edits. It would be courteous of you to restore it yourself rather than asking for it to be done again, and it's an unfortunate reflection of your abilities as a Wikipedian that you didn't realize your error to begin with. As for your proposed compromise, I don't believe you should actually close the iPhone 5S or Bernie Sanders articles, but just post that you believe they are ready to be closed and why. Then we can judge how well you're doing without again having to revert things if there are issues with your review. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Tortle, and welcome to Wikipedia. The seasoned editors above, BlueMoonset, Czar, and Esquivalience are handling this correctly: Nearly all of your GA nominating and reviewing work needs to be immediately reverted. Your enthusiasm is terrific, don't get us wrong. But your inexperience is showing. You don't have enough experience, not after a few days. There is no "experience from a few years ago". Look above; you can't even format a reply to a discussion correctly; you have trampled the comments of Esquivalience. As these wise editors above said you to: Watch and learn for awhile, see how it's done, look before you leap, read the instructions. Let's let BlueMoonset make the final call here. Please listen to this one editor in particular and follow what they have to say. OK? Prhartcom (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• The Ayrshire cattle article is NOT a good article. It is, as pointed out on the reviewers talk page, C-class at best. Cassianto^Talk 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, enough people have given their opinions so I am going to stay off GA, theres no place for me here. Tortle (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't take it too hard, Tortle. I can tell you are a good person, a mature individual, and you are willing to learn from your mistakes: all good qualities. And remember, all of us started at the beginning, just like you. Don't lose that enthusiasm! Why not try to improve an article of your choosing and bring it to GA next? You could be awesome at it! You are welcome to come to me for questions any time. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Since Tortle is leaving GA, I'll be reverting the Ayrshire listing (I agree with Cassianto's assessment that it is not ready to be listed) and putting it and the iPhone 5S and Bernie Sanders nominations back into the reviewing pool without loss of seniority. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Prhartcom, I think I will work on improving and nominating one, I appreciate it and I am sorry for the disruption I caused. Tortle (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATE- I worked hard to improve Lego and nominated it for GA status. I think I will work on more of these in the future. If any of you want to take the review, I would appreciate it because I could get working on any suggested improvements sooner. Thanks for all of the input as I tried to take what I could to help me move on. Tortle (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

On Hold

Hi. I have a couple of articles I began reviews on, but have put on hold. How long do they stay on hold? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Onel5969, it's up to you, but you should mention how long in your review comments. A typical length of time is seven days, but you can certainly allow longer if you think the work might take longer, or if the nominator seems to be away for a bit (or has announced an absence, as happens frequently due to summer vacations or the like). And, of course, you can extend the time if progress is being made, or if the nominator asks for more time to complete the changes you're requesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonset - That's exactly what's happening. In the one case, the editor is slowly making changes, but only edits the GA nominee about 1x a week; in the other case, the editor hasn't been on Wiki since I began the review. I'll definitely give them more time. Again, thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Main Page (2015 redesign)

There's a serious discussion about redesigning the Main Page at the link. Two things I take away from this discussion: 1. People have no problems with the Today's Featured Article segment or with its position in the first slot, which means TFA is probably creating some good publicity for WP:FAC in general, and 2. Many people are less than happy with the quality of the WP:DYK articles. So, couldn't we kill 4 or 5 birds with one stone by creating a Today's Good Article section? I'd be happy to try to get a team together that would work on the daily text, if that would help. There are lots of potential problems ... but WP:TFA runs pretty smoothly, which gives me hope that a hypothetical WP:TGA would run smoothly too. If anyone wants to discuss this ... now would be the time, we haven't had a big redesign of the Main Page in many years. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm volunteering to help only as one of the guys working on the daily text, and only if you guys want me to. I assume you'd want to come up with some process to select the articles to run. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: It's been discussed before, looking through the archives, but I could see something like this working better with new design. I made an example of what it could look like.

Most people don't know (or care) about the criteria behind "good" and "featured", so I made room for three articles. This would replace DYK for certain days of the week (similar to TFL). I think it could help expose well-written content ineligible for DYK (due to age, or the author didn't want to nom) on the front page, catering to potential or budding contributors who might overlook DYK as the "funnies".

All this might still be too arbitrary though, but it's fun to design and think about it. Whatcha think? 23W 04:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't get any hits on "today's good" in the archives; do you know where it was discussed before? I'd like to see what people thought. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The last discussion I'm seeing was one I already knew about, at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_171#GA Main Page slot proposal. It got a lot of support, but it failed for all the reasons that big RfCs usually fail ... it was asked at the wrong time (when there were already multiple RfCs going) and in the wrong place (at DYK), it was seen as a form of competition with DYK and maybe TFA as well, and it was launched without any preparation by the supporters to deal with the expected and reasonable objections. A hypothetical TGA would probably take a little more effort than TFA (particularly at first), and TFA isn't trivial. So the first step, if people are interested, would be to get started, to demonstrate that it's doable and that the community is behind it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: Started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Main Page (2015 redesign). 23W 17:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Dank, that is nothing less than a brilliant idea. 23W, great layout plan. I have just replied over at the discussion 23W links to above, but I can tell you I believe that this is a tremendously positive step in the right direction. Prhartcom (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Posting comments on already-finished GA nomination pages -- allowed or not?

Hey, User:Hijiri88 here. Posting logged-out because I'm afraid of yet more harassment if I post this logged-in.

I recently posted a comment on a GA review that had passed a few days earlier, but in my opinion had failed to adequately analyze the article's sourcing (it is presently classified as a GA, but has obvious sourcing problems, in at least one case obviously misrepresents its source, and also contains at least one instance of SYNTH). I was under the impression that pages/sections in the Talk namespace that don't specifically state either that they are closed or that posting is forbidden were still open for comment.

I was reverted shortly thereafter. I am not sure how to deal with this: if my somewhat-too-late comment was a violation of some guideline of which I am not aware, then I guess reverting me was acceptable, but if my comment was allowed, then the other user removing it was a violation of talk page etiquette. (Ironically enough, the same user posted in an overdue-to-be-closed ANI thread. Twice.)

Was my comment a violation? Should I have just put in a reassessment request instead?

180.221.235.82 (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Hijiri88, we appreciate your transparency, admitting that this question of yours is part of an enormous ANI discussion that has been going on for days without getting anywhere, and has been submitted for closure here. We're not going to take sides on the discussion.

To quickly answer your questions though, if the situation were less contentious, no, it is no violation to post a polite comment to the GA review page. In this case, your comment was inflammatory and therefore, less likely to achieve what you wanted and more likely to perpetuate the disagreement documented at the ANI. Yes, a reassessment is the established procedure for users to follow when they believe an article no longer deserves its GA. However, the goal of a reassessment is to not to punish those responsible as you may be hoping, but rather to improve Wikipedia by helping the article deserve its GA status. If you would like to commit to resolving the issues you believe are in the article, then you may nominate it, but I suggest waiting until well after the ANI discussion has closed. Prhartcom (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: (Posting logged-in this time to get this on my editing record -- now that the content dispute in question is on the path to resolution I don't see any further need to hide this from my wiki-stalkers.) Thank you for your prompt and well-written response. Understood. I was frustrated when I wrote the comment, and I apologize for the inflammatory tone. I understand that the goal of reassessment is not to punish those responsible (I hope that the user who wrote/nominated the articles, and the users responsible for passing the original GA nominations, see it the same way). Once all the present fusterclucks in which I am involved have wound down, I'll look into reassessing the GA articles in question (many of which have obvious sourcing issues). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wyangala GA?

Wyangala was assessed on October 19, 2014 by User:JSwho, a user apparently created for that purpose, given an almost total lack of edit history other than the review. He made no other edits, and yet reviewed and passed an article on his first "day" here. He indicated he was not a new user, but did not disclose who he was. The account then went dormant until yesterday. This could be "good hand bad hand"-type editing, so I think in all fairness, an established reviewer needs to reassess this article. MSJapan (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Albert Einstein had a son named spencer einstein and he was the best at a lot of sports baseball, football and basketball. I herd that he was the coolest kid ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.144.210 (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional - Wyangala was heavily edited by User:Fvalzano, who in an SPI seems to have the same two articles in common with JSwho. One is Wyangala. This article really needs to be delisted and reassessed. MSJapan (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw that; before you posted immediately above I did some digging and found the sock puppet investigation on the reviewer/nominator/contributors (it would have helped if you had saved us some time and told us about it): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JSwho. Currently the checkuser is coming up inconclusive. However, I agree that this looks fishy. On the other hand, the Wyangala article, even if it turns out to be reviewed illegitimately, appears to legitimately be a well-written, well-researched, good article. In any case, you are welcome to initiate an individual reassessment at WP:GAR, which will require some commitment on your part. If you have any other comments or findings, feel free to post them below. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarification's sake, the relationship between JSwho and Fvalzano is possible (actually bordering  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)), rather than inconclusive. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you had to hunt for it; "SPI" in my statement is wikilinked to the investigation. Also, I'm not really qualified to GAR, and as I'm an involved editor, I don't want to touch the review myself. MSJapan (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Because you hadn't mentioned it in your first message above, during which time I did my digging. I posted my results five minutes after your fourteen-hours later second note. Prhartcom (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

MSJapan, if you feel strongly that the article should be reassessed, then there's no reason you can't initiate a community reassessment. As it says on the WP:GAR page under individual reassessments, If you have delisted the same article before, are a major contributor, or delisting could be seen as controversial consider requesting a community reassessment. Basically, someone who is "involved" (such as a major contributor) or unable/unwilling to do the review leaves it to the community to make the determination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I prefer that route, but I've had a terrible time trying to navigate GAR to even get this thing set up as far as it has. I had to post on help because I can't even get the discussion to transclude. Would you be able to set up the section for community reassessment? MSJapan (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

MSJapan, you are welcome to do this, however I wish to state at this point that the reason to initiate a GAR is if you have read the article and believe that it does not merit its good article (GA) status according to the GA criteria. It truly has nothing to do with sock puppets. I am absolutely cheering what you've done for this SPI, don't get me wrong, but I must admit that it is possible for sock puppets to follow the GA criteria. If all you can say in the GAR is that the article could have been reviewed by its nominator, as much as other editors despise the sound of that, they will still judge the article solely on the GA criteria. Prhartcom (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, a cursory lookover indicates it is missing citations in several places where GA claims they are needed. There's a lot of "paragraph-level" citation that might as well be copied verbatim from the books if it's really only from one page. MSJapan (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you check to see whether the citations at the end of the paragraph actually covered the full paragraph (as is allowed in the citation rules), or did you simply add "citation needed" tags after particular facts without checking? For that matter, did you check those sources to see how closely paraphrased the article is, instead of assuming it must be? You're as much as saying the article is approaching copyvio, and I'd want examples of the places where at least close paraphrasing exists. If you want me to set up a community reassessment for you—which basically means I'd have to start it myself and put my name on it—I'll need to feel more comfortable with what you believe is wrong with the article. My initial inclination was to support the doing of a reassessment, since the circumstances of the original passage were clearly irregular, but you haven't helped your cause here. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The remainder of this discussion has been moved to it's proper place in Talk:Wyangala/GA2

Since this is a community reassessment, the reassessment page has been moved to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wyangala/1. Comments should be made there; it may not show up at WP:GAR immediately, but should be there in an hour or so (it might take longer since I've had to do most of the moving and updating by hand). The /GA2-style page name under the article talk page is only for individual reassessments, and since MSJapan started the process it can't be an individual assessment for the reasons noted previously. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Naveen Jain/GA1 and reviewer LavaBaron's competence issues

LavaBaron's declaration that he intends to list this article if the issues he raised are fixed, disagreeing with all of the problems I noted last week—some factual, violations of WP:LEAD, unclear prose, and so on—is a clear indication that he is currently unfit to review at GAN. There have been issues since his first reviews here that reflect a failure to fundamentally understand the GA criteria.

LavaBaron and I have not seen eye to eye—he's currently banned me from his talk page—but on my side it has always been concern that he doesn't adequately understand the GA process or what the criteria ask for. He's amply demonstrated my concerns are valid. His current GA nominations are further evidence of this: Leschi (fireboat), Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances, and Coast Guard City are none of them ready, with some fundamental criteria unmet. A quick check shows that both Leschi and Washington Doctrine have very short leads that do not summarize the article and neither meets the MOS layout requirements, Coast Guard City again has lead issues, is quite short overall, and fails to meet the broadness criteria (indeed, this is practically a list, and might not be eligible for GA at all). His Trevor Kincaid might fare better, but one out of four is not an adequate showing.

His lack of understanding also extends to Featured Articles and A-class reviews: Coast Guard City was simultaneously nominated for GAN and an A-class review with the statement I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the A-Class criteria (it was far from doing so), and he changed his GAN for First interracial kiss on television to make it a Featured Article Candidate instead, saying on the page there that it was a short but comprehensive and exhaustively sourced article (it was described there as "little more than a stub" and "fails most of the FA criteria").

With regret, I ask that LavaBaron either be restricted to reviewing GAs only under the guidance of a mentor whose agreement must be obtained before the review is either passed or failed, or be asked to refrain from reviewing until he can demonstrate competence by nominating articles that are actually GA-ready. And that both of his current GANs (the other is Talk:Bozh/GA1) not be closed until a decision is made here. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (again / *sigh*) - Regrettably, BlueMoonset, who is otherwise an outstanding editor with a sterling record of contributions, has embarked on an obsessive crusade to have me TBAN'ed from GA reviews, repeatedly declaring "there have been problems" with my GA reviews, phrased as if to indicate this is a widely observed phenomenon despite his being repeatedly warned by multiple other editors no such problems exist. This originated with a disagreement some time ago and his apparent umbrage at having been overruled by consensus, to wit:

He objected to my decision to GA-promote a contentious article by a COI editor and, when multiple editors disagreed with his objections (SilkTork said of my review that "[as for] problems [noted by BM] with the first review - it seems fine" while others said I was "quite qualified" etc.), began a bizarre campaign of hounding me from review to review and interjecting into them ridiculous insults about my intelligence and mental capacity, including the use of charged phrases like "competence issues" which he has again invoked here. His façon de parler became so utterly distasteful that I had to request he stop posting on my Talk page as a de-escalation tactic, the only time in my WP career that extraordinary step has been necessary.

Though every review by uninvolved editors has disagreed with his assessment of my "mental capacity" (Prhartcom even gave me a barnstar for having to put up with last month's BlueMoonset savaging [4]) and though I fail more GA reviews than I choose to pass (in fact failing my most recent closed review and holding my current review for a second opinion), BM massages a picture of me as a carefree moron who rubber stamps GAs and stumbles around WP, blithely oblivious to the havoc I'm creating through my sheer stupidity.

I won't do a bulleted reply to BM's accusations as it would rapidly degenerate since most are based on, what appears to be, straightforward falsification of facts (notably absent diffs) designed to support this vendetta. For example: he said I should be GA TBANed because an article to which I contributed "is practically a list" [sic], though fails to note the edits that resulted in that characteristic were made by another editor entirely ([5]). These type of fundamental errors are present throughout his accusation, and I can only assume are intentional. (If unintentional, I would kindly advise him to please be more detail-attentive in the future when he declaims the "competence" of other editors.) There is a serious backlog at GA right now. Quite frankly, this type of behavior is only making it worse by deterring editors who do not want to navigate a crucible or be dragged into another editor's engineered drama.

Respectfully - LavaBaron (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

What is it with you two? Why do we have to take up space on this page to watch you two duke it out? I suppose you are waiting for my response, although I don't want to: I have better things to do.

I love and respect both of you. You are both more-than-competent editors. BlueMoonset, your intelligence, your capabilities, and your love for the GA process are off the chart. Your own record of GA accomplishments speaks for itself; it dwarfs almost everyone I know. I never want you to leave the GA Help Desk. Your knowledge of the GA Criteria, your commitment to it, and your ability to resolve issues here are so valuable even your opponent acknowledges it. LavaBaron, your rebuttal left me laughing out loud ("a picture of me as a carefree moron ...") Your wit, your eloquence, and your confidence should rightly carry you far. You are inexperienced, true, but you know that and you are making up for lost time at an impressive pace. If any of your opponent's objections are valid, the issues they may have observed are far from unsolvable. This time next year you will be light years ahead of your peers.

I would appreciate a truce between the two of you. This can only happen through mutual respect. LavaBaron, you already respect BlueMoonset with the respect a pupil has for their teacher, so that is done. Please never lose that respect, because as you know, BlueMoonset truly knows what they are doing. BlueMoonset, you are above LavaBaron in experience like a teacher is above their pupil, but please treat LavaBaron with the respect a pupil deserves. I know, you are vocal because of your love for the GA Criteria as you should be; you know it more than most people (myself included) and you don't appreciate seeing the process sullied. Point taken. Yes, please continue to guard it as you have been doing. And when you perceive it being abused, if you were to become the reviewer of these articles, please continue to take action and please continue to react with the restraint I see you executing. (If only people knew how much restraint you are showing, right?) So believe it or not, I am asking you to do even more: To show so much restraint that you actually respect the accomplishments of editors who fail to perform. You know as well as I do that LavaBaron is succeeding in as many areas as you perceive they are failing. Take comfort in the knowledge that I agree with you about their failings. I investigated every point you made above, and I side with you on all of them. The lead is too short, the broadness criteria falls short, the article is practically a list. (LavaBaron, I hope you are listening: You have done well but you need to do more.) But BlueMoonset, look how willing LavaBaron is to dive in and learn. A little too fast maybe, but impressive accomplishments even if they are far from perfect and eggs are broken along the way. I am asking you to take them by the hand as a master does a pupil and find the areas where LavaBaron is succeeding. If you were the reviewer of these articles (as many as you have time for), you could praise the areas where LavaBaron has succeed: Impressive research, beautiful formatting, neutral and well-written prose. For those areas that fall short of the GA criteria, stand firm and insist that the article won't pass until those issues are resolved, but because you have expressed admiration for the areas that succeeded, LavaBaron will trust you like a pupil trusts their teacher. They will have felt the sincere respect you have for them for the level they have attained—pretty far, considering—and they will want to please you and will want to resolve the issues that you tell them about because they trust you and respect you. You see what I mean about the importance of mutual respect. The issues you raise here won't be resolved without it.

LavaBaron, I have given you sincere praise because I saw in you a glimmer of future expertise. And I was not wrong about that: I see in you an editor with such skill, you will be a teacher of other editors. But don't get ahead of yourself. You have much to learn. Take, for example, the times I had to come to you with patient explanation of the way to do something. Something that BlueMoonset also patiently tried to tell you. The blocking of BlueMoonset was a misunderstanding; go back and re-read what they were trying to tell you; you will see you misunderstood them: it was the same thing I was trying to tell you. You got ahead of yourself. That's okay; take your knocks, learn from them, and move on; taking comfort that others believe you will do great things. Read some of the articles that BlueMoonset has brought to GA and you will see what I mean: This is where you need to be and where I believe you will be. I want you to know one of the earliest things I liked about you was your confidence and your sharp wit. Keep those skills close and don't lose ground with them. (One way to lose ground with confidence is to repeatedly restate praise aloud that someone once gave you; you aren't convincing anyone with that; instead draw confidence from within yourself like I first saw you doing and keep honing that razor sharp wit while you're at it.) Get out and meet and learn from others on Wikipedia besides the three of us; many of my colleagues I could only dream of achieving their level of skill but I am still trying to do so. You see what I mean about not getting ahead of oneself in estimation of one's abilities. The issues you know exist here won't be resolved without it.

That's it; I wish the two of you the very best. Prhartcom (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Great points, Prhartcom. You're right, BM and I need to learn to get along better together. I agree to your proposal of closing this thread with no further action. LavaBaron (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Winner 42

This user appears to have left the site, leaving five GA reviews open in various states:

• Talk:Armenia–Croatia relations/GA1
• Talk:Croatian parliamentary election, 1990/GA1
• Talk:Richie Benaud/GA1
• Talk:Kanae Yamamoto (artist)/GA1
• Talk:John Hagee/GA1

Hopefully someone can continue the reviews that are open, and maybe the two that haven't even been started can be reverted? Harrias ^talk 08:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Winner 42 has set up an indefinite enforced break, I've just closed the first two reviews as unsuccessful: in both cases, there were significant issues, the (different) nominators have not edited on Wikipedia since late June, and the articles themselves haven't been touched since then. For the next two, since the reviews were opened but not started, I'm going to ask for them to be speedy deleted, so we can put the nominations back into the reviewing pool. This just leaves the John Hagee nomination for someone to continue; I'm going to ping the nominator, who hasn't responded to the review yet after two weeks, to make sure that the issues raised are going to be addressed soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

CookieMonster755, the nominator of the Hagee article, has replied to my talk-page ping to say that the nomination will not be pursued now that Winner 42 has withdrawn. So I am closing that review as well, which takes care of all of Winner 42's unfinished reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Fizeau experiment/GA1 opened by mistake; now over a month old

YohanN7 opened this review by mistake, merely hoping to comment on an existing review. When I queried his talk page, he said, Best is if someone else can take over, since I will not be here much in the near future. Can someone please take over the review?

GA Cup folks (3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo), since no review has been done as yet, would this count as a new review for the purposes of the GA Cup? That might help attract a reviewer more quickly. It was originally nominated on August 9. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I would count the original date of August 9 as the date of nomination, since nothing came of the review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the review nomination date as August 9th. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And it would be considered a new review even if the reviewer took over the GA1 page, or would we have to reset so a GA2 would be started? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

GA1 should work fine, in my opinion. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

J Milburn, I noticed that you've taken on some science-related articles for the GA Cup; might you be willing to try this one, taking over the existing review page? Thanks for considering it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it's really not a topic I'm familiar with- I've an amateur interest in biology, but no real knowledge of physics/optics. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So people are aware: I've just deleted the review page, so someone else will be able to take it on as a "new" review anyway. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Unprofessional review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Though I am glad someone took the time to begin a review of one of my articles, however Azealia911 quick failed my GA nomination. In it, the user says that the article qualify's for a quick fail based on immediate failures because of "some really large referencing issues towards the end of the article"; what referencing issues might those be? The user fails to answer this in their review of the article but does state that there's not even one source for the filmography section (which can easily been retrieved since the content was taken from IMDB) but earlier said it would take more than a week to address that and "other" issues. In the user's contributions, it takes him several minutes to write a review for a Mariah Carey article shortly after commenting on a FAC article, but takes him five hours to write a one short paragraph for a lengthy article. If I had five hours to do a review I would have wrote down my thoughts on the article, not simply quick fail based on referencing and not specifically go into detail about what those might be. I don't mind criticism (that's what GAN is for), but I expect a detail review on an article I spent some time expanding and researching on. Best, jona^(talk) 19:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it was rash to immediately come here, as opposed to my talk page, or even the GA review page, where I would have been more than happy to civilly discuss any issues you had with my review of your nomination. I'm currently rather busy and don't really have the time or patience to get into a debate / debacle about a GA nomination's poorly referenced section which subsequently lead to its failure. So I'll just put my hands up and take the hit, perhaps you could have brought it up to standard in the seven-day on-hold period. Perhaps it was rash to quickfail. Feel free to relist. Best, Azealia911 _talk 19:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No debate, just wanted to understand what referencing issues you were referring to. On my computer, everything looks fine and I see no CS1 errors or anything. I really don't want to relist and wait another six months before it gets a review, is there anyone out there wiling to pick up the review? I will be available to fix any and all issues if any are found. Best, jona^(talk) 20:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) It's a really poor review. If the reviewer wants the one section that doesn't have references to be referenced, I'm sure that's a five minute job. Most of the filmography section is covered by WP:PRIMARY in any case. The review should be re-opened, and not re-listed, it's completely unfair on AJona1992 for this to go back to the end of the queue. Picking a GA with over 200 references and then claiming it was under-referenced to the point that it was worse than a stub is insulting. I suggest that Azealia911 refrains from further GA reviews until he/she is actually commensurate with how GAN works. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to pick up the review, The Rambling Man. Azealia911 _talk 20:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is that you should be advised not to make reviews of this nature again. Reviewers need to demonstrate competence. Please place the article back "onreview" as soon as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've actually done nothing wrong, thankyou very much. Point one of the immediate failures is "It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid or needs new cleanup banners." Are you telling me a {{Unreferenced section}} didn't need to be added to the Filmography section? Azealia911 _talk 20:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep. And it could be easily fixed within seven days. Seven minutes probably if you insisted on inline citations for each one. Your review was appalling and you should be encouraged to not review another GAN until you understand that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Jesus christ, I fucked up one GA review and held my hands up, there's no need to be such a massive dick, spouting off about competence. Azealia911 _talk 20:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I wish. You pick an article with over 200 references and then quick fail it for having one section you deem to be unreferenced? Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I won't comment on the review or the reviewer (as enough has already been said about it), but will add that it is important for all potential GA reviewers (as well as the users submitting their work for review) to have enough time available to discuss improvements in the article. It's important to keep in mind WP:TIND in these type of cases (even if there is a backlog); i.e., maintain quality over quantity.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Technically Azealia911 is right; the article does meet the quick fail criteria. However, in this case WP:IAR applies. Just because it can be quickfailed does not mean it should be quickfailed. sst^flyer 01:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No, not really. If it's an issue that can be resolved within a seven-day period or less, then it should not quick-failed. As TRM stated, the one issue Azealia911 listed on the review is something that most editors who have enough experience can fix with little to no problem. Quick fail should only if it is beyond a doubt that the whole article could be fixed within a seven-day period. Erick (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No, quick-fail can be used even if it can be resolved within 7 days. The criteria for quick-fail does not specify this. One example of this is if the article contains copyright infringement. Even though the infringed content can be removed quickly in under a day, it is a candidate for quick-fail. Is this review a best practice scenario? No. Can it be handled better in the future? Absolutely (and a good example of invoking IAR). Is this case merits barring someone from reviewing? No, because the interpretation of a rule is only as good as how precise the rule is written. I also want to note that AJona1992 did not engage in discussing with Azealia911 prior to bringing the debate over here. Any reasonable person would be expected to communicate with the reviewer and then proceed here if unsatisfied with the outcome of that discussion. I know this is going to draw flak from all sides, but I find fault on all sides (the rule itself and both parties). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't need to discuss how poorly and unprofessional Azealia911's review was on his talk page. When he opened the review to this article, he should have prepared to dedicate his time in reviewing an article based on the GA standards. His review was poorly done and it needed attention, especially since he regularly reviews articles here. Who knows what other reviews he has done that were similar to this, his review of this article needed attention from those who were more experienced; and it did. He has since been asked to stop and reexamine what a good GA reviewer is, which he agreed he should do. If the problem was minor, I would have responded on the GA review itself. Best, jona^(talk) 22:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you point out other reviews done by Azealia911 that were considered poor? Calling someone "Who knows what other reviews he has done that were similar to this" without providing evidence is considered to be casting aspersion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

As much as I'd rather this just go away, have the article re-assessed by someone, and we all move on with our lives, I'm not going to be repeatedly ridiculed and called out for doing something perfectly in my rights. "It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid or needs new cleanup banners" is grounds for immediate failure, which means "An article can be failed without further review". At the time I reviewed the article, it needed an {{Unreferenced section}} template in the Filmography section, and actually still needs one. Could you have addressed the issue in seven days? Quite possibly, but the decision to fail the article lies with the reviewer, not the nominator. You may have not liked my review, but calling it poor, incompetent, incomplete and unprofessional is completely uncalled for when I did nothing more than review the article against criteria page. Also, "since been asked to stop and reexamine what a good GA reviewer is, which he agreed he should do." is false, I never agreed to do anything. Azealia911 _talk 18:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You should have done. A cursory glance could have led to you just requesting whether the nominator could address just a single section you deemed necessary of referencing, rather than quick-failing a GAN that had been waiting for five months. All you achieved was to send it straight to the back of the queue with your particular interpretation of the GAN criteria. I'm really glad to see that it's been picked up by a more considerate reviewer. Take a moment to understand how it would feel to see one of your GANs wait for five months just to be quick-failed for something that would take an experienced editor (e.g. the nominator) a matter of minutes to fix. You should think twice before doing such a thing again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is getting ridiculous. A user made a faulty review due to lack of experience, the user is notified that it was faulty and tries to do it differently henceforward, problem solved, life goes on. We need more reviewers, not less, so let's not try to drive a potential future reviewer away just for the sake of drama. We do not punish people endlessly for mistakes here, unless they continue to repeat the mistakes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to AJona1992 for improving and nominating this article; keep up the good work! Thanks to Azealia911 for the professional review; please continue to review articles here at Wikipedia. And thanks also to Freikorp for picking up the review. The Quick fail section of the GA Criteria page needs to be slightly improved. It was used to justify this kind of issue, so I have made an improvement that now clarifies when to quick fail. By touching on the roles of both the nominator and the reviewer, the section now brings a little more accountability to both roles. Hopefully, we will keep this kind of issue from happening again in the near future. Since all of us would have preferred to have seen this issue turn out differently, I do not believe anyone is to blame. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Taylor Swift/GA3

This individual reassessment was opened by an editor who had prior edits to the article. The review was started two months ago, but the reviewer immediately delisted and tag-bombed the article after posting the issues to be solved, without notifying major contributors to the article and relevant WikiProjects (e.g. WP:SWIFT). The delisting and tag-bombing has been reverted. How should this be handled? ⛅✈ 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Social sciences and society - problem with not listing reviewers

• Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Social sciences and society

Links to GA review subpages clearly already have a GA Reviewer, subpage link says discuss review and not start review, but for a lot of them it's lacking the note below it saying Review: this article is being reviewed .

Any ideas on how to fix this?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's two redundant duplicate sections on that page of the same exact sections. The bottom one is correct, the top one is not. Any ideas on how to fix it? Bot issue? — Cirt (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Akira Kurosawa nomination status

When I tried to contact the nominating editor for Akira Kurosawa (he nominated the article for GA in Media section) last week, there was no reply since then from that editor. Could someone update the status of the nomination when there is no reply from the nominating editor. MusicAngels (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nominator started to review their own article...

Talk:Juno (spacecraft)/GA1

Juno (spacecraft)

• Huritisho (talk · contribs) started to review their own article that they nominated for GA, as GA ...

What's wrong with this picture?

I left some comments at their user talk page, could use some feedback from others, as well.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have been by mistake, since no comments were left. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was a mistake. It had been a week I added it for nomination and there was no activity whatsoever. I felt like I forgot to do something and started a review. How do I revert this mess now Huritisho 02:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

2nd opinion request

Talk:Messers Run/GA1 was just reviewed by someone who made a series of bizarrely inaccurate, irrelevant to GA, and unaddressable comments. I initially used the 2nd opinion template, but it seems that that's for reviewers, not nominators. So can someone who knows what they're doing please step in and review? Thanks. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the review seems a mess; I'll try to review it today for you. If the reviewer fails it in the interim, renominate and ping me. GRAPPLE ^X 12:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Francis/GA2 - by the same reviewer, who seems to have very limited edits of their own. I would suggest this review be taken over by someone else. — Maile (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Japanese Committee on Trade and Information/GA1 - Here's another one by the same reviewer. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have left the reviewer a message on their Talk page. — Maile (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

May I ask for the deletion of the page Talk:Pope Francis/GA2? The user that made the minimal review accepted his mistake here. It may be more simple if we take it back to a nomination awaiting reviews. Cambalachero (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sonnets articles

As I did a year ago, I've had my students develop several articles on Shakespeare's sonnets for GA status. Last year, one of our articles successfully achieved this status (Sonnet 86). If GA reviewers feel so inclined, I invite them to expedite the reviewing of our nominations. Also, as a note, whether students pass or fail is not a significant part of their grade, so no pressure on that end. Thank you! Westhaddon (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Darejan Dadiani review never got off the ground

Darejan Dadiani/GA1 - The reviewer who opened the template is an active editor. However after stating the intent to review on August 26, nothing was ever done with the review. — Maile (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

2nd opinion request

Qubool Hai was recently reviewed and passed GA status by Derevation in an extremely cursory review. They've nominated other articles that aren't even close to ready for a GA (a film article on a just released film with no plot section?). The writing is stilted at times, references need substantial cleaning and other issues. There's also some concern because this user and Digvijay411 seem to have traded cursory GA reviews (see Karanvir Bohra, which was reverted). The user hasn't responded to questions given to them and from experience they aren't likely to respond. Derevation also commented Talk:Shreya Ghoshal/GA1 on another GA review in a cursory manner and when challenged on their Qubool Hai review responded very defensively. An independent review would be helpful here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ravensfire, "The writing is stilted at times" deserves an award for understatement of the week. Sheesh, it's worse every time I look at it. Just at random--"After the 22 year leap was introduced in the show, entire cast of the show was changed"--missing hyphen, missing article. I saw the preterite "quitted". The "Events" section is rightfully tagged, but it's also one single paragraph. As for the references--there's 255 of them, all from tabloids and the TV channel itself, indicative of poor (tabloid) sourcing and an abundance of trivia. No, this star should be yanked. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Chittagong

Chittagong/GA1 - This template was opened by a new (2015) editor who added two sentences on August 7 and never returned. There is an August 8 "Attention Nominator" note on the template by someone else, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with specifics. — Maile (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have closed this review as a fail. sst✈ 16:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sonnet articles

What is the fuss with the mass nomination of sonnet articles at WP:GAN#LIT? Can anyone take a look at them? Possible WP:ASSIGN? sst✈ 09:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: See #Sonnets articles above. --Xover (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. sst✈ 12:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Webster Sycamore/GA1

After writing 50 Good Articles, I've never received a GA review quite like this: Talk:Webster Sycamore/GA1. I didn't even have an opportunity to respond to the reviewer's comments before it was failed. Can someone recommend a course of action that is available to me after receiving a review such as this? I guess I can always resubmit, but I'm a bit perplexed. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

West Virginian, since you only nominated the article a couple of days ago, my advice would be renominate it right away. It was a first-time reviewer who clearly doesn't know enough about the GA process—no previous reviews and a single nomination dating back to 2009 that was closed after the nominator did not respond in a timely fashion. With luck, you won't have to wait very long for a new reviewer to show up, though with over 400 unreviewed nominations, it may take a while. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thank you for your guidance. I'll go ahead an re-nominate the article for GA review. -- West Virginian (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm unsure of who the Good Article moderators are, but I hope they are able to review Talk:Webster Sycamore/GA1 and make an assessment as to whether this "reviewer" should ever be allowed to review another GAN again. This review was truly unacceptable, and made no mention of Wikipedia:Good article criteria. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement, a moderator should review the nomination. I also recommend a moderator preventing Chhe from "reviewing articles" again, so we don't see another unfortunate user think they didn't do a good enough job due to a flawed and fringed review. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Chhe, there is some serious criticism of your GA review here. First of all, you closed it too early, and that goes completely against the spirit and the letter: the goal of GA is to produce Good Articles. Second, your comments are dismissive, evince bad faith, and are in general not guided by our policies and guidelines. I saw two examples of supposedly "unencyclopedic language"--and found nothing wrong with the sentences. A lack of citations in the lead is not a problem, as West Virginian explained (I did not see you respond). "Visually marginal" means nothing, really--and there are two photographs and a map. I am not going down the list of your comments. It is entirely possible that some of them make sense and are valid. But until you are more familiar with Good Article writing and with the guidelines and procedures, and until you are willing to engage in a more positive manner with content creators to create Good Articles, you should not be doing any more of these reviews. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, you are the one that is not assuming good faith. You said "I am not going down the list of your comments.". So your telling me that your not looking through my review and are judging my review without having done so? I suggest you actually read all of my comments before you judge me. Secondly, you assume I am not familiar with good article writing but you are completely mistaken. Again "bad faith" and pretty foolish considering how long I have been working on wikipedia. I am fully familiar with "good writing" standards and in my opinion the article had many problems with it that really only became evident to me after reading all the references. After reading the references I noticed that many of them simply didn't support what was being said in the article. After I made two cursory comments I was immediately bombarded by accusations that I didn't know anything about "good article" writing when in fact I did. I ignored the individuals involved and closed the review because it was clear after reading through the article that it had many problems that needed to be fixed that weren't going to be easily fixed in a timely manner. Concerning closing the review early this is completely fine to do if the article doesn't come close to "good writing" standards, and is made clear per wikis instructions per Immediate Failure. There is nothing wrong with doing so and if you think otherwise then you should petition wikipedia to change this particular instruction.Chhe (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not telling you that (I didn't look through the review). GA reviewers need to be good readers, so read more carefully. I'm not going down the list of your comments addressing each and every one of them individually, here. Frankly, responding to them isn't good for my blood pressure: I don't think I've ever seen a reviewer address the writer in such an inappropriate fashion. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

PS. Since evidently, nobody seems concerned with fixing the problems I found in the article, I am going back to the article to try to fix some of them myself.Chhe (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems you have misunderstood the procedures of GA. You bring up the problems with the article, then the nominator has seven days to fix them. You don't close the review immediately after pointing out what has to be fixed, and you don't necessarily fix them yourself. Problems that are not mentioned in the GA criteria, such as lack of images, are irrelevant to whether an article passes GA or not. Once you realise this, there should be no further problems, and you should be able to review more articles. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, FunkMonk you are wrong. In the GA criteria #6 it lists "Illustrated, if possible, by images". Obviously if you are illustrating the article with images you need images that illustrate the article in its entirety. Its silly to just have one image that illustrates one aspect of the article while lacking images to illustrate all other parts of the article and say one has satisfied requirement #6. When I did a quick google search for Webster Sycamore I was able to turn up all sorts of images. Color pictures of the tree before it was burned, pictures of the burned tree, pictures of the trees hollow, and leaves. It should be possible to hunt up for some more uncopyrighted images.Chhe (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Illustrated, if possible, by images" does not mean anything beyond that. And in any case, it is not a quick-fail criterion, you did not even give the nominator the chance to find more photos, and that's the main problem. You cannot demand changes and then just quick-fail. The nominator has a minimum of seven days to address the comments. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There was a lot more that I found that needed to be fixed besides photos. And no, in my estimation it was going to take a lot longer than 7 days to fix. It was going to take some library time, because he/she was dealing with an extremely obscure topic with very little information available online concerning it. Instead of throwing a hissy fit, West Virginian should have simply reviewed my comments, fixed the ones he/she agreed with, and then resubmitted it for review again.Chhe (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

But again, that's just not how it works. Either you accept that nominators get a minimum seven days to fix the article, or you don't bother to review articles. It's that simple. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to tweak Good Article Criteria for copyright violation and plagiarism

Please review and discuss here. Thank you. –Grondemar 23:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Zahamena National Park review seems abandoned

Zahamena National Park/GA1 - The review template was opened Sept 1, 2015, but no review was ever done. That reviewer has been inactive since that date. This was nominated on June 4 by @Lemurbaby:. Is there any process to cancel an abandoned review and leave it for a new reviewer? — Maile (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Rschen7754 23:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why the Done checkmark. What did you do? The nomination is still open and abandoned. — Maile (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. You just started a GA2 template on it. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Derevation and Digvijay411 as GA Reviewer and GA Nominator

• Derevation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Digvijay411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've left a note at User_talk:Derevation#Please_stop_nominating_to_GA_and_reviewing_at_GA.

This user has been nominating articles to WP:GAN that clearly fail the WP:WIAGA quick-fail criteria.

In addition, the user has been taking on reviews, and then issuing sub-par, one-line-in-total poor reviews, which requires wasted time to clean up and correct.

I've asked the user not to nominate or review GA candidates until they read some more pages about site policy.

Would appreciate some additional eyes on this.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that this has also happened at FLC. GRAPPLE ^X 11:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Added Digvijay411 (talk · contribs), also have significant concerns about this user assisting Derevation. Each gave a one-line-review, attempting to pass as GA an article nominated by the other one = compare Talk:Karanvir Bohra/GA1 and Talk:Qubool Hai/GA1. — Cirt (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama. If you have additional evidence you can add, please, add it there. If you are an admin, action would be appreciated to stop this ongoing block evasion, socking, and disruption of Wikipedia's Quality improvement processes. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: User(s) blocked. — Cirt (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Notifications by Huskers110110

Pamplin College of Business

I just nominated the Pamplin College of Business for Good article status.Huskers110110 (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Emergency Management Institute

I just nominated the Emergency Management Institute for Good article status.Huskers110110 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Defense Acquisition University

I just nominated the Defense Acquisition University for Good article status.Huskers110110 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huskers110110:You don't need to notify here on this page for every single nomination. — Cirt (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Pope Francis

May I ask for the deletion of Talk:Pope Francis/GA2, so that it is open for reviews? Someone made a basic and minimal review, which was rejected for it, and the reviewer accepted his mistake. See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 21#2nd opinion request Cambalachero (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Cambalachero, I'm not sure we can delete the GA2 page, given that there is some review text there, however problematic, but I have changed the article talk page so that it is available for review again, and when the new review is started it will come under GA3. If an admin decides to delete that GA2 page, then they should change the page parameter from 3, where I've just reset it, back to 2. Best of luck in getting a new reviewer quickly. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

2002 FA Cup Final review

Just noticed that the 2002 FA Cup Final article has been approved as GA on the basis of a very minimal and, in my view, inadequate review. What is the correct cause of action to address this ? --Wolbo (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wolbo, I see what you mean. Do you believe the article meets the good article criteria? Ping 333-blue: Did you use the GA criteria in your review? Prhartcom (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Wolbo and Prhartcom: it probably meet GA criteria, I just didn't explain. 333-blue 23:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

333-blue, please read the GA instructions before your next review and please ensure your next reviewed article meets the GA criteria. If you did not ensure this particular article meets the GA criteria and just passed it on your own criteria, then the GA status needs to be withdrawn. @Wolbo:, do you think the article meets the criteria? Prhartcom (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom thanks for your input. I cannot say for certain if the article meets the GA criteria without actually reviewing it. It appears well-structured and well-sourced and it would not surprise me if it qualifies for GA. My point however was not about the quality of the article but about the quality of the GA review. GA (and FA) ratings only have value to our readers if they are based on proper and thorough reviews. This, in contrast, looks like a two-minute drive-by 'review' and in this regard the statement "it probably meets GA criteria, I just didn't explain" says enough. The review is clearly insufficient and does both the article and the GA process no justice. To ensure the article deserves the GA rating it would best to withdraw this review and redo it properly. --Wolbo (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo, thanks for inquiring. On my talk page, you asked, "I noticed that a similar situation, unsatisfactory review, was discussed for the Pope Francis article and there a decision was made to make the article available for review again. Can we do the same for the 2002 FA Cup Final?" It's not the same situation. In that case, the article was still under review and in the queue, so they just left it in the queue and changed reviewers. What you're asking for is a GA Reassessment, in which an awarded GA may become delisted. You yourself would be committing to first fix any simple problems, tag serious problems, and ensure that the problems you see in the article are actually covered by the actual GA criteria. Before continuing this, you may want to review the article: check it against the criteria to see which specific criteria you believe this article fails to meet. Don't worry, I absolutely agree that this was a superficial review; this has indeed happened before. But in this case, the article may actually deserve its GA rating: The nominator contributed heavily to the article and has proven they care about its quality. From my point of view, we couldn't ask for much more. Feel free to reply below if necessary. Prhartcom (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing older nominations before newer nominations

Shouldn't reviewers strive to review nominations which are older and have been waiting a while over reviewing newer ones? I just noticed that Jaguar opened a review for Frank Sinatra nominated by Dr. Blofeld nine minutes after Dr. Blofeld nominated it. Some articles have been waiting weeks, if not months, for a review.  — Calvin999 17:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a volunteer project. The more people are told what they can't do, the less likely they are to do anything. There's nothing to say for sure that someone reviewing a certain article would have reviewed anything else at all if they didn't review that one. GRAPPLE ^X 21:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly as Grapple said, if it becomes a chore, and people can't review what they feel for at a given moment, they'd just rather not review. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that Frank Sinatra is very high importance topic. There's definitely something to be said for prioritising reviews for new high-importance articles than lingering low-importance articles. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And we've already done all that can be done on this subject by ensuring the instructions contain a suggestion to review the oldest first. Prhartcom (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Nominators who review a lot of articles are also more likely to get their articles reviewed quickly, in my experience. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily.  — Calvin999 10:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"More likely" ≠ "certain". GRAPPLE ^X 10:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Article listed in wrong subtopic

I just noticed that Lawrence Lessig has been listed under Computing and engineering. This seems entirely inappropriate to me. Although he has been a campaigner on some internet issues, he is not an engineer and would fit better under Law or Politics and government. However, I'm not sure about the mechanics, or the propriety, of moving the listing. SpinningSpark 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I made the topic change on the article's talk page banner for GAC. Hopefully, a bot will then move it to the correct category. — Maile (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ta! Da! The bot just moved it to Politics and government. — Maile (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Change the World"

Hi folks, could you please nominate "Change the World" for a Good article for me. I'm usually working on German Wikipedia, but worked so hard for the last week or so on the English "Change the World" article, I think it deserves a Good article feature. Thank you very much. Regards, --Matthiasberoli (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Matthiasberoli: Hi there- you can nominate the article yourself by following the instructions here. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

What Legobot does and doesn't do

Is there an overview of what Legobot will and won't do for you related to GA reviews? For a bit there I was hopeful that I as a reviewer could lean back and just update the GAN template on the article talk page and Legobot would take care of all the housekeeping elsewhere (i.e. update status on WP:GAN and notify nominators etc.); but based on my last couple of reviews there seem to be at least some cases that it doesn't cover, and which I've not quite managed to nail down. Is there a description anywhere of what it does and doesn't do, and any limitations that may apply (e.g. if the bot's input feed is lossy so it might miss things sometimes, or if it's finicky about formats of various things or the order in which things are done, etc.)? A quick scan of the GA-related pages and the bot's user page / BAG-request didn't turn up anything, but that may just be me being blind. Anyone? Legoktm? --Xover (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Xover: All of Legobot's duties are listed on its user page. You should only have to change the GAN template. From past experience with my own GA nomination, Legobot should do all the notifying and status updates. I got three separate notifications from the bot, when the GAN was put under review, when it was put on hold, and when it passed. The bot should also put the GA topicon on the newly promoted pages for you. The bot may be splitting these tasks into separate queues to be run sequentially. Legobot does handle a lot of tasks, so it might take a few runs before all GA duties are complete. Also, from what I can tell, the bot only runs once every 20 minutes. So, if you change the GAN template at 0:21, it won't notify the user until 0:40. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Stabila711: That's what I'd assumed, yes, but recently I've seen several cases where one or more of those things have not happened even overnight. And Legobot's user page doesn't contain any details about its GA-related tasks, just that it "Take over of … GA bot". The BAG request in turn links to …/Archive 13#WP:GAN bot here. Meanwhile, the GA instructions tell you that updating WP:GAN is automated, and that the bot will add {{good article}} to the article for you, but everything else is listed as a manual job. Adding the icon to the article is one of these things that I've noticed the bot failing to do recently, and another is notifying nominators (which, you'll note, is not documented anywhere). All in all I feel like I'm expending energy on wondering whether and what the bot will do, rather than just assume it'll take care of it. --Xover (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Lately Legobot has been failing to notify users of the completion of a GA Review and does not tell the GA Nominator whether their review passed or failed. — Cirt (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • @Legoktm: Re-pinging Legoktm for comment, as it sounds like it's not just all in my head. :-) --Xover (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to post an update regarding this. I spoke to Lego on IRC today and there is definitely a problem. Lego believes that it has to do with one of the many many templates that Legobot monitors. Small changes in the templates can throw off the bot and cause the automated process to fail. Lego said that he is going to do some debugging this weekend to try to find the problem. Until then...

Attention reviewers: Please look back at the GAs that you passed in the past few weeks or so. Legobot has not been recognizing the successful GA nominations and has not added the GA top icon to the page. Perhaps this note should be added to the top of the GA nomination list in the meantime? --Stabila711 (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, considering what Legobot does in the GA process is pretty much undocumented, adding such a note would probably just add to the confusion. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to document this explicitly so that reviewers and nominators know what to watch for and when to report bugs? Perhaps a section on the instructions page that describes what Legobot does, what you should check that it has done for you, how long you should normally expect to wait, and what to do when it doesn't. Then update each relevant step in the instructions with language like "Legobot will normally do this for you, see #Bot below". Or something along those lines at least. Thoughts? Opinions? Trouts? --Xover (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Xover: That sounds fine. Legobot should notify the nominator whenever the {{GA nominee}} template changes. So when the review beings, when it is put on hold, and when it passes or fails. Legobot should also automatically add a transclusion of the GA review page to the main talk page for the article. Finally, the bot should add the {{good article}} topicon to the pages of passed articles. The bot runs every twenty minutes so if it has been an hour and it still hasn't done it something is probably wrong. I think that is everything the bot does that is GA related. Can you think of anything else the bot should be doing? --Stabila711 (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

(apologies for late reply; the notification didn't show up for some reason)
@Stabila711: Well, it would be nice if it also reviewed the nominated articles. Oh, and a cuppa tea and some biscuits would be nice too. But absent that I think the current tasks just about cover it as far as I can see. Anyone that's more familiar with GAN up for updating the docs, or should I try to muddle through without messing things up too badly? --Xover (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy of Liliaceae

Hi, I'm not reviewing this article, nor did I nominate it, but it seems the reviewer has been inactive for awhile now with this. The review started in July and all comments have been addressed since September, so is it possible that this article could have a new reviewer so it can be finally finished? Burklemore1 (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Burklemore1 and Michael Goodyear, I see what you mean. Looking over Tylototriton's review, it appears Michael Goodyear has completed all of Tylototriton's suggestions; nothing left but for Tylototriton to pass the review. As stated on the review page, Tylototriton has been contacted and they responded saying they are busy, which is understandable if real life has intervened. As this review is probably 99% complete, there is no need to try and start over with another reviewer. Let's give them a few more weeks to respond. It has been 30 days; if Tylototriton does not respond in another couple of weeks, then please ping me and I will close (pass) the review myself from Tylototriton's notes. Prhartcom (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, would two or three weeks sound reasonable? I guess it's up to the nominator to decide about this though, but hopefully the reviewer returns before someone else needs to intervene. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, we want the reviewer to finish their own review; we don't wish to intervene unless the reviewer doesn't respond for a reasonable amount of time. Glad to hear you are willing to wait a little longer. Let me know if they don't return after this time. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As the nominator, I am agreeable to the suggestion --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Given how very extensive the edits have been since the review opened—well over 500, with major changes and additions throughout the article—I think the article will need to be given a thorough recheck, whether by Tylototriton, Prhartcom, or someone else. If Michael Goodyear is fine with waiting another couple of weeks in the hopes that Tylototriton returns, then there's no reason we can't wait, since said reviewer seems well qualified to check a taxonomy article and spot issues that would likely escape most reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

For clarification, the article was nominated on April 18, and reviewed between July 25 and August 3. The extensive edits mentioned above are all in response to the review, and were completed on September 23. The reviewer responded on September 24 that they were busy. The reviewer has been inactive since then despite several messages left on their talk page. I agreed to the suggestion to wait another two to three weeks, on October 26. So I suggest that if there is no action by November 17, an alternative approach be undertaken. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep watching this article until the deadline you have given. I think it has taken far too long for this article to be promoted. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked sock with open nominations and reviews

Nominations by User:JackTheVicar, blocked indefinitely on Oct 31 as a sock. He also started a review of a nomination, as listed below.

Nominations

• Sussex County Community College nominated Aug 28, 2015
• New Jersey Forest Fire Service nominated Oct 6, 2015
• Swartswood State Park nominated Oct 16, 2015
• Papakating Creek nominated Oct 17, 2015
• Michael Derrick Hudson nominated Oct 30, 2015

Review begun

• Presbyterian Church in the United States of America/GA1 review begun Oct 16, 2015

Does GA have a process to handle this? — Maile (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maile66, yes; thank-you for raising this topic. Regrettably, I will have to remove each of the article nominations. I see that the review is not yet started; @Ltwin: it will have to go back in the queue, but I will be able to keep its place as first in line. I will do this work in a few hours and will let you know when it is done. Prhartcom (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: It's done; the nominations/offers to review of this user have been undone. Hopefully, others will eventually take the five improved articles to GA. Pity, this business was. Prhartcom (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. — Maile (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Legobot "Reviewed" number question

By my count, I had reviewed 17 GA nominations, with the last one being 18. This last one when I opened that GA review template, and the Legobot posted on the Nominations page that I'd be reviewing it, the bot said I had reviewed 25 GAC. Somewhere along the line, it counted 8 reviews I didn't know I did. Perhaps I commented on 8 somewhere? I only nominated 4 for GAC under my name, so that still doesn't account for the extra numbers. Is there a tool somewhere that I can check my GA reviews by title? — Maile (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see part of the Legobot explanation - it's inaccurate on occasions. When I opened Dunster Working Watermill to review, it showed me opening the template 8 times in a row, but the template revision history does not show that.— Maile (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary style

I'm looking for opinions on the importance of the use of summary style, particularly in regards to criterion 3b: "Broad in its coverage: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." At least one user, who may not be all that familiar with the review process to begin with, seems to think that summary style is more or less voluntary because it's a guideline not a policy. How do I communicate the importance of this criterion in the review? Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article in question. It is a stupendous topic, and one with a wealth of history and context. Certainly the top-level biography should aim to be comprehensive but summarising of daughter articles. In my opinion (which may not be shared) those duaghter articles are intrinsically linked - it's not possible to sufficiently meet the good article criteria without those articles being of adequate quality to provide a good summary. Ideally I'd imagine that the lead of a good daughter article would provide the basis for a section in the parent article... --Errant ^(chat!) 20:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW; I agree with Gwillhickers views for the most part: it's not good to delete content on the grounds that it is suited for a sub-article - the content should be moved properly, or we lose it! Which is not good. Also, he is explicitly correct that article length is a guideline. Discussion about what constitutes summary style vs. too much detail is certainly valid, but Gwillhicker doesn't seem to be arguing that. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The only problem is, all of those arguments are red herrings distracting us from the actual problem. In fact, none of those arguments are relevant. Gwillhicker is the primary author of a subject that refuses to adhere to criterion 3b because he believes summary style is optional. Three editors on the talk page (myself included) disagree. Nobody has argued about page length or deleting important content. What's going on here is that the primary author has put up roadblocks to article improvement, and we've all seen this before. It doesn't look like there's any other choice than to fail it based on 3b. Other opinions are welcome. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It's now come to my attention that the article was not nominated by the primary author but by another editor, which gives me a bit more insight into what's going on here. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Fine Young Capitalists/GA1

Would someone familiar with the GA criteria please take a look at this? The GA reviewer is a fairly new account, and I think a second opinion may be ideal. Thank you. sst✈^discuss 17:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I quickly read through the article and the review. Hopefully a few additional sources can be found in at least one or two of the categories stated by the new reviewer, or perhaps the article can be rearranged a bit to have a Reception section. My opinion is the new reviewer has a valid point; note that they are basing their request on the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. However, those categories mentioned are not in the criteria. Hopefully the nominator and reviewer will look at some of the example good articles linked from the applicable Wikiproject pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism and get an idea of what a good article of an feminist video game organization looks like. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I find Feminist Improvising Group interesting, because it manages to be a good article with proper references by stretching out its limited citations for all they have. The article has a lot of content despite what little has been written about the group. I think a similar length can be achieved with The Fine Young Capitalists. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Retracting a GA nomination

Is it possible to retract a GAN pre-review? I do have one nomination that after reflection isn't suitable for GA yet but hasn't been reviewed so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk • contribs) 12:08, 15 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Yes. Just remove the nomination by retracing your steps. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This amounts to removing the "GA nominee" template from the nominated article's talk page. You can do this any time before someone begins a review. After that, you could still stop the review, but there are different steps to do so, and the nomination shows up on the talk page as having failed its review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, did so now.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Little Fishing Creek/GA1

I ran into a disagreement with the reviewer. Asked for a new reviewer. Instead of using the 2nd opinion option, he failed the GA. Now I have to wait 3-6 months again. What am I supposed to do? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You can ask the reviewer to reconsider and explain what you were hoping for. If the fail remains, renomination is probably the best option, even though it would put you at the bottom of the queue; a Good Article Reassessment is likely to take months (several are ongoing from August), since it would have to be a community reassessment, and few people have been active there of late. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks, but I already tried to inform the reviewer of the correct procedure, but it was not successful to put it mildly. Is there anyone who would be willing to come and review GA2 in a reasonable timeframe? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

My nomination isn't showing up

I tried to nominate 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team the other night, but the nomination hasn't appeared on GAN yet. After checking and re-checking the article's talk page, I can't see what I did wrong. I am an infrequent nominator at GAN, so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a step somewhere. Any attempts to clean up my mess would be appreciated. Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried removing and re-adding the template, with the time stap intact so you don't lose any place in the listings. If that doesn't work, maybe it could be manually added to the page (though there's then the chance Legobot removes it during its updates). GRAPPLE ^X 15:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like that worked, though a diff shows no difference in the two GA nominee templates. Bots move in mysterious ways... BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again the solution was to turn it off and on again. GRAPPLE ^X 16:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought I did everything right the first time. Not sure why that would happen, but bots can miss things every now and then as you say. Thanks for getting the nom to appear for me. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sock notice

Hello! Recently we have a bunch of socks who have been nominating various subpar articles for FA/FL/GA status without majorly working on them. All socks are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TekkenJinKazama. The socks seem to be infecting entertainment related page majorly. Hence requesting all reviewers to do a basic background check of the nominator, their edit histories related to the nomination page, etc. before starting the review and wasting your time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Second Opinion at Talk:Electromagnetic articulography

Hi, a second opinion has been requested at Talk:Electromagnetic articulography. Would anyone be willing to take a look at it? Wugapodes (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Input requested on two Australian images

Joan Lindsay/GA1 I'm a little uncertain of whether or not to let the two images of Joan Lindsay pass. I'm unfamiliar with copyright law in Australia. Would someone please give their input on the template? — Maile (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(IANAL, TINLA) Australia's copyright term is life of the photographer plus seventy years, so for for these pictures taken in 1914 and 1925, they may have entered the public domain at any point since 1984 and 1995, depending on the age of the photographer at the time the pictures were taken, but no sooner. Without knowing the the date of death for the specific photographer for these two photos, determining specific copyright expiry dates is impossible. However, the source (the State Library of Victoria) gives the copyright status as expired for both these pictures, and since there is no obvious flaw in their claim we may simply accept it as valid on the presumption that they know the death date of the photographer.

I am, however, slightly more dubious about the US copyright status of the 1925 image. Granted there are exceptions for works published in the US without a copyright notice, but the exception applies to works published in the US without a copyright notice, and I see no reason to assume these images were ever published in the US.

All in all the copyright situation would appear to be complicated enough that wider input may be necessary to determine what to do. I would suggest Commons:Village pump/Copyright as the place to ask. --Xover (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Per your advice, I am now taking this questions to Commons VP Copyright. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

2nd opinion requested

Talk:Porcupine (Cheyenne)/GA1 2nd opinion requested. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

And just for the record, I made it clear on the template that I'm handing this over to any reviewer who cares to complete the review. I've done what I can, and I don't feel comfortable passing it. However, in fairness to the nominator, I'm stepping aside. I've done my part. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate GA Review at Talk:Bicycle kick

The article bicycle kick has been on the list for GA review for a few months. It is the fourth article that I have submitted for GA nomination. Recently, the user Alpinu began to edit the article inappropriately and also began to raise questions of non-neutrality in the article's talk page—the questions have been addressed, albeit apparently not to Alpinu's satisfaction. There was also strange behavior through IP edits, which have been reported to administrators (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alpinu). The user has now initiated a GA review of the article, despite never having shown experience with the process in the English Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, the "review" he has presented is not really a review (see Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1), but again the same POV-pushing from the talk page. This goes against WP:GAMING. I kindly request that this GA review by Alpinu be removed and that the article be examined by an editor that does not have an ax to grind on this subject. Thanks.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That certainly doesn't read like a complete review, and the comments made in it would be more suitable as suggestions on the talk page. I suppose that it is possible that Alpinu plans to complete the review later? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. If MarshalN20 disagrees with my review (not complete yet) or if he thinks it is inappropriate, he can ask for a new reviewer. On the other hand, I just wonder why my edits are inappropriate since they are based on what the reference states ([6], [7], [8], [9]). Taking into account material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, I think it is better to fix this material as quickly as possible. Regarding the "strange behavior through IP edits", I agree that this should be reported to administrators. Best wishes!--Alpinu (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason for your review is not to help evaluate or improve the article based on the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, but rather to discuss the neutrality of the article. You've made this very clear from the start. This article has been patiently waiting for months for a good review. You're disrupting the process, gaming the system. As Larry points out, your concerns "would be more suitable as suggestions on the talk page."

I again request that this review by Alpinu be removed and this article to continue awaiting the review of someone who is actually going to review it based on the GA criteria.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, socking through IP addresses is not a matter to be taken lightly.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, WP:VER and WP:NPOV are part of the GA criteria. Best wishes!--Alpinu (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't appear to be using the GA criteria headings to structure your review, though, Alpinu. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Alpinu, you're being very dishonest with the GA process. If you had concerns with certain aspects of the article, these points could (and should) have been raised as comments in the talk page. The GA process requires a reviewer who is committed to examining the article based on all the GA criteria, providing thoughtful suggestions based on experience (in terms of both English writing, as in the prose, and sourcing; not just one or the other).

Moreover, as Karel suggested ([10]), it would have also been helpful to have a reviewer with a neutral viewpoint providing their thoughts on the neutrality of the article. At this point, all you're doing is sabotaging the article because it does not match your truthiness.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate Review, No Improvement

In my talk page, the GA Review bot wrote that the process would take "up to 7 days." The GA Instructions page points out that the review can be completed in about 7 days. It has been well over seven days, and the Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1 continues being anything but a review that addresses the GA criteria standards. It is clear that the "reviewer," the user Alpinu, created the GA page solely to sabotage the article's chances of achieving GA status. This article has been waiting for a dedicated reviewer for various months, and it would be unfair for it to be dismissed at this point. Therefore, I kindly request that the bicycle kick review be taken up by a different user or that the current review be deleted (or archived) and that the article get placed in its prior spot in the GA waiting line. Thank you very much.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If you withdraw your current nomination and immediately renominate, I'd be willing to do a review this weekend. Wugapodes (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wugapodes, thank you very much. I will do so promptly. I truly appreciate the response!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Take the lead!

Hi folks, am going to run this competition in January. see Wikipedia:Take the lead!. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-directing citations back to Wikipedia

I think this is the first time I've posted here. I'm bringing this as a general issue as I have seen this recently on two GAs for articles on TV episodes nominated at "Did You Know". I'm going to use an example here but its not against any particular editor/ article but I do want to just discuss/mention/propose/remind best practice and maybe this point will improve.

What is happening here is that a reference, in an article, is given to someone else's work correctly. The user is directed to look at say...(Reference. x: Rob Thomas's DVD commentary Veronica Mars: The Complete Third Season) but then the url is not assigned correctly but directed to another wiki article (try it?). This is interfering with what the reader wants. They click to find the source and to see the work done by Rob Thomas but they are redirected back to Wikipedia (annoying on other sites and here). If we have no url then we should just leave it blank. This has been fixed on the article in question, but I thought I'd raise it here as it I have seen it twice on new GAs recently. Thanks for listening to this. Victuallers (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Victuallers, I can probably help you, but could you please supply the exact article and reference that you are referring to; I will then take a look. Prhartcom (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help. (The article where I noticed this was Welcome Wagon (Veronica Mars) which is obviously now fixed and the author of that article has acknowledged that they understand why this was a problem.) I just wanted to make the point here to spread the word to other GA reviewers looking at similar references. Cheers Merry Xmas Victuallers (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

7-day deadline for reviews

I am concerned about SNUGGUMS' insistence that Talk:Genesis (band)/GA1 must be wrapped up within 7 days, no ifs no buts. I am perfectly fine with closing out a review as "time up - not listed" if little or no work has been done in the standard allocated time, but when a substantial effort has gone into improving the article and the reviewer also admits is not far off passing bar a few critical issues, it seems counter-productive to impose a hard deadline on it. In particular, the reviewer took over 6 weeks to complete the original review, yet I did not complain about that. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I just happened to go by what the standard time is for placing reviews on hold. Not exactly "imposing" it in this case, only was giving a reminder. I know I should've ideally got the review up sooner, though, and do apologize for that. The main reason it took so long to get up was probably the fact that I was spotchecking all the online references when not getting sidetracked by other things. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You have done a good job on the review, as always, and I don't see any real problem with the review getting closed out by Sunday at this stage, but earlier this week I did think "hang on, what if I don't have time this week"? Even hardcore Wikipedians are allowed to have a life sometimes ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for next GA Cup

I was inspired to write an essay with ideas to improve the next GA Cup competitions to better encourage greater reduction of the GAN backlog. You can see the essay here. I appreciate any feedback given. Thanks! –Grondemar 06:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

GA submission not listed by Legobot

Hi. Last week I submitted Morning/Evening for GA review, but it has not been added to the list at WP:GAN#Albums. Did I do something wrong? I think perhaps the forward slash in the page title might have caused the issue. Any ideas? Thanks! — sparklism ^hey! 09:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Sparklism, every once in a while something causes the bot to miss a nomination. I've just added a space (of all things) after the GA nominee template, and that change was enough to cause the nomination to show up on that GAN page under Albums. Sorry you had to wait so long for this to happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonset! :) — sparklism ^hey! 07:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A different, but related problem: Hu Die was promoted to GA a couple of days ago, but the bot has not added the GA icon to the article. I thought of adding it manually, but was afraid of missing other things the bot is supposed to do (maybe updating wikidata?). Any ideas? -Zanhe (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Zanhe, it looks like the reviewer finally took care of adding the icon; the article had been manually added to the list of GAs back on the day it was listed, December 5. These days, I don't know how often the bot does these steps, since the reviewers seem to take care of it these days. (I also don't know whether the bot will take care of one if the other is done, but on the evidence here, perhaps not.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issue

In case editors here haven't already seen it, there's an issue involving sockpuppetry that may affect the validity of several recent GA nominations. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Numerounovedant. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether a sock or not, the reviewing editor is both brand new to Wikipedia editing and clearly not competent to review at GAN, given that the reviews are basically one-liners that don't reference the GA criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser says definitely a sock. However, the master account has been doing its own reviews here at GAN, and they don't look particularly good either. Unfortunately, Talk:Virat Kohli/GA2 was listed as a GA by this account just under two days ago, and has ongoing reviews of Talk:Aamir Khan/GA1 and Talk:Track and field/GA1. I'll put the latter two back into the reviewing pool; someone with more time than I have should take a look at the Virat Kohli to see whether it should be undone or sent to GAR for checking (or some other step entirely). I have reverted the account's GAN of Brandi Carlile, since the edits made prior to nominating were not of GA quality, and this was probably intended for another sock-based pass; those with reverted sock-passes have since have their nominations withdrawn by the user. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: the master account was blocked for one week; the sock account has been blocked indefinitely. Under the circumstances, and based on the reviews done so far, perhaps GAN should restrict this user from reviewing or nominating for a further period, or require mentoring on reviewing such that the mentor must agree prior to either passing or failing any review. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done to protect the integrity of the GA system. Would a one-year topic ban be too harsh? Can such measures be imposed by local consensus or do they require going to a higher authority such as ANI? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If people agree here I'm sure local consensus is fine, but you'd need to make a wider pool of admins aware in case you wanted to actually enforce it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a year would be too harsh under the circumstances, and local consensus has worked here and at DYK in the past. Some of the enforcement (reverts and so on) can be done by ordinary editors here, though of course not all of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Does the bot ever say anyone's review passed anymore?

I can't remember the last time LegoBot actually marked a GA review as passed on this page and delivered a "Your GA review has passed, well done, have 1,000 vestal virgins and a bag of nuts" (or something like that, I forget...) message to the nominator's talk page. The latest example, Passenger pigeon is just one of many, I'm sure. Anyone know what's making it trip? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, Legobot doesn't seem to be adding the GA icon to newly promoted articles anymore. I just found that the GA icons are now being added manually instead of automatically. Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Jamaica (promoted about six hours ago) and Broadhurst Park (promoted about two hours ago) are recent examples; no one has added the icon manually and the bot hasn't done it either. Biblioworm 01:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I got two notifications today, one for a nom that passed a couple days ago and the other for one that passed two months ago. The bot also added the icon to the articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The last time in 2015 that there were passes and fails was November 1, I believe. However, as David Eppstein notes, the bot processed a huge number of passes and fails between 22:41 and 22:44 UTC on January 2, posting about 100 talk page notifications old and new, and adding a handful of good article icons to those articles that hadn't already had these added manually. Legoktm, is there a reason that Legobot waits so long to process these, and is there any way to get it to be more timely, preferably with each three-times-hourly bot GAN run? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Review opened by nominator

On Talk:IPhone 6/GA1, reviewer Happypillsjr (talk · contribs) is the GA nominator of the iPhone 6 article. Isn't that not allowed? Personally I think that the article is very far from GA quality. sst✈^discuss 12:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed not allowed; this is the third time Happypillsjr has nominated an article and then opened a review, despite being told each time that the review should not be opened by the nominator. I've put a speedy delete on the review page—something I also did the last two times—and the previous two nominations were ultimately deemed not GA-quality. Normally, I'd suggest some sort of restriction on future nominations, but no one seems interested any more in pursuing such things, as witness the deafening silence above. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the incorrectly-created GA review page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

sst✈, a new reviewer has selected this article, and they don't seem to think the article is far from GA quality at all; it's just been put on hold. If you still believe otherwise, you might want to leave a comment on the review pointing out some of the issues that struck you as problematic before it ends up listed as a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Swap reviewer?

Someone started a review of O Street Market, but to be honest, I think another user needs to step in and help. I'm not getting a lot of feedback on areas that need improvement. The suggestion to remove or cut down the "Design" section seems completely against the layout of other National Register of Historic Places articles. (a description of the building is always included in a historic property's NRHP nomination form; that's why we cover it in the articles) Is there a process whereby I can find another reviewer? APK whisper in my ear 21:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed suggestions by Sturmvogel 66 and BlueMoonset at User talk:333-blue, so I'll start working on those. APK whisper in my ear 21:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, just discuss them on the review page. 333-blue 13:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

AgnosticPreachersKid, thanks for the work you've done. More is needed, but unfortunately 333-blues has approved the article despite some significant work remaining to be done. This is 333-blue's second premature approval in a row. The first one was reversed out of hand; I think this one may have gone a bit too far for that, so I may have to bring it to Good Article Reassessment unless I get concurrence for another reversal from the WikiCup judges. I don't doubt that you can do the work, but until it is done, it isn't really a Good Article. I just wish you'd had that other reviewer you asked for. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've replied at the nomination page. APK whisper in my ear 18:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for that, but I don't see O Street Market in the reassessment page. 333-blue 00:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Super fast-track of "new" article to GA by paid contributor

On 23 December 2015, the whole article, Billboard (magazine) was removed and replaced by a "new" article associated with a paid contributor, CorporateM. Also, on 23 December, Billboard (magazine) was nominated to be reviewed for upgrade to GA status. On 27 December 2015, SNUGGUMS took up the task of reviewing the article. When I questioned the stability of the article recently, CorporateM quoted the Good Article criteria, and didn't feel the need to wait for the article to stabilise. In this case, I might not have been pursuing the right line of questioning. I also asked: "How can the Wikipedia community have confidence that the article in its current form represents the consensus of the community after such a short time?" There was no reply.

Right now, as I am writing this post, SNUGGUMS has passed the GA nomination: has it been rushed through? Is this mode of operation in the interests of the Wikipedia Community? Is it fair to the editors of the previous version of Billboard (magazine), who have seen their work eliminated at a stroke? Is it fair to the editors who are waiting patiently at GAN for their articles to be reviewed (for months)? Are we seeing the emergence of a super-editor, who can not only get paid for their work (and good luck to them), but also get the procedures of English Wikipedia to run at super-human speed? Do other editors have concerns in this area? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the GA review is here. It spans two weeks and 3,000 words. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 06:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I really don't see a problem here. Billboard is pretty much a household name among music fans, and Snuggums works considerably in the field (on-wiki, at least). For something this well-known, four days between nomination and the beginning of the review is not odd, albeit not as common as it used to be. I cannot agree with the implication that he violated process to get a faster review; just because someone is a COI editor does not mean WP:NPA flies out the window. There is no requirement for GAs to be reviewed within a certain time frame: some get picked up earlier, some wait ages. I've had GAs reviewed within a couple days, and I've had GAs wait three months for reviews.

Having worked with CorporateM in the past, meanwhile, I can tell you that he generally writes articles in his user space before either using his new version in the original article (or another editor to do so, if anything would be a violation of our COI policy). There is nothing against such a method, and indeed I've used it myself for a few articles (Sudirman, for one). The Billboard article itself, meanwhile, was pretty much stagnant when the information was added; nobody was actively editing, and nobody edit warred over the issue. Other than that... right above the edit window, it says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." That includes completely eliminating text or images which may have been there before. When the change is clearly beneficial to the article, there shouldn't be a problem. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

As I noted, stability was not an issue because that massive change took place before it was nominated at GAN. If on the other hand that took place during review or in between review time and nomination time, it would be unstable. I once was skeptical about massive changes myself prior to GAN back in 2014, but was assured here that articles which went through changes prior to nomination rather than during were fine in teens of stability. I most certainly did not rush anything and spent quite a while thoroughly looking through the article for problems, and spotchecked the online references for any verification issues. CorporateM addressed my listed concerns within the given timeframe that I placed the article on hold for. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So disclaimer, I have previously reviewed one of CorporateM's articles and have had a good ammount of interaction with him, even asking for his input as a third opinion on a second opinion I gave. I'm saying this for two reasons, one to be up front about my interactions with him, but also to state how much confidence I have in his abilities as an editor.

To address your points, CaesarsPalaceDude, I looked at the review Snuggums gave and don't see any problem with it. It is in my opinion a very well done review, and better than a number of reviews I've seen. Has it been rushed through? I doubt it. You can't fault CorporateM for being timely with his responses, and Snuggums can choose to review any nomination. It's their decision. I reviewed articles that wikicup participants nominated just a few days ago. If you think that reviewers should only be allowed to review the oldest nominations, change policy, but there's nothing wrong with reviewing recently nominated articles.

To address your comments about stability and consensus, I don't think you have legitimate concerns. Criterion 5 is probably the clearest of the GA criteria: "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". There was no edit war and no content dispute, thus it passes. The replacement you are complaining about was undertaken by another editor on behalf of CorporateM because he built consensus on the talk page for the changes per the COI guidelines. Since 23 December, those changes have not been reverted. A two to three weeks on a page with 124 watchers and no reverts seems like pretty strong edit consensus to me. Wugapodes (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The stability argument was dead some time ago. I included it here for completeness. @SNUGGUMS:, why did you close the review without addressing my other issues? As it stands, the article has at least one instance of lack of source/text integrity. The text says "The Billboard Advertiser" and Lampel et al says "Billboard Advertising" for the original name of the publication. An important detail. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, sources should be Broven J, Amusement Business, and Hoffman. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If you feel the citations used for Billboard Advertising were mistaken based on File:Billboard, November 1, 1894 first issue.png, I apologize for overlooking anything. However, this sort of thing is really more for nominators to address rather than reviewers. I'll defer to CorporateM since he has better knowledge of those specific references than I do. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusing me of being a super-user with powers to get an instant GA is of course quite silly. My nomination of Public Storage has been in the queue since last August (5 months). In my experience, in most cases, COI is a target on my head for editors that want to lash out and often the real issue is actually something else. One of the most frustrating parts of editing Wikipedia is spending time on something just to see your work deleted, modified or reworked by others and that's what Caesar is going through. In any case, I went ahead and made the edit being discussed above, but I disagree with @Snuggums: deferring to me. To the contrary, I do not own the page and defer to @CaesarsPalaceDude:. I encourage him/her to edit boldly.

PS - It's always a bit funny that editors feel the need to disclose that they have collaborated with me before as if COI is contagious ;-)

Cheers. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 16:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Odd, I didn't mean it that way. It was my way of saying "I know his style. Why? We've done work together." But yes, my experiences with other articles is that the self-declared COI is akin to painting a bulls-eye on your head. Still somewhat reeling after a brand-name product got completely rewritten by other editors to refer to all similar products (instead of a new article being written) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Funny story, some of my first edits to Wikipedia was this very thing (mentioning my clients on competitors' pages). Naturally I got busted and was super embarrassed! Of course I was ignorant at the time and didn't know mentioning competitors was really just linkbait and plugs. Anyways, don't mind me - didn't mean anything by it. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 18:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@CorporateM:, as my very silly user name says, I'm a dude (male). When editors assume they know the motivations of other editors, they quite often get it wrong. I have done very little editing on Billboard (magazine), and don't feel any sense of loss or need to lash out. Let's look at it from a different perspective. What we have is volunteer editors who should be professional, but some of them aren't, and paid editors who are professional, but are very unsubtle, at times, in their treatment of the volunteers.

Now let's look at the timeline:

• 05:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC): CorporateM posts at the Talk page re draft
• 05:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC): CorporateM contacts User:Geraldshields11 saying: "I saw your name in the article's edit history and thought you may be interested."
• 13:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC): Geraldshields11 says he'll take a look
• 13:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC): Geraldshields11 moves the draft to mainspace
• 14:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC): CorporateM is so surprised that the article has been reviewed so quickly
• 14:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC): CorporateM says: "I've taken it the GAN route, but I'll probably delist it as unstable if any regular page watchers raise concerns, given how quickly the draft was just merged."
• 19:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC): In reply to my concerns how quick things were moving, CorporateM says: "To say a nominator must wait several months to ensure the article is steady is not the intended meaning of stable within the context of GA reviews." (I hadn't mentioned a time frame of "several months")

I really do understand what you said about "painting a bulls-eye on your head". On the other hand, how do you expect to avoid the bulls-eye getting a lot bigger with a timeline of actions and statements like that? I like articles being improved. I like articles passing GAN. I even like things happening quickly at Wikipedia (for a change). The other side of the coin is that every editor has the responsibility to take the rest of the community with him while making great strides forward. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@CaesarsPalaceDude: What outcome are you looking for? You said yourself that it is not an issue of stability: The stability argument was dead some time ago. If you believe the review was passed and should not have been, open a reassessment where the concerns can actually be addressed. If you have concerns about the GA criteria or policy on the order in which reviews are undertaken, start an RFC and try and get consensus for a change. If you have problems with CorporateM's editing, that's not a GA issue and shouldn't be brought up on the GAN talk page. If you have a particular complaint related to the GAN process that can be solved here, let us know, otherwise I think this discussion should be closed as I don't see it going anywhere productive. Wugapodes (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Wugapodes: I'll be brief. I urge User:CorporateM to avoid nominating an article on the same day that the draft was introduced. Someone might start reviewing it after four days instead of the usual four months, and cause other editors to draw their own conclusions (rightly or wrongly). It's his reputation on the line, not mine. There are just a few minor loose ends:

• "Early history", 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: "He improved editorial and opened new offices..." He improved editorial what? editorial policy, editorial practices, editorial style
• "Focus on music", 1st sentence: "Billboard'​s editorial changed as technology in..." Same question. Billboard'​s editorial what changed?
• "Changes in ownership", 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: "In 1994, Billboard Publications and its was sold to a Dutch media... " its what were sold?

That's all from me. Goodnight and good luck! CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

But, I made changes to the article. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Adrian 8076

Adrian 8076 nominated more than a dozen articles for GA on 20 January alone. I left a message advising that this is probably not a good idea. I don't know if there's consensus to just batch revert or give the editor enough rope. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So would this be the appropriate place to give Jakec the fisheye for ten still-active nominations but only one review? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a lot of GA nominations open because I write a lot of GA-worthy articles, not because I just nominate whatever I find. They're painfully slow to go through the pipeline, that's why there are so many of them up. Look at the nomination dates and you'll see they're months apart. Also, the claim that I've done "only one review" is flat-out wrong: I've done at least ten.

As to the OP, if they're not drive-by nominations, then I don't see the problem. It's not like more than one or two are going to be reviewed at any one time. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I had a word with Adrian 8076 earlier today giving advice. Having a lot of GAs in the pipeline is not a problem, I have quite a few myself, but if any are not accompanied by a significant amount of expansion and copyediting, I immediately get suspicious. I would have quickfailed Alan Rickman but I couldn't obviously see a way of doing so bar maybe due weight on the "death" section and not being comprehensive enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There were thirteen drive-by nominations today, plus two more in the past two days; I reverted them all because this is someone who clearly has no clue about the GA process or criteria. This lack of understanding was also demonstrated by a quickfail done immediately after today's drive-by noms; I have reverted that as well and put the nomination back into the GAN pool with its seniority intact. (The messages left on Adrian 8076's talk page by Chris Troutman and others, including myself, have just been deleted.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Second Opinion requested at Mustafizur Rahman

A second opinion is being requested on the GA review of Mustafizur Rahman. If an experienced reviewer would be willing to lend some time to give input on the review page, it would be very appreciated. Thanks. Wugapodes (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

HIV immunity

Appears to have been listed as a good article since Jan 2015, but without evidence of any review. It's 1850 characters long and probably at the wrong name. Can anyone shed any light? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: My best guess is that User:Valoem copied the Project banners from Talk:HIV. In the absence of any formal review, I think this would be a high Start class article, and might warrant lower priority as well. The folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine might be able to best assess and spruce-up this article. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: Every now and then I see articles that are assessed as GA class, even though they never went though a GA review. See this discussion for further guidance: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Procedure for cleaning up "Good Articles" that never went through a GA review?. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, Animalparty! I'll blank the reviews, assess for WP:Viruses and leave the rest blank. Thanks for the quick responses. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A number of years ago, we had a drive to sweep and fix up older good articles to ensure they still met the criteria. Perhaps we need another one of these? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not a GA tag accidentally copied from another article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Karas (anime)/GA1

I've been trying to help clear up WikiProject Anime and manga's GAN backlog. The above GAN's reviewer has not edited since November, so I decided to add comments to the page (while not actually either passing or failing it; please note that this is my first time making an input on a GAN of an article which I did not contribute to). Given the circumstances, is it alright for me to take over reviewing the article, or not? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved with GA reviewing! It looks like the first nomination was closed. If you are willing to take on a review, you can start one by going to Talk:Karas (anime) and clicking the "start review" link. I would recommend reading the instructions for reviewing first as well as what the good article criteria are not. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the GA help desk or ask me. Thanks for the help in reviewing, and best of luck! Wugapodes (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Good article reviewing drive

I was thinking of putting in a grant request for a contest in March. Well two contests, one a content building contest like Wales or Vital articles or whatever and the other a GA reviewing drive. £150 in Amazon vouchers allocated to a GA reviewing drive, with £100 given to the best GA reviewer in a month and £25 runners up. More kudos would be given to tackling older nominations and overall winners would be judged on the quality of their reviews as well as numbers, otherwise people would just speedy pass as many as possible! I want to do a trial, but something like that which might urge some editors to do more reviews and increase the quality of their reviews might work. Worth a try I think. I think part of the current problem is that articles often sit around stale for six months and nobody feels compelled to review them. That has a negative effect on editors who want to promote articles to GA and many give up on nominating things out of frustration. If we can get some sort of mechanishm which rewards editors who produce quality work and nominate articles and something at the same time to encourage people to get them reviewed I think we can increase the rate that articles are promoted and increase the quality of reviewing and articles at the same time. Potentially something could also be organized to run a sweeps on existing articles and ensure listed articles are up to 2016 quality standards. Again rewards would be given to editors who re review and improve/retain the most articles. That could be considered later, but we need to start somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

While I'm always one to support trying to get rid of backlogs, you might run into problems as the WP:WIKICUP is going on at that time which also is a competition that rewards quality contribution and reviews. That's not to say don't do it, I just think the time frame might need to be shifted so that we get more participation. I would also recommend talking to the judges of the WP:GACUP as they might have some insight on how to run the reviewing drive. Wugapodes (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any involvement in this year's competition, but certainly the first round last year saw an overlap with the GA Cup in the first round. All I noticed was that competitors entered reviews in both competitions rather than any specific decline. A March start for a reviewing drive would coincide with the first month of the second round when the competitors get cut down to a maximum of 64. Personally, I think that this would be seen as a boon by most competitors as it'll mean that their GAs could be reviewed quicker. Miyagawa (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously more kudos would be given to reviewers who review the oldest ones first but the drive would reward the editor who produces the most quality reviews within a month. I think it's worth a trial, a lot of editors don't participate in the wikicup anyway so could be involved with reviewing. As Miyagawa says it would also assist WikiCup participants who have to deal with uneveness in article reviewing, with some having to wait months longer than others. A drive for March would reduce that if successful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

For me, the Wikicup seems a bit too stressful to participate in, but something like this might be more tempting. So I wouldn't participate in both, in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As a judge in the GA Cup, I'm all for having a new GAN backlog drive. The last one was almost two years ago, and they have been nothing but beneficial to the project. The GA Cup is a separate entity and we're debating a revamp for the next one. I think that decreasing backlog wouldn't effect either Cups. We're never going to run out of GANs. In fact I think we will never drop below 100 GANs. In the mean time, we don't know when the next GA Cup is going to run so a new sweep in March/February sounds like a good idea. JAGUAR  18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Jaguar Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm proposing something for content for Wales for March, it would have to be put off until a later date if we did anything, but the way I see it, something to perk up editors and get them reviewing articles and making it more exciting to do so would only be a good thing. Long term I think we should really have around 4 reviewing drives in a year to ensure that backlogs don't clog up, Waiting over 3 months to have an article reviewed is unacceptable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

"Content for Wales? Bring it on!"

Dr. Blofeld, Wugapodes, Miyagawa, FunkMonk, Jaguar, SNUGGUMS, Figureskatingfan: The next GA Cup will probably be this March - do we really want a separate drive running at the same time? Especially since the WikiCup is also going on.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, it wouldn't be March now as I'm doing the Wales one then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, content for Wales and Wales ;-) Jaguar, given that March is out, do you think you'd be interested in running something perhaps later in February before it starts to help clear the log?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's much point, given that if the GA Cup was due to start in as little as four weeks time. Any drive would be best placed after the the end of the cup in order to wrap up anything that the competitors didn't already get. Miyagawa (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

When is the end of the cup?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The GA Cup typically lasts three months, but we're trying to revamp it this year so a lot of changes might be made - it's still in the planning process. If the timing doesn't change, then it would most likely end in May. I'm definitely in favour of having a short but powerful GAN sweep in the first week of February, and then having it end on 28 February (is it a leap year this year?), but something like that would be short notice. All in all, we definitely need to decrease the GAN backlog; a sweep is more lenient and focuses on quick but pointy reviews as opposed to the GA Cup tournament. JAGUAR  14:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination not showing up in nominations

Love Me like You isn't showing up in the songs nominations, even though it is nominated.  — Calvin999 17:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been just added by Legbot. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's strange the 17:04 update didn't pick it up.  — Calvin999 18:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Pickup

• Talk:State of the World (song)/GA1
• Talk:The Albums 2000–2010/GA1

Would anybody be willing to take over these GA reviews I started a while back? I've got to go into hospital for an uncertain amount of time and feel bad enough as it is that I've delayed their reviews until now, let alone in possibly 2-4 weeks when I emerge from hospital. It would be very appreciated. Azealia911 _talk 11:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice User:Cartoon network freak has generously agreed to review the second one above. If necessary, I can put the first one back in its same position in the queue if no one else steps forward; User:11JORN can ping me in a week or so. Prhartcom (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Could you go on with the review please? Would be much appreciated Alex ^talk 06:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Alex, it is back in the queue in the same place. Let me know if the reviewer of the second GAN above also becomes unresponsive and I will do the same. Prhartcom (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: OK, no problem Alex ^talk 03:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Reviewer could not continue, left with unfinished business...

I nominated Gabor B. Racz for GA, the review was started, is still listed at GA/N as being reviewed even though it is not because toward the end of the review, the reviewer advised me he could not complete it, [11]. The review is stuck in limbo and quite frankly, I don't know how to proceed. The review notice is still on the TP as is the open discussion at Talk:Gabor_B._Racz/GA2. Can someone please help or at least advise as to what steps to take next to either end the review, or get another reviewer on it? Thanks in advance. Atsme^📞📧 18:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This has been happening a lot lately (see above). We all wish reviewers would not abandon their duties that they previously committed to. If necessary, I can put this GAN back in its same position in the queue to await another reviewer if no one else steps forward to review it. Atsme, ping me if this is what is needed. Prhartcom (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Prhartcom - I would be very appreciative if you could do a quick check to see if the proper steps for withdrawal were followed. Is it possible that another reviewer can simply take over where the other reviewer left off, or does the article have to be failed and reopened because of the withdrawal? I've had varying responses. It's actually a pretty easy BLP to review - it was a GA that was reassessed last year with a bit of drama but the citation issues have been addressed and I see no reason for this article to not be promoted. Atsme^📞📧 02:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There really are no proper steps for reviewer withdrawal, only nominator withdrawl, which is obviously not the case here. No, when a reviewer withdraws, they are abandoning their commitment, and they should at least apologize (as this one did) and offer a good excuse. When it occurs, there are only three things that the nominator can do, the first obvious, the other two much less so: 1) They can ask the reviewer to fail the nomination (or the nominator can if necessary) in order to get it out of the system and then the nominator renominates it, putting in the very back of the queue again, 2) they can personally ask another reviewer they know if they will continue with the existing review (sometimes by posting a request on this page) which does not increment the "count" of GA reviews done by that reviewer, or 3) they can ask me or another person who works at the GA Help Desk if they can reset the nomination but keep it in its same position in the queue instead of getting in line at the end again, where a new nominator will pick it up in time, who starts fresh with a new review. The last one is what I am offering you (I just did that today with a nominator; see above). Let me know if this is what you want. Prhartcom (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I pick door #3. Thanks for your help, Prhartcom. Atsme^📞📧 03:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This is done. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Former heads of state

A former head of state that is still alive, should go in "World history" or "Politics and government"? Cambalachero (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Cambalachero, you did not say, but I assume you are speaking about the Carlos Menem BLP article. It has not been nominated for GA. I notice that its talk page says it is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government and says nothing about history, so there's your answer. Prhartcom (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I intended to nominate that article, as it is basically complete in content and referencing. But, as I'm not a native speaker of English, I requested a copyedit before nominating. I made the question in the meantime, so I have the answer by the point when I nominate it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A good question, "Politics and government" makes more sense to me. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

New reviewer needed

The reviewer at Talk:On the Art of the Cinema/GA1 has informed me that he can't finish the review because of personal issues. I'm looking for a new reviewer. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If necessary, I can put it back in its same position in the queue to await another reviewer if no one steps forward; User:Finnusertop can ping me in a week or so. Prhartcom (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Finnusertop, I'll do this tomorrow if you need me to; let me know. Prhartcom (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please go ahead, Prhartcom. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Finnusertop, it's done already. A new reviewer will be along soon. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Asking for advices

Can someone give me some advices when reviewing good articles? And see this discussion also, thanks. 333-blue 13:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:333-blue: My advice is quite simple: Pick 2 or 3 GA articles in a subject area that you have some familiarity with. Read the current article 2-3 times. Read the GA review 2-3 times. Go to History and find the article version before the GA review, and read that 2-3 times. Compare the before to the after, as well as compare to the GA review.

Once you have done that, find another 1-2 GA articles, and start with the version before the GA review. Do your own review, then compare to the GA review that was done in that article. That whole process should take at least 1-2 weeks to do.

One additional comment - and I mean this comment in the very best and constructive way: Your written English may indicate that your grasp of the fine nuances of the English language is not strong enough for you to assess other author's writing. Please consider whether that may be the case, and if yes, there are plenty of other areas here that could use your help. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I know your meaning. 333-blue 14:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion for a promoted article?

I wrote and nominated Hi-Level. It's just been promoted, but the review was inadequate at best and I don't feel comfortable with promotion under the circumstances. May I, as the nominator, request a second opinion at this point? Mackensen (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen:: Oy - I would feel the same way. Having said that, please see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions, in particular 1.5. I would nominate the article again immediately, and if you ping me right before you do it, I'd be happy to grab the GA review and do it. I am by no means what I would call an experienced GA reviewer, having done just 2 so far, but I have been around a while, and I will give the article a detailed and fair assessment. I also have a weakness for trains, so this would be a fun project to take on. Note that due to my current time availability, it could take me to the weekend to finish the re-review, however. --Concertmusic (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Concertmusic: Thank you, I had overlooked that. I've renominated the article and it's most kind of you to offer to review it. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen:: My 2nd review was quicker than I expected, but you didn't have much to criticize. Talk:Hi-Level/GA2 has been updated. --Concertmusic (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Same situation (with an even more inadequate review) for Talk:Book_embedding/GA1. Any advice what to do? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's just ugly - I am sorry to see that. I have posted a question on the Talk page of the user who helped out with the above case (see here). Having glanced at your article, I would be way out of my depth on the subject to review it myself, but if you get no other help elsewhere, I am willing to give it a shot. I am at the beginning of another GA review at the moment, but if you are willing to wait for a week or two, I can try to do it by grabbing it and letting it sit there until I can get to it.

Update on my offer to review this article: I just attempted to read a little bit more of it - and there is no way I could review it and do it justice. I therefore have to withdraw my offer to do the 2nd review - my apologies! --Concertmusic (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime, I would recommend that you wait for BlueMoonset to provide input, and if so advised, go ahead and renominate right away. --Concertmusic (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#GA_reviewer. You may want to inquire exactly what they did, and what you should do to get your work reviewed again. --Concertmusic (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not surprised that that article needs a reviewer with some extra background. If we get this properly unwound (as the discussion there seems to be heading) the articles will be placed back on the queue again, so we wouldn't need to find special volunteers to handle each one. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

All of the reviews have been unwound and placed back in the nominations pool with no loss of seniority. I'll make one final adjustment once the review pages have finished being speedily deleted. With luck, the reviewer will understand that he or she is just not ready, and will wait until significantly more Wikipedia experience has been gained before finding a mentor and trying one review. If there is a repeat incident, then we should consider any necessary next steps to prevent a third time. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. It took me about 38 minutes just to read the first 3 sections of the mathematics article! Cheers! --Concertmusic (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup of GAN page

I'm going to delete all of the sub-subtopic "Includes" sentences from the GAN page. For example, Under the subtopic heading "Television" is the sentence: "Includes Television series; Television episodes; Television characters" (seen here). This one is a particularly good example of why the sub-subtopic "Includes" sentences need be deleted, because in the past year or so, the television subtopic has been sub-divided into many, many more sub-subtopics, even including actual television series titles (Simpsons, X-Files, etc.), so we really really don't need to say "Includes Simpsons, X-Files" etc. here; that sentence would go on forever (some are already starting to: seen here, and that list is even out of date!). Of course, the sub-subtopic headings themselves on the GA page are absolutely staying (seen here). If there's objection, tell me why exactly why these "Includes" sentences are useful on the GAN page and let me know how we are supposed to keep up with so many sub-subtopic headings. If there's no objection, I'll start in a few days. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not delete these. These sub-subtopics are very useful in helping people determine in which subtopic a particular article belongs. I know I use them to make this determination when people fill in the "GA nominee" subtopic field incorrectly (or not at all), and I'm not quite sure whether one or another subtopic might be preferable. Even if Television has been divided into many more sub-subtopics, having the general ones is particularly useful. I'll let others weigh in on whether the links to the particular GA page section is useful, but the more precise categories are invaluable. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion counts for a lot here and I see what you are saying. We will no longer link to the GA pages as that is off the subject at nomination time, but we will keep the sentences. We don't have to include every single sub-subcategory, like each of the television shows. The sentences will read like this, for example: "Warfare nominations are added to the appropriate subtopic below. This includes armies and military units, battles, exercises and conflicts, military aircraft, military decorations and memorials, military people, warships and naval units, and weapons, equipment and buildings." Prhartcom (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The GAN page cleanup is complete, except for the outcome of the discussion below. Prhartcom (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Nominator missing for Mariam Dadiani

The nominator for Mariam Dadiani is absent, but I have reviewed the article. I've asked at the relevant wikiproject without luck, so if anyone here wants to take over and fix the issues listed, it would be nice. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Because the nominator has unfortunately been topic banned from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia. If no one takes over, just move on.

This editor has nominated several of these types of articles. MPJ-DK has reviewed three of them and has placed them on hold—indefinitely it turns out, and is in the same position as you. Borsoka raised this on the editor's talk page and EdJohnston suggested waiting. There is one remaining nomination from this editor awaiting review. If no one objects, I'm going to remove it from GAN tomorrow to avoid wasting anyone else's time. Prhartcom (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

they will sit seven days and then failed if no one looks at them. I mainly did the reviews to clear them out of the list. I have no problems nuking the last unreviewed one since there has not been one word fixed on these.  MPJ-US  22:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In any case, they reviewed ones are up for grabs so to speak, if anyone wants to have a look. I'll fail mine soon otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You gave it 10 days from March 1, I agree you gave the time the rules outline.  MPJ-US  01:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The community certainly thanks both of you for your reviews and I'm sorry no action was taken to remove these from the GAN list when this was first noticed. This has now been done for the last remaining article. Prhartcom (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Question on article Chennai

I am looking at Chennai, a GAN currently listed in the review needed box. This article is HUGE, almost 200K and it already has a series of subpages. I assume this fails criteria 3b in a major way. But is that enough to fail the GA? If it is reduced significantly it would not be the same article submitted for GA. MPJ-US  01:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

MPJ-DK, you may be right; I haven't read the article. It is a former featured article, with a readable prose size of 10,225 words. You are right to question whether or not it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. That would be up to you to decide after reading it. Maybe you will see some places where more of the article can be shunted out to subpages. But, like your question below that asks about short articles, length has nothing to do with the GA criteria. The question is, does this article cover what it needs to cover about Chennai? You wouldn't want it to leave anything out, right? It shouldn't fail just because someone thinks the nominator put too much work into it. Also consider: If you don't review it, who else could possibly take it on? Feel free to reply below if you have other thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer reviewer tool

The Peer reviewer tool has been temporarily removed from the Template:Good article tools (that appears at the top of every review page). The editor who removed it gives their reason here: Template talk:Good article tools#Peer reviewer (briefly, it is because the tool recommends a " " between numeric values and non-abbreviated units, i.e. "1000 metres"). In the meantime, I encourage reviewers to continue using the tool if they wish. Prhartcom (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: The editor has restored the link to the tool in Good article tools, but this is still being resolved. Prhartcom (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Legobot error?

I passed Talk:Ahmad Maymandi/GA3 today. However, Legobot stated that the nomination failed and notified the nominator about the same. Did I do something wrong or was it some bug? Cheers, Yash! 13:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not an expert at all, but based on what I see, the GAN template was removed, but the GA template was not added. If you add this to the top of the article talk page, that should take care of things. The reason the bot did what it did is because that template entry was not there, I believe. Check out these instructions: Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Passing --Concertmusic (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I did add the GA template like I always do and I have never seen this problem. Can this be because there were two failed nomination templates below the GA template? Yash! 13:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed that, I think. No idea what the issue really is in that case. Having said that, the article is marked GA, and everything appears fine. I would recommend undoing the Legobot message to the users about the failed status, and carry on. If someone more knowledgeable than me can weigh in, please do! Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to have done it again. Talk:Grodziskie/GA2 was a pass (after GA1 failed a month or so earlier) but Legobot marked it as a fail and left a message saying so on the nominator's talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I see what you mean; thanks for reporting it. I just did some research, not exhaustive, but in the past few months, no other GAN recognized as failed by the bot was failed on accident as these two were, and also, in the past few weeks, no article that passed contained a historical "FailedGA" template immediately below the new "GA" template on the article talk page. These two that the bot accidentally recognized as failed did have a historical "FailedGA" template immediately below the new "GA" template on the article talk page. I am continuing to look through other passes and fails to be sure, but for now it is starting to look like we should remove the "FailedGA" template before passing the GAN, as Yash suspected. I will post back here to let BlueMoonset (who may have thoughts about this) and any others know what else I find. Prhartcom (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This is something that the bot should be smarter about. Legoktm, is there anything you can do to the bot code so that Legobot doesn't make this mistake? It should be able to identify which is the new template and which ones (if any) are not, and pick the new one to use to determine what happened. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, on no account should a FailedGA be removed, unless it has already been incorporated into the article history. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a consistently reoccurring Legobot problem that always happens in this exact condition. See here causing this and this. Pinging Legoktm; can you please help us. Prhartcom (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, any ideas? I saw this happen again today. Prhartcom (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom, try the WP:Bot owners' noticeboard; there was an issue raised there last week about the RfC functionality in Legobot that got a fairly quick response from Legoktm. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, thank-you for the suggestion. Prhartcom (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Maitreyi Legobot says this article failed WP:GA review. That's not what the review says. It says it passed. FYI, there are two separate GA reviews on the talk page, so maybe that is the source of confusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is the reason for this bug that happened to you, which happens nearly every day. We have notified Legoktm and pleaded with them to at least answer us. Yours is an example of a different bug I have not mentioned yet but have repeatedly seen: No {{GANotice}} message, neither passed or failed, was sent to the nominator at all. I hope we hear something from the developer soon. Prhartcom (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Reviewer Inactive

I nominated the article 1982 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game for GA a while ago and since a user, Grondemar, reviewed it and listed some errors to fix and whatnot. I've addressed the issues he/she outlined, but he/she has since been inactive for nearly two months. Is there any way to further the review? Thanks Disc Wheel (T + C) 03:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Disc Wheel, it is always disheartening when this occurs, as the reviewer made a commitment to you; I'm sorry this happened. Yes, there are steps you can take, documented here: WP:GANI#Step 4: What to do during a review under "If the reviewer withdraws". Prhartcom (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Guidance on a short article

I am reviewing Samuel L. M. Barlow I and the article is just extremly short. I am not sure what the 1(b) criteria is but to me it feels like it's too short to be a Good Article, it's barely an article at this point in time. My instincts says to review what's there, ask if it can be expanded and put it on hold for a while to allow expansion to take place. I would like some guidance from more experienced GA reviewers please.  MPJ-US  02:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

MPJ-DK, I believe you are as experienced a GAN reviewer as they come, but I will try to answer your question. This question comes up fairly regularly on this page, the help desk page, and during GA reassessments. An old, unqualified list called Wikipedia:Good articles/By length provides the article WKEY (AM) as an example of an fairly short GA article, which has a readable prose size of 514 words. The article you ask about has a readable prose size of 469 words—nearly the same length. None of this matters, however, as of course you know: Length is not mentioned at all in the good article criteria, only that the article be broad in its coverage. In other words, if this article is about as long as it could possibly be, with about all the sources that exist, and you believe it otherwise satisfies the criteria, then you should award it GA. On the other hand, if the nominator isn't trying hard enough to expand the article because you suspect that sources exist that are going untapped, then you should not. I hope this helps; feel free to reply back with further thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: Be sure to review a GAN against the GA criteria, not the FA criteria that you mentioned you are using on that article's review page. I've left a similar message on the review page. Prhartcom (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance, I have not dealt with this sort of issue before so it's always good to get a second oppinion. I did a quick 5 minute Google search and found sources that had a lot more info that could go in the article.  MPJ-US  01:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

MPJ-DK, I just noticed, as I suppose you have also, that the nominator has been inactive for a few months, so I can guess what the outcome of this review will be when the hold has expired. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination question

A quick question regarding the article, Hasta la Raíz (song). It was nominated for GA, and I reviewed the article, suggesting any changes that should be made before passing. However, the seven days had passed without a single change being made, so it failed. The nominator wasn't active on Wikipedia until today, and let me be aware of the changes he/she made. I have re-read the article and believe it is GA status, but the question is, does it need to renominated or am I allowed to put the GA stamp on it? Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say Yes, why not? The important thing is that the article complies with the requirements, the rest is just recommended procedure. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say better to renominate it, but there's no harm in you being the one who reviews it; that way, there's a clear record of the promotion. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Both Peter and Josh are correct. What is important is that an article is now of GA quality according to the criteria. What is also important is procedure if possible, and it certainly is, as the nominator can immediately nominate it and Carbrera can immediately pick it up and review it (placing an explanation, a link to the old review, and maybe one of these templates on the new review page), and pass it. I just did something similar for a recent review. Prhartcom (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

The reviewer of Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid does not seem to understand the system of how the reviews work. Not quite a surprise considering they started it after making about 10 edits themselves. Someone should close this review and fail it, the article is quite far from being GA. Can I do that myself or does some sort of admin need to step in? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Admins don't have any special authority, just some special tools. I'd make a bold edit and close this nomination.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Subcategories on GAN page

Should all of the subcategories of the Wikipedia:Good articles page continue to be placed on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page?

The list of good articles (GA) is organized onto topics (or pages; there are 15 topics/pages), subtopics (there are 37 subtopics across the topics). From the beginning, all of the topics and subtopics on the good articles page have also all been placed onto the good article nominations (GAN) page.

I propose we add the following subtopics to these topics, simply reflecting the same structure as WP:GA:

• One additional subtopic added to the Music topic ("Classical compositions")
• Seven new subtopics, sub-dividing the Warfare topic ("Armies and military units", "Battles, exercises, and conflicts", "Military aircraft", "Military decorations and memorials", "Military people", "Warships and naval units", "Weapons, equipment, and buildings")
• Seven new subtopics sub-dividing the Sports and recreation topic ("Football", "Baseball and cricket", "Basketball", "Hockey", "Pro wrestling", "Other sports", "Other recreation")

To add subtopics to the GAN involves editing the GAN page to add them and enhancing Legobot to use them.

Of course, the developer/operator of Legobot, Legoktm, who took over this responsibility in 2012, is invited to this discussion and their input is critical. It appears we haven't yet had a subtopic change under Legoktm's watch.

There are a few other things to consider. First: The GAN page looks odd with empty subtopics and empty subtopics could confuse people, although of course it's only temporary, so we should probably not add them until Legobot is nearly ready to use them. Second: Remember that a subtopic on the GAN page is also a queue in which we wait for our GAN to be reviewed; more subtopics may mean it is not as far from the bottom of the queue to the top. And last: Maybe some other GA/GAN subtopics should also be divided into additional subtopics; for example the "Sports and recreation" subtopic is quite large on the GAN page.

Thank-you for your comments. My thanks to BlueMoonset who helped research this. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Support as nominator. Prhartcom (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I've just pulled this back from the archives; RfCs typically run a month, and this was archived far too soon.

My impressions of the changes are that we don't necessarily have to follow GA's lead in their hierarchy, since the determinant as to where the new GAs need to be added is the sub-subtopic, a level of granularity that is unnecessary to our process, which deals with a limited number active nominations (in the 300 to 600 range), as opposed to a historical archive of over 23,000 entries that needs a great many subdivisions to remain manageable.

I wasn't sure I saw the necessity of separating out "Classical compositions" from the "Other music articles" section, but it seems to be a significant plurality of the 24 in that section now, and even though there are only 59 Classical composition good articles, it seems that the number is now actively increasing. (When it was separated out, seemingly arbitrarily, in 2013, there were 27 in this new subtopic, quite a bit less than other active sub-subtopics that weren't elevated.) It makes more sense now than I initially thought.

Fragmenting Warfare into a full seven subtopics seems a bit excessive; there are currently 33 nominations. Six of the seven seem to have a large number of entries at GA; the seventh, Military decorations and memorials, seems likely to be empty most of the time (there are 16 total GAs), but as it doesn't fit well with any of the others, if it wasn't its own subtopic, it would need to be in a miscellaneous subtopic, which would still require seven subtopics. Or we could combine a few to have four or five total. But this could be fussiness on my part: there are a number of subtopics currently that rarely have more than a couple of nominations at any one time. I'd be interested to hear what the Warfare WikiProject members who are active at GAN have to say.

It is quite true that Sports and recreation, a topic with itself as the sole subtopic, is by far the largest at GAN, with 81 nominations at present, about 16% of the total. It has 37 sub-subtopics. Even a few well-picked subtopics with a miscellaneous section would help, though looking through, I had trouble cutting it below these five: football (American, Association, Australian, rugby, other), baseball & cricket, basketball, hockey (ice & field), and [professional] wrestling, with the rest in the "other" category. There could be arguments made for another three or four subtopics, but I think that would—at least for now—prove unwieldy. I do wonder, despite what I said above, whether it might make sense to get buy-in from the GA pages, in case they'd want a different division. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I have just implemented the suggested new subtopics to Sports and recreation on the Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation GA page. I believe the subtopic divisions were a good suggestion and I believe this works well. I also believe this level of improvement of this project page is something that most people are quietly appreciative of or completely indifferent to, so buy-in is scarcely needed (we'll hear if there are any objections, or others will simply improve this work). As before, I believe these new subtopics of Sports and recreation should appear, and could help queue waiting times, on the GAN page. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There's one place where I think we disagree somewhat, and that is for the need here at GAN to divide the "Other" category into two categories, one for Sports and one for Recreation. However, I think it's a nomenclature issue: rather than "Other recreation", make it "Recreation", its own category/subtopic both here and at GA, since with the new changes, we have five specific sports subtopics and no specific recreation subtopics. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Featured Articles still appearing in the GA lists

Hi, I just noticed several GAs that I successfully nominated at FAC over six months ago were still sitting in the GA lists until I manually removed them a few minutes ago. Pretty sure that removal of new FAs from the GA list was automated at some stage but not sure if it was Gimmebot or Legobot or some other agent -- anyone know? If the bot that did it is a lost cause then I'll see if FAC Bot can do it but like to know any pertinent info from here first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ian; it's not automated. I've often thought it should be. Maybe a bot owner will speak up and say that it is, but I too keep finding FAs on the list of GAs and remove them when I can. You mean nominated and successfully promoted to FA, I assume. Please let me know if you speak to the FAC bot owner; please let them know that I'd be interested in cloning part of their code to write a new type of GA bot to do this if necessary. Prhartcom (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Another job opportunity perhaps? My initial thought was that when FAC Bot closes a nomination it could inspect the article talk page and/or the GA list to match names and remove from the GA list as appropriate, but it could be done by a GA Bot inspecting the FA list periodically. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. The FACBot removes the GA status by updating the article page (to remove the GA symbol) and the talk page (to update the article history). It could remove the article from the GA lists. I will have a look. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The FACBot has been instructed to remove FAs from the GA lists. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant -- tks as always for your unfailing willingness to help automate these sorts of tasks, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not working. I found another FA on one of the 15 GA pages today. Prhartcom (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm gathering this would be something that kicked in on future promotions, rather than be retrospective, and I don't think we've promoted anything to FA since Hawkeye coded this. Assuming I'm correct we'd have to manually remove existing FAs but at least there won't be new ones... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Women's history category?

As Wikipedia tries to be more inclusive to women editors, and we have several Wikipedia projects centering on women's issues, what would it take to get a GAC nomination category something like "Women's history"? The reason this comes to mind, in the case of any editor who wants to specifically review women's nominations, is that you can't always tell gender by a person's name. And having just typed that, I'm not sure where a nomination would go if it was about LBGT issues. Hmmmm.— Maile (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Maile, at GAN we generally try to mirror the WP:GA categories (see the RfC above). I just took at look at WP:GA/History, and the categories are not divided into men and women, but subjects like monarchs, politicians, etc. When picking an article to review, you may not be able to tell the gender by a person's name, but clicking on the article will tell you whether it's a woman in a couple of seconds; people wanting to review articles by women should not have a hard time finding them. (The same is true for music, or sports, or art and architecture.) If you want to propose something specific, please feel free, but I'm dubious that separating out articles on women within various topics is the way to go. I imagine it will be controversial; in any event, it would need to be proposed in an RfC. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I personally would be against this. I think it's more inclusive to just have a base category than separate out by man, woman, Two-Spirit, etc. I understand how splitting things up would be easier for an editor to concentrate on a certain gender, but to me that seems like a step backwards (plus it would make the nominations page a lot longer).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It would certainly be a step backwards if eg a woman chemist was removed from the science category to be "ghettoized" in the "Women's history" one! We'd have outraged stories all over the media. It was this kind of well-intentioned stuff that got so much negative media (see the latest Signpost) on novelist's article categories. At the moment all articles just get one category, which keeps things simple. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If the main idea is to be able to sort the nominations related to women's history, the best way to do it is with WikiProject Women's History. It needs to be subscribed to Wikipedia:Article alerts, and will have a section with the ongoing GA nominations (as well as other nominations and discussions, which may be selected as well). Cambalachero (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

And, in fact, it is subscribed to article alerts. The relevant page is here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

GA template not transcluding correclty

On the talk page for Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the template for the article's GA review is transcluded as {{Talk:Reed v. Town of Gilbert/GA1}}. However, instead of linking to the Reed v. Gilbert GA review, the transclusion shows Talk:HTC First/GA1 instead. Any suggestions? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. (You may have to force-refresh the page for it to re-transclude and pick up the new version.) Note to Carbrera: please don't copy the boilerplate from one review page to another; it causes errors like this. Instead, start each review fresh using the bold "start review" link on the GAN page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: thanks for lending a helping hand! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Asking/canvasing for reviews

What is the point of nominating articles anymore? I see editors all the time nominating articles, and asking/canvassing editors for conduct a review within 24 hours, and usually passed too. Meanwhile the rest of us wait weeks or months.  — Calvin999 16:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Calvin999. Such behavior from nominators and reviewers totally sullies the meaning of a GA nom and brings the entire process into question, in my opinion. Many of us work hard on an article to bring it to a point where it is in a place where nomination is appropriate and most of us never even consider contacting other editors to review it, nor would we consider "working" an editor to get them to review favorably. Yet, this kind of thing is not only happening, it seems to be getting ignored by experienced editors who should know better. I've never been one to pay much attention or give much credence to GA articles until recently - mostly because I'd never nom'd or reviewed an article for GA until recently - but what I've seen happening over the last few months with what's been nominated and quickly, undeservedly passed or the reviews being botched and not done properly is taking me back to the mindset that GAs are much ado about nothing. Even so, it would seem that the GA bar has been lowered by this kind of lobbying and favor-seeking behavior and is quickly making GA a joke. Something needs to be done if integrity and the true meaning of "Good Article status" is to be retained. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If there are problems with canvassing or tit-for-tat reviewing, I think it would be worth bringing forward particular examples so that they can be examined, and, if necessary, overturned. That said Calvin, and as I have said to you multiple times, reviewers stop interacting with people who treat them disrespectfully, whether that is because people have been shirty or unresponsive, or because nominated articles are underprepared. Though I can only speak for myself, both of these things put me off reviewing your articles, and grumpy talk-page messages don't help. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think making your comments about the person bringing the concern is unhelpful as well as inappropriate? I do. This isn't AN/I, after all. Moreover, if you are not reviewing articles because of your opinion of the person nominating them, how does that benefit Wikipedia or give credibility to the GA process? Such avoidance for the reason you outlined further proves the points being made above and turns GAR into a junior high school popularity contest. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

In answer to your first question: No, not at all. In answer to the second: I'm a volunteer with limited time. I can better spend my time working with someone who treats the review process appropriately. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. Does the alleged behaviour contravene a policy? - If it does not contravene a policy, they are free to do it.
2. Are the passed articles non-compliant with GA criteria? - If they are non-compliant, nominate them for reassessment.

Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Josh that is 100% not relevant to the conversation and I'm disappointed in half of your response. How do I not treat the process appropriately? I worked hard on articles, I nominate them, I wait however long for a reviewer to decide they want to review it, and I fulfil their suggestions. What is inappropriate about that? You being personal doesn't help Wikipedia and getting articles reviewed.  — Calvin999 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Neither does your whinging. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Didn't think you'd be able/want to answer that. So you decided to be negative instead. Don't reply to a comment of mine if you don't want the interaction.  — Calvin999 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Calvin, that works both ways. You're very quick to complain, but when you get a response you don't like, you either ignore it or play the victim. I've told you, several times, why people may not been keen to review your nominations. Of course, that's "100% not relevant". Josh Milburn (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

But what did I say in my original comment to provoke a negative reaction from you? I never ignore anything and I certainly don't play a victim, unlike you previously. I didn't ask why my nominations (and many other editors) take a while to be nominated, I asked about canvassing. So yes, it was completely irrelevant to conversation. You've replied to me looking to provoke a reaction, which is sad and pitiful.  — Calvin999 08:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This is silly. You opened this thread by complaining about how long you have to wait to get reviews. Yes, you also complained about canvassing, but it's interesting that (despite multiple requests- how's that for never ignoring anything?) you've failed to provide any examples of this, and would rather argue the toss with me. And, for the record, I actually agree that this probably happens and may sometimes be problematic, as can be seen in the very first line I said in this conversation. You've chosen to ignore the substance of what I have said in this thread (it's apparently "not relevant") and when we've talked about this before (or else you wouldn't be starting this witch hunt) but meanwhile want to say how "disappointed" you are in me, how I'm "negative" and "personal" and my comments are "sad" and "pitiful". (And I'm the one who is "looking to provoke a reaction"?) If you can't see that all of this amounts to playing the victim, I can't help you. The last thing I'm going to say here: The brick wall I'm encountering right now is indicative of precisely why I am not inclined to review your nominations. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No I didn't open this thread complaining about how long you have to wait to get reviews. I opened this thread to talk about people asking/canvassing straight after nominating. Do you really think that I would post examples here for everyone to see? I've let someone know, if you must know. I don't know how I'm ignoring what you're saying when I said it was irrelevant; clearly, I read it. The feeling is mutual then because I've always sense that you wish to not be associated. I don't even remembered how or why it has reached this, that is how stupid this is. I've never asked for your help here. Seriously, why did you even reply to my original comment? You knew you was going to provoke a reaction.  — Calvin999 08:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, specific examples would help illustrate this issue. Vague comments do not help anyone look at this properly, if you have a problem do state it more specificially please. Side note - I have picked up recent GANs and reviewed them even though there are nominations in the queue that have been there much longer, but only for those who are part of the WP:WIKICUP as a courtesy to my fellow competitors, and technically there I would have something to gain by them failing (less points for them) and really nothing to gain by them passing. But to an outsider who is not familiar with the cup all they see is someone getting reviewed after not being nominated for any length of time, which is why we need specifics here.  MPJ-US  18:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that enforcing a strict first-in first-out order would be a mistake (for one thing, there are only a small fraction of nominations that are on topics that interest me and that I am sufficiently familiar with to review, and for another, the ones I have nominated myself are often on technical subjects needing some reviewer expertise). However, if there is logrolling or other forms of poor reviewing going on, it would be helpful to identify it so that we can correct the problem. It is the review quality, not the timing, that we should be concerned about. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

No one is asking for any of that. I'm talking about people nominating then asking people to review them straight away.  — Calvin999 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• If you believe the reviews are improperly passed please do speak out - if it's more "I disagree with the practice of canvassing for reviews" I do agree that should be discouraged, not sure if it can be out and out banned or punished or whatnot.  MPJ-US  20:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Two scenarios, not totally germane to the issue:

1. I know a WP:GOCE member who will only work on articles that they are interested in
2. They try to work from the top of the queue
3. Sometimes the queue is dry of topics of interest
4. Sometimes they are approached directly but they advise the approacher to throw the topic into the queue and that then they will immediately copy edit it. This keeps any canvassing more transparent. Normally the reviewer is busy and will tell the requester that there will be a wait until the editor clears their plate.
5. Another GOCE member flat out will not take canvassed tasks. This member does not do a lot of projects. Also, has many other rules on how to engage them on their talk page that are unrelated to GOCE.
6. I had an article in the GA hopper for three months and asked a trusted community member if they had any ideas to light a fire under things. Three months is a long time to have to keep checking a talk page to see if a review has been picked up. Not all reviewers ping requesters when the reviewer picks up a review. Nor do they ping when they have updated a review. The process can become dreadfully burdensome. DYK is worse in this respect‍—‌the constant need to refresh the review page to see if there is any action.

I hope this helps. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Calvin999, I did not know this was happening (but I am not surprised to hear it); thank-you for bringing it to our attention. If I understand you, you are frustrated at this apparent shortcut in the process, especially since you have been following the instructions to the letter, waiting patiently, and you want to know if some policy is being violated. I understand you may also be saying that the canvased reviews are being passed not according to the GA criteria. For the second point, if you really believe that is the case, just as Peter said, then the process is: Please nominate that article for WP:GAR reassessment. For the first point, I am sorry to tell you no, no policy is being violated. The GA Instructions already say that a nomination must wait in the queues for about six months, but that, conversely, it may take only a few days of waiting, as the instructions say that a reviewer may pick any review from the queue that they want. The instructions mention nothing about the canvassing, so let us look at the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline. That page clearly identifies types of inappropriate canvassing, such as spamming and campaigning, and offers solutions, such as "politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop". Have you tried that? I agree with Josh and with the old saying, that I suggest you consider: You can catch more flies with honey. Now, I do not believe it is considered inappropriate for a single nominator to ask a single reviewer to review their article. I think canvassing is probably okay at that scale. If you see that occur, my suggestion to you is: Look away. Try not to think about it. It's not like it's a widespread problem, right? Or, if you prefer, provide us with links to the specific cases where you believe it is a widespread problem. But what I suggest to you is: Take solace in the comfort that you are doing the right thing by waiting with your nomination in the queues the normal amount of time just like practically everyone else is doing. I like the suggestions of Checkingfax above, especially their point 4. All will be well, I promise! All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

My point is that we could all nominate an article, and then ask a friend to review it pretty much straight away, who will more than likely pass it because of the friendship. I've never done that. But I've seen it many times in the last week alone. This is why I kind of disagree with reviewing GANs for points in various competitions on Wikipedia. Loads of people in the cup have done drive-bys.  — Calvin999 08:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Blatant cutting of a line will not stand up over time. At BART stations they have black marks to show where the train doors will stop and everybody lines up there. The other day with long lines as soon as the doors opened a person sauntered over to be first into the train.

The train was very full. I was lucky to get a seat. Next to me was a person sitting in a seat with their feet up so as to take up the entire bench seat. They just enacted a $200 fine for seat hogging, but I was too shy to pick up the phone (and it was too noisy) to alert the train operator so he could call the transit police. Plus, it seemed like such overkill. I did not want to approach the person because they were disheveled and I did not want to set them off in the BART tunnel.

We are supposed to give up certain seats to elderly people and people with disabilities (this is a Federal law). Many disabilities are invisible, and how old is elderly?

At the highway tunnel, when traffic backs up everyday somebody will zoom around on the shoulder and cut to the front. At a construction site lane closure in my neighborhood the other day there was a 15 minute backup caused by the gridlock of the construction coupled with the signal light. We all patiently waited except for a couple of hotheads who would jet around and cut to the front of the wait line. I could go on and on. It is discouraging. There is a traffic light that I go through twice a day and it is usually brief. When the signal stalled for over 5-minutes I was ready to drive through when it finally turned green. I was sure it would never change. Sometimes they are broken.

Promotions like the WikiCup can clear review queues but they may have unintended consequences. Hang in there, buddy. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

One of the presumably unintended consequences is that people competing for the cup are encouraged to review articles on which they may have very little subject knowledge because the article offers more points. The result is that the article may be promoted to GA with mainly cosmetic improvements, and possibly not have the references checked except that they exist and are not dead links. This is arguably still better than no review at all, as the article will have been improved in at least some aspects. There does seem to be a tendency to demand a reference for every paragraph rather than one for each non-trivial, non-obvious or possibly controversial claim, but then when the reviewer is comprehensively uninformed on a topic all points may be non-trivial, so they may just be trying to cover all the bases. The process is flawed, but this is to be expected as it is done by volunteers. The competitive aspect introduced more potential flaws, but does get more throughput. Whether the overall effect is worthwhile is open to debate, or preferably, a rational study. Has anyone compared quality of article improvement by GA review using GA cup as a variable? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Peter: Your "different scores" worry applies to the GA Cup but not the WikiCup; there are often several things going on at once. I agree that attempting a careful examination of review quality in reviews motivated by one or more of these competitions/drives would be very useful, but would be methodologically tricky. If I can speak a little candidly, I have found that people have often been very quick to assume that the WikiCup is causing problems (similar has happened at FAC and DYK) but not very forthcoming with any evidence or concrete examples (though there are exceptions, generally tied to a single problem user). Josh Milburn (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, GA Cup was what I was referring to. I do not do Wikipedia competitively, but can see that it would encourage some to produce more. Unfortunately we have those among us who will game the system whenever it is possible. I make no comment on the WikiCup at this stage as I have no personal experience of it to draw upon. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As a GA Cup judge, I do try to briefly double-check an article before I award points. I once submitted an article an article to GAR after I considered it sub-par - it quickly was brought up to standard and then passed. I may miss things in these checks, as I only look for glaring problems, but I do try to give some oversight.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Lucknow GAN

Hello all!
I have started reviewing the subject GAN and noted my comments at Talk:Lucknow/GA3. The nominator is not much active it seems and this review was started by me on 3rd March with no much progress. Nominator has responded only once in between and the nomination is standstill. I had also posted on India noticeboard about it if anyone else was ready to take it up. Today I have also posted a note on nominator's talk page.
The comments are quite major and can't be resolved easily. Many non-RS references are used and hence I do not wish to fix the article myself. How long do I wait for nominator to respond? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, put the review on hold (go to the article talk page and change the GA nominee template's status from "onreview" to "onhold"). Then give the standard seven days for the nominator to take action. If there is no progress by then, feel free to fail the nomination. Wikiboy2364's last Wikipedia edit was to the review on March 22, when four items were checked as "done"; he had to know that a review left for so long would run the risk of being closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonset! Its on hold now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Public Storage

I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) the GA reviewer @Ugog Nizdast: felt the article was almost ready to be passed after a few pending items. @Stevenmitchell: made a few edits and suggested the article had "substantial issues", etc. Additional input is welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 21:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

CorporateM, a couple of us have responded; thanks for raising the matter. We'll see what happens. Good to see that this article received a proper review and that it is on its way to passing. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Trouble report: Stats are wrong

Hi. The (90d) link to stats lists Caitlyn Jenner at 70,000 page views per 90 days but the correct number is 1,617,000 per 90 days as seen here. grok.se is off by a factor of 35. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the GAN talk page? Checkingfax, please be more careful. I'm afraid I don't know where to direct you to the place where you can complain about the grok.se tool, but it isn't here. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Prhartcom. Because from the GAN template we link to the grok.se page whereas it appears we should change the link in the template to point to wmflabs.org/pageviews. As an aside to my trouble report, what do I need to be careful about? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies Checkingfax, I did not remember this link on the GAN template and I agree with you; such a link should be changed to the newer tool, and I still do not remember seeing this link. I am looking at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner at the GAN template at the top of the page and don't see the link, and I am looking at {{subst:GA nominee}} and I am looking at {{subst:GAN}} Where is it exactly? Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Prhartcom. Press the Project tab at the top of this talk page to take you to the nom page. Every nom includes this link page views (90d) that links off to grok.se. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, there it is, it is the {{subst:GANentry}} template! Now that I understand exactly what you are saying and that I agree with you, please let me look into the situation and get back with you soon. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, this is done; clicking on the link from the WP:GAN page now displays the new tool. Prhartcom (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Princess Charlotte of Prussia/GA1

Would someone mind stepping into the GA review of my nominated article, Princess Charlotte of Prussia? I had resolved the reviewer's concerns, but it appears Sotakeit hasn't edited in a month. I've posted on their talkpage but heard nothing back yet. I've never had this happen to one of my GAs before, so I'm unclear if this is the proper step, but I thought I'd post anyway. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 15:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ruby. I see that the reviewer has mostly stopped editing Wikipedia quite suddenly. Undoubtedly this reviewer became busy in RL; it happens to us all, although I don't appreciate it when a reviewer fails in their commitment to you, the nominator. I took the liberty of leaving a message on their talk page as well, below your message, urging them to simply pass the article if it meets the criteria. Hopefully this will occur soon. I'm sorry that it means you'll to wait even longer. If nothing ever happens, I hope the reviewer is okay, but it will mean that a new reviewer must be located for you. At that time, please follow the instructions under "If the reviewer withdraws". Let me know if you have further questions. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Prhartcom (my apologies for the delayed reply!). I hope the reviewer is alright as well – he/she was very helpful and constructive during the review. That said, in case they do not return in the near future, is there a time limit involved or do I need to wait for the reviewer to officially withdraw? Ruby 2010/2013 22:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ruby, There is generally a seven-day wait time and of course you are way past that. Please go ahead and proceed according to the instructions I mentioned, then settle in to wait a little bit for a new reviewer. Ping me if the instructions are not self-explanatory and I'll be glad to assist! Best, Prhartcom (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Understood, I have followed those steps. Thanks for your help! Ruby 2010/2013 16:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ethereum

Hi. Would appreciate a quick bit of help on a recently-failed GA nom. This page Talk:Ethereum/GA2 says that a GA nomination was speedy failed (which I would agree with; the article is not close to ready for a GA review).

My question is how and when the did the article get nominated a second time for GA, so soon after an initial GA nom was done? The page Talk:Ethereum/GA2 does not say. Am I looking in the wrong place to find the nom, and who made it? Is there a page that shows both the nom (when and by whom) and the speedy fail, or should? Was the second GA nom really different than the first nom?, or were they perhaps the same?

(The first nom is here: Talk:Ethereum/GA1, was very recent also, and apparently was made by an active editor, who then quickly reviewed the article as not ready for GA (which it was, of course, not).

Could someone look these over and be sure that that GA nom process was followed sufficiently cleanly so that future GA discussions and reviews are not impacted by the odd process(es?) used in these rather non-standard GA1 and GA2 noms? Thanks. N2e (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See BlueMoonset's closure box comment on GA1: the original GA1 nomination was (manually) reinstated, because the GA1 reviewer should not have reviewed this article. So there was only one nomination, leading to two reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So was the first/only nomination also by User:David Gerard? I can't find in the two discussion pages (Talk:Ethereum/GA1 and Talk:Ethereum/GA2) where it makes it clear who made the nomination. So I'm a bit confused. N2e (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The nomination was made by Legionof7 in this edit. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That is very helpful. Yes, that one was a really screwed up GA nom. The article was nowhere close to ready for GA. Then a person who was an active participant, and controversial, became a reviewer. Apparently a wrong/incorrect not-fully-complete close (of "GA1"), which led to another real/complete/final close ("GA2") noting that, indeed, this article is not ready for a GA review. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Calvin999 and MaranoFan

Calvin999 and MaranoFan have each been blocked for a month for "incessant battleground behavior" (see Special:Diff/716601415 and the comment it replies to). Calvin999 is currently listed as the reviewer on six open GA nominations, and MaranoFan is the nominator on two more. Should something be done about these nominations, rather than just leaving them open for the duration of the block? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

We might want to wait a few days whether either or both manage to successfully appeal their blocks or get the time reduced, which is always possible in the case of a block.

• For the two that MaranoFan has nominated, it may be that other editors will handle the issues raised if MaranoFan's block doesn't end early; if not, then the nominations will likely be rejected if the issues are not dealt with during a standard hold period.
• For the six GA reviews that Calvin999 has opened, only two have reviews posted thus far, and are currently on hold: Talk:Adam's Song/GA1 and Talk:Rebel Heart (Madonna album)/GA1. If the block hasn't ended soon—there is currently an open request on Calvin999's talk page—we might want to ask the nominators for those two whether they'd like to wait for Calvin999 to return or for us to try to find someone to take over. For the other four, which were all opened on April 18 but not yet reviewed, if the block continues past the end of April, I'd recommend closing those four and putting them back into the reviewing pool. If they're still available when the block expired, Calvin999 can always start a new review then. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have removed Calvin999 as reviewer from those four. Now anyone may review them. Prhartcom (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom, this feels premature, especially while appeals are in train. Although Calvin999's second appeal has been turned down, there is a third still in play. If an admin comes along who is willing to give him a second chance, he could be unblocked at any time. If the third request is refused, and the reviews have been open for a week, that would be decisive in my view, and it would then be appropriate to have the review pages deleted so that the eventual reviews start on page 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset is usually correct about these matters so I defer. The good news is the four edits I made to the four article talk pages are each reversible. I suggest they each stay for now, then any one may be reversed for any reason, such as User:Calvin999 learning from their block and returning from it to continue their prolific reviewing. Prhartcom (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, each refused unblock request dramatically reduces the odds of a new one passing. But if this one does, Calvin999 can easily re-take up the reviews. Resolute 17:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016 backlog elimination drive

It's been over two years since the previous backlog drive and that one was met with an inadequate success. A backlog drive was proposed in January, which I was a supporter of, but it never materialised as the GA Cup commenced the following month, and I didn't have the time to set it up. It was also met with a positive response from everyone I asked; everybody agreed that we needed a quick and effective way to decrease backlog, and a 30-day backlog elimination drive is the best way to do that. I've started a backlog elimination drive set for May. As a judge in the GA Cup, I'm well aware that the competition is running now. You might be wondering how a drive and a competition which both have the same objective could work well together. The GA Cup is a competition, the backlog drive isn't, it's merely a way of decreasing a backlog through quicker reviews:

• In May, the GA Cup will have just nine contestants focusing on writing quality reviews. The drive would have an uncertain amount of people and is unlikely to interfere with the GA Cup
• I'm well aware that we have three contests that revolve around GA reviewing going on at the moment: the WikiCup, GA Cup and Awaken the Dragon. Have any of those done anything to drastically decrease the backlog now? No. It's safe to say that we're never going to run out of GANs. At the moment, there are over 400 GANs sitting in the queue, and the ultimate goal of the May drive would be to cut it by at least 50% (and that's being optimistic). So that would leave 200 GANs for both the GA Cup and WikiCup to share (with five remaining people left in the GA Cup by June), so there will still be a large and sustainable amount of GANs for both Cups.
• A recent discussion has popped up on WT:VG about churning through GANs quickly, which people have agreed that GA reviewing is a lightweight process and should be reviewed quickly. The May drive page displays guidelines on when it's acceptable to quick-fail and quick-pass articles.
• The backlog drive isn't a point-orientated competition. I've modelled this drive on the successful April 2010 and December 2011 ones, in which the backlog decreased significantly due to the lenience of reviewing. 'Lenience' is a risky word, I've explained that obvious rubber stamping GANs will result in disqualification, but the VG discussion found that people are in favour of quick and pointy reviews.
• I don't want people getting the wrong idea about this. I think it's harmless, and should be treated as irrelevant from the GA and WikiCups. You have to remember that the ultimate goal of the drive is to cut the queue by 50%, and even then that's more than enough leeway. JAGUAR  22:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In principle, anything that results in more good articles is a good thing. The usual caveats apply. I also don't think we are going to run out of candidates anytime soon. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's certain that the backlog won't interfere with any of the Cups, so it's all set. I'm actually keen to wait for the backlog to build up a little bit before May. I'll post a notice on the WP:GAN page a week before the drive begins. JAGUAR  13:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Jaguar, holding a month-long drive at the same time that the most productive GA reviewers are already claimed elsewhere would seem to be counterproductive. Why not wait until the GA Cup is over, so they can participate, perhaps with a one-month gap to recharge batteries? (GOCE takes a month off between drives.) With April half over, only 12 of 16 remaining GA Cup contestants have started at least one review; in March, only 20 contestants completed at least one review. There's not a big pool of potentially active-but-eliminated reviewers to pull from while the 9 contestants continue in May. A few other points:

• "There are over 400 GANs sitting in the queue." True, but under 300 of them are available to be selected for review. Based on past GA Cups, the number is likely to trend somewhat down or maybe sideways this month and next, with a definite reduction in June during the finals. It's unlikely that the backlog will grow significantly in the next fortnight.
• "GA reviewing is a lightweight process and should be reviewed quickly." The quicker a full GA review can be completed, the better, but a "lightweight process"? Only if the reviews aren't being done right. Reviewers should be checking that the article reflects the facts in its sources, that it is broad in its coverage, that there aren't copyvios or close paraphrasing or problematic images, that the article is clear and concise and doesn't have grammatical problems, that it's stable and neutral, etc. We've seen some issues with WikiCup and GA Cup reviewing, and can expect it in an elimination drive as well: people dive in, not knowing what's really involved and not reviewing against the GA criteria, and suddenly there are a bunch of reviews that need to be undone or redone or dragged through GAR.
• "Lenience of reviewing." Either the review is done to the GA criteria, which is fine, or it isn't, which is bad. This applies to a Cup or a Drive. Will you have active review checking to make sure that proper reviews are being done, and to guide reviewers who don't understand? I wonder why you characterize the GA Cup in May as doing "quality reviews"; why would we want a backlog drive if it isn't doing reviews of equivalent quality? GA Cup has a few extra length requirements, plus making fails wait a week before they can be closed, but that doesn't much affect the final result, or indeed most reviews where issues are found.
• "Have any of those done anything to drastically decrease the backlog now?" Well, the day before the GA Cup started, there were 594 total GANs, with 545 unreviewed. As I type this, we have 428 total GANs, with 298 unreviewed, down 166 and 247 respectively, and this is with a steady influx of new GANs. This is a pretty drastic decrease in a month and a half. Yes, it needs to be lower, but this is clear progress. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• "I think it's harmless, and should be treated as irrelevant from the GA and WikiCups." I think you're being overoptimistic. WikiCup and GA Cup don't overlap that much (7 of 16 at the moment, and 3 of those have zero or one GA Cup reviews this month), and the GA reviews are an extremely minor component of the WikiCup. But the GA Cup and your drive will be direct competitors for potential reviewers.

Out of curiosity, what are the opinions of your fellow GA Cup judges on this competing drive? And are they prepared to take up the slack on the GA Cup during May while you're busy running the drive? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

To throw my two cents in, the GA Cups do a really good job of eliminating the back log. In February I did an analysis of the first GA Cup and found a highly significant (p < 2.2e-16) difference between the number of noms awaiting review before and after the GA Cup, and a highly significant (p = 9.32e-9) difference in the number of closures before and after the cup. I haven't done one on this cup yet, but I believe that the GA Cup will make a significant dent in the backlog. That's not to say a drive wouldn't help, but that I think May is too early to have one. I think the best way to eliminate the backlog is to retain reviewers. As time goes on, the number of open reviews decreases. It seems that few reviewers are retained, or that they don't do nearly as many reviews. Either way, I think something that needs to be thought about is a long-term solution to the backlog. Two possibilities are to get and retain reviewers through more targeted advertising and education, or move through the volume by raising the standards and quick-failing more nominations. Wugapodes (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the current standards are too low?

Another possibility is to define the standards more clearly. One problem is that the nominator is less than confident that an article is up to GA standards as they appear to vary so much between subjects and probably also between reviewers. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Not that they're too low, just that raising them would likely result in fewer nominations (because people may feel like the article isn't up to standards) or more quick fails (because more stringent criteria means they can be failed quicker if they don't meet them). I'm rather undecided on the issue. I don't think the standards are too low, but there is a rather large gap between GA articles and FA. That's something that I've seen brought up at WT:FAC every so often. I do like your suggestion of clearer criteria. I know that WP:GANOT really helped me when I first started reviewing. Perhaps expanding that more, and running an RFC to see if there's consensus to have it as more than an essay would help in that. Wugapodes (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What criteria would you change if raising the standards? How would this affect existing GAs, and how would this be managed? Is the gap between GA and FA too big? (rather large may be quite appropriate). • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Jaguar, under the circumstances, I think you should postpone your proposed drive. There is disagreement as to whether it will indeed prove harmless; absent significant buy-in here (and at the GA Cup), it should probably not proceed at this time. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll probably postpone it for June, when there will only be five competitors in the GA Cup. JAGUAR  00:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the "probably", Jaguar, I've removed the notice from the GAN page. Please do not replace it until there is a consensus here that a drive should occur at all before the GA Cup has finished, and what the timing should be for said drive. It's an important goal to reduce the backlog, and I appreciate that you want to help, but we should do more thinking about how the drive and the GA Cup would interact—perhaps the best thing would be to run periodic drives when the GA Cup is not ongoing. For example, GOCE runs a one-month drive every other month to work primarily on the oldest outstanding copyedit tags, and a weeklong blitz (mini-drive) in the off months to reduce some aspect of outstanding copyedits, frequently the backlog on the Requests page. Perhaps, for example, after the GA Cup concludes at the end of June, we could run drives in August, October, and December, and then start the next GA Cup in February. If we wanted to try blitzes, the Sports and recreation section has by far the largest number of unreviewed nominations: maybe a week to start reviews, with another week to finish them, in the middle of an "off" month? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

What I'll do is that I will see how the backlog is going in time for June, and if it's over a reasonable number then that might be a good indication to hold it in that month. I'm tempted to do a mini-blitz myself but a lot more can be done if other people joined in a drive. JAGUAR  21:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to create a user script for reviewing GA nominations

I am proposing that someone create a user script that would allow GA nomination review's to be done more efficiently. The user script would probably need to write the review itself, as well as apply the GA top-icon and update the talk page. — Music1201 ^talk 02:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Music1201, don't be silly, computer programs don't work that way. Also, at Wikipedia, we don't propose someone else do work, we do work. If you need more detail or further excoriation from me, please do let me know. Prhartcom (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:João Sousa/GA2

For nearly a month now, Royroydeb seems to have completely abandoned reviewing João Sousa's article. I would like to know what I can do to make sure that the review is successfully completed. I wouldn't want to go back to end of the list and wait for another 5-6 months. Could I ask for a new reviewer? If so, where should I do it? Thanks. SOAD KoRn (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I put it back into the queue, and it should keep its seniority in the list so it shouldn't have to wait as long this time. Hopefully third time's the charm! Wugapodes (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Wugapodes! I hope it is! SOAD KoRn (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

GA reviews and approvals in under ten minutes from new reviewer

A reviewer new to GAN, Zppix, started on May 9, and since then has done four very rapid and inadequate reviews, passing three and initially quickfailing a fourth. The quickfail—which had been waiting for review for over four months—was undone, but a proper review seems unlikely.

I have posted to Zppix's talk page, suggesting mentorship, that someone look over reviews before they are finalized, or that a there be a reviewing moratorium while Zppix gets up to speed on the GA criteria: there has been no response beyond archiving the posts. I suggest that we ban Zppix from GA reviewing for three months or longer, and after that only allowing one-at-a-time reviews under the supervision of a mentor, who must concur before a review is passed or failed. (The mentorship requirement can be ended once competence at GA reviewing has been demonstrated.)

These are the reviews conducted so far:

• Talk:Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner/GA1: opened May 9, 15:00; completed at 15:10 (formal passage posted at 16:50)
• Talk:Square Enix/GA2: opened May 9, 18:19; completed at 18:26 (formal passage posted at 18:29): after Zppix refused to revert this passage at my request, I had to open a Good Article Reassessment: see Talk:Square Enix/GA3 for what I have found so far, and the number of fixes already completed by the nominator.
• Talk:Sylvester (singer)/GA1: nominated January 1; review opened May 9, 18:38; quickfailed at 18:39. At my request, Zppix has reopened the review, but is focused on a single non-GA criterion (wants more cites in the lead) and shows no signs of a proper review.
• Talk:Undertale/GA1: opened May 10, 18:29; reviewed by 18:34 and requested more cites in the lead. After one editors (including the nominator) pointed out WP:CITELEAD and another asked for a different reviewer, I posted a note pointing out the issues with Zppix so far; Zppix then passed the nomination at 14:06 a minute after retracting the lead cite request.

I am boldly reversing the approval of Undertale: the review was not properly conducted and we cannot afford to have an editor approving or rejecting GA nominations at what amounts to his or her whim after a quick read-through. It's unfair to the nominators and it's disruptive: we cannot go the reassessment route every time, but that would be what needs to happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Though not a GA reviewer myself (I work more with anti-vandalism, and have Zppix's talk watched in relation to their work in this field), I echo the concerns above. Primarily, my concern seems to be an unwillingness to learn. See this diff [12] for one example - there appears to be no attempt to understand Wikipedia policy at all. Mike1901 (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, BlueMoonset. (I happened to be watching one of those articles and saw its review before seeing your post here.) I'm very glad you catch these infractions in policy and procedure, which keeps the GA icon representative of quality. I am still offering to help assist or take over any review; let me know. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 17:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok @BlueMoonset: I am re-reviewing an article per your request and removing the only comment of mine that was holding it back but yet you want me banned this seems a little unfair here... I work fast its how I am, but I am usually accurate each time... I'm human I make mistakes, I don't know every policy like the back my hand but one "guideline" of Wikipedia is use common sense, which I am. Now go ahead and ban me from GA all you want... but you act like I didn't respond to you on my talk page which I have multiple times... I have a right to archive my talk page at any time... Don't leave out facts and imply that I am the only one in the wrong here... I hereby withdraw from GA and block all communications between me and BlueMoonset. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I am perhaps a little biased here for I am the nominator of Sylvester (singer) which Zppix 'reviewed', but I do agree with the proposed measures. We do need GA reviewers, but we need the process to be done correctly and by the book. Comments like this ([13]) are both totally inappropriate at a GAN and pretty much in contravention of our civility policy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Post-withdrawal

Now that Zppix has withdrawn from GA, I would like to suggest that all of his reviews be re-examined or reassigned as follows:

• Talk:Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner/GA1: will revert approval as was done with Undertale, and place nomination back into the GAN pool with no loss of seniority; will bump page to 2
• Talk:Square Enix/GA2: I opened a reassessment, and will continue with it
• Talk:Sylvester (singer)/GA1: I posted the start of a set of comments to supplement the ongoing review—it's a long article—but would rather have someone else take over. Prhartcom, are you willing? If not, we can put it back in the pool on page 2 and point any reviewer to the page 1 comments.
• Talk:Undertale/GA1: since the approval has already been reverted, I'd suggest either deleting the review page or leaving it there and going to page 2.

—BlueMoonset (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes BlueMoonset, I can help with the article you mentioned. I have worked with the nominator before many times. Thanks again for handling this.

Zppix, I would still like to help train you, because we need reviewers. You may be fast and use common sense, but we still need you to be smart as well and read what you need to know. Feel free to stop by my talk page and let me know if you are interested. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 18:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: maybe if I change my mind but for now I'm leaving GA til further notice. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Legobot doesn't seem to be updating WP:GAN

Just a note that while Legobot is currently waking up once an hour, it has not done any GAN tasks in the past 11 hours. It has definitely missed two changes that I made to GA-nominated article talk pages, and one review that Prhartcom has opened; I ended up hand-editing mine, but Prhartcom's needs to be picked up by the bot.

I've notified Legoktm on his talk page, but someone may want to contact him via email since he's so infrequently editing on the site. (I don't do Wikipedia email.) Tasks that aren't being done include adding new nominations, removing passes and fails, notifying nominators when reviews begin, are put on hold, or are passed or failed, transcluding review pages on talk pages and modifying the GA nominee template, and adding the GA icon to passed articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Legobot is working again in the GAN space as of 13:37 UTC today; it was down for about 20 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth Review

Khanate General started the review of IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth on 25 March 2016. I responded, and had made changes to fit the suggestions/recommendations of Khanate General on 30 March 2016, pinging Khanate General in the process. Khanate General did not respond, so I asked again on 11 April 2016 (accidentally forgetting to ping Khanate General), which once again led to no response. Can someone else who is a little more active than Khanate General take over the review? Thanks, --Elisfkc (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elisfkc, I'm sorry you had this experience; I agree that you need a new reviewer; please follow the instructions at WP:GANI under "If the reviewer withdraws". I notice that this reviewer had been active for years and became absent quite suddenly; I hope they are all right. I also see that they left another GAN review incomplete: Talk:Zuo Zhuan/GA1, nominated by White whirlwind. After that nominator waited a fair amount of time for the reviewer to respond, they correctly made this edit to the article talk page a few days ago, which is according to the instructions. That is what you will do now for IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth. Notice that the other nomination is now back in the queue at WP:GAN and it didn't lose it's place; soon, a new reviewer will come. That will soon be the case for your nomination also, Elisfkc. Let me know if the instructions are not clear or if we can help in any other way. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 23:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: thanks! I think I did everything right to reset it. --Elisfkc (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your welcome; yes, you did; notice it is still first in the queue at Media and drama, ready for a new reviewer (who can read the previous review also). Good luck, —Prhartcom♥ 00:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

IPs and GANs

I know they can't review them, but what about nomination? I found that Souled Out (Jhené Aiko album) was nominated that way, and it certainly isn't prepared, just another reason for it to fail. Not much work has been done on it since nomination. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 13:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, IPs are allowed to nominate, but like anyone else, only if they have made significant contributions to the article or checked first with the main editors of the article, who in this case would be TheAmazingPeanuts. The only edits the IP made to the article were to add "Alternative R&B" in a few places, which is very minor, and said IP's only three edits on Wikipedia, two to the article and one to nominate, are now four weeks old. In my view, unless TheAmazingPeanuts thinks the nomination is a good idea and wants to work on improving the article during a review, the nomination should be removed since it didn't follow the guidelines. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys. If you guys are wandering about improving page, well i'm gonna do it because i'm not the best the editor on Wikipedia and my grammar isn't the best either. I'm only do minor edits that are not too major to the article, in my opinion I think that title belongs to Dan56 because he had a long history making articles in the good articles list. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Lehigh Valley Silk Mills and James Madison Porter nominations

Lehigh Valley Silk Mills was nominated by an unregistered editor in March. FYI WT SPI. The nomination and most of the edits were done by what might be sockpuppets. The are six redlink editors and one blue link. All edits by those accounts were in March, and all on this article. Maybe this nomination should be pulled. It would be hard to review something where the primary editors are gone and maybe not coming back. — Maile (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The SPI is now complete, and picked up another GAC James Madison Porter. Both of these articles have been nominated by socks of the same sockmaster. Most of the expansions, and numerous edits, are related to socks of the same sockmaster on both articles. Based on the SPI, I have failed both nominations. — Maile (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Maile, since no review was ever opened, I think the best thing to do would be to simply remove the the GA nomination entirely. It's what we've done in the past to socked and other inappropriate GANs when they have yet to be reviewed. We should probably keep a note on both talk pages to indicate what was done with the nomination, but a fail without an actual review ever having been opened is going to cause problems down the line if those articles are ever legitimately nominated. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for discovering this and taking care of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Help?

Despite starting the review of Spectre, @Cirt: hasn't edited in a month, and the review is still open (with a FTRC depending on it). I've even added "second opinion" on the talk page, but I still wonder if someone could please help this get closed. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 01:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

igordebraga, I see what you mean; Cirt stopped editing abruptly over a month ago; I hope he is all right. Sorry, reviewers don't normally disappear during a review. We appreciate how you are stepping up in place of the also absent nominator. You could continue to wait for a second opinion reviewer or you remove the second opinion request and instead try to get a new first opinion by following the instructions at WP:GANI under "If the reviewer withdraws", which unfortunately is the case. This GAN is third from the top of its queue, so it won't be too much longer of a wait for a new reviewer. —Prhartcom♥ 05:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Cirt was away from Wikipedia for over three months, from early November 2015 to late February 2016, so this is not unprecedented behavior; Cirt had both GA reviews underway, and GA nominations being reviewed, much as is the case this time (two reviews, started at the same time, and one nomination, which is not yet under review). BlueMoonset (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:FAC

We could use more Featured Articles. Does anyone who feels comfortable with GAN want help getting started with FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, what do you mean? Excuse my ignorance. Prism | (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't get it either. Are you just asking people to write FAs? JAGUAR  22:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is another review process. I'm guessing, but I think Dank is inviting new participants in that process. I don't know about more articles, but they sure could use more reviewers to help out. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inviting participation, in the form of both reviewing and writing. There's a little bit of a learning curve at FAC, and a bit more collaboration is needed to make it work, but I suspect that a lot more people could be successful at it than currently are successful. I'm willing to help, I review the current list of articles at FAC regularly. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about GA Review

I have a quick question regarding an article that I have nominated for review. Azealia911 has started the review for "Olivia" around the end of March and beginning of April, but has recently been inactive on Wikipedia and I have not received any updates on the review since April 18.

I have messaged Azealia911 about this and he let me know that he was busy with real life obligations and would be unable to complete the review for some time. However, it has been over a month since the last comments and I am wondering what should I do next in this situation? Thank you in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoba47 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Aoba47, I know that Azealia911 had intended to continue the review—even saying so in a talk page post back when letting go of a number of reviews that had been opened but never started, unlike this one and another one, which were already started. However, that was back on April 26, and while the other review was finished on May 11, this one was never resumed and Azealia911's most recent edits were on May 18, and were just talk-page cleanout.

At this point, I think it's up to you. The review didn't get very far, so if you'd like, we can put the article back into the nominations pool, available for a new reviewer to select it. Or you can wait a little longer in the hopes that Azealia911 does show up. If you'd rather look for a new reviewer now, I'll be happy to put this back into the pool. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer to the article was put back into the nominations pool. I do not mean to sound disrespectful to Azealia911 as he does a lot of great work on here and provided some wonderful comments, but I think it would be best to put this back into the pool. Thank you for your reply! Aoba47 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it's back in the pool of nominations waiting for a reviewer. (I had to remove the "2nd opinion" status as part of that step.) I hope someone new takes it soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding: and it's already been grabbed. Since the new reviewer is competing for the GA Cup (and the finals are this month), something tells me the review is going to be completed before the end of the month, since unfinished reviews don't qualify for points. Hope all goes well! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in my response. Thank you very much! I apologize for any inconvenience. I edit on here for fun so I never want to be a bother to anyone. Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting advice

Hi... I am looking to nominate the aromatization article for GA once I finish adding some more content. I am seeking advice from anyone who is willing to look at the presentation of diagrams / graphics, as the article has a lot of illustrations and I am not sure how to make it look more elegant. Thoughts / Suggestions? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

EdChem. you're right, it does; some would say far, far, far too many. I would cut most of them; elegence will come with simplicity. As you add content, add references to the new content's sources. You will probably get more response to this message if you post it to the article talk page or especially to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, as chemistry folks don't necessary watch this GAN talk page. Good luck, —Prhartcom♥ 14:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)