Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 32

< Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations
Latest comment: 1 month ago by IntentionallyDense in topic Second opinion(s) wanted
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33

Please nullify the reviewer's commitment to review due to lack of review actions (similar to abandoned review) on Talk:Modafinil#GA_Review_3

Latest comment: 7 months ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I would like to ask appropriate administrators or appropriate persons involved in overall management of the GA process for a reconsideration of the review commitment by User:Irruptive Creditor for the review page Talk:Modafinil#GA_Review_3. The assigned reviewer has not undertaken any review actions, such as providing feedback or asking questions, leaving the review section empty and in a state of limbo, apart from my message where I tried to contact the reviewer. I tried to contact the reviewer on the review page, their user page, and via Wikipedia email, there has been no response; still, the reviewer was active on Wikipedia on April 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12 according to their edit history, yet, as of now, they did not reply to any of the outreach attempts; therefore, I believe that the commitment to review may have been a misclick.

As such, I propose that the review commitment be nullified, and the review request for the Modafinil article be returned to the queue. However, rather than treating it as a new request, I suggest it retains its original position and date, as if the review had never commenced. This is akin to an abandoned review, but without the disadvantage of returning to the queue anew. I tried to engage with the reviewer, and the lack of activity from the reviewer’s side should not penalize the progress of the article’s review process. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean by "akin to an abandoned review" Maxim Masiutin; this is an abandoned review, and the procedure followed for them is precisely to return the nomination to its original position in the GAN queue. I will tag the page for G6 deletion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted. Thanks AJ29, and good luck MM with the renom. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I checked now the articles nominated for review and the date of Modafinil is as I requested, i.e. 23 February 2024, the date it had initially. This is exactly what I asked for. Thank you! I didn't know whether it is handled automatically when you delete a review, or you had manually to adjust the date. Please let me know if it was handled automatically, so If next time it will be the same situation, I will just ask you "to request a G6 deletion of the review page" as specified in WP:GAN/I#N4a -- sorry for my initial lenghy request, as I don't have full knowledge of the what's going behind the scene. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
By the phrase "akin to an abandoned review" I meant a situation where a review process has been initiated but not followed through by the assigned reviewer. This is similar to an "abandoned review" where the reviewer has stopped participating in the review process, but with a key difference: in a typical "abandoned review" scenario, as per the Wikipedia instructions, the review would return to the backlog and be treated as a new request. This could potentially delay the review process as it would need to wait for a new reviewer to pick it up from the start in a priority similar to new nominations. However, in my case, I asked the administrators to handle so that the Modafinil article be returned to the queue, retaining its original position and date, as if the review had never commenced. Particularly relevant instruction in my case is (quote): "If the reviewer has not made any comments other than opening the review, it may be better to request a G6 deletion of the review page and start over" - still, it is not explained to which position the nomination should return in the queue. In my case, I asked that the review would not be treated as a new request, but rather continue from where it left off, thus avoiding the delay associated with starting the review process anew. This is what I meant by "akin to an abandoned review, but without the disadvantage of returning to the queue anew". Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is that this was an abandoned review. The process described at WP:GAN/I#N4a was followed. If there had been more comments and if the G6 were declined, I believe the nom would still be in the same place in the queue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Going to hijack this to ask about a related issue. Talk:Melania Trump/GA1 received just a few bullet points about the first few sections before the reviewer CSD'd it, but an admin rejected the CSD and set it to second opinion instead. Is this the correct process? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you please start a new topic instead and when you refer to a related issue put a link, e.g. write: "my issue similar to that mentioned in Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Please nullify the reviewer's commitment to review due to lack of review actions (similar to abandoned review) on Talk:Modafinil#GA_Review_3 - it will help us handle both issues separately. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
It's the same issue. The solution to one is the solution to the other. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why that would help Maxim Masiutin; in any case, you're not handling anything.
Thebiguglyalien, as the review is seemingly complete in the reviewer's eyes, and you're the one dissatisfied, I would say that asking for a second opinion is the correct process; you can of course also ask the reviewer to fail the nomination and renominate the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I probably would have declined the G6 also, since there were substantive comments made in the review—not saying there weren't other issues. I'm not sure what the next step is, but a second opinion seems reasonable to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't a G6, it was a G7. The nominator left the review (by mutual agreement). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Number of GANs

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! Just a quick question, is there a specific guideline that constrains the number of GANs one can nominate? My expectation would be in terms of fairness that the closer to one, the better, so as not to saturate a backlog and give other users equal opportunity to have users select their articles for review. Is this thinking correct? If so, is this explained anywhere? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There's no maximum, although if you have more than 10 at once, anything new that you nominate gets temporarily hidden in a separate little collapsed box. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok, good to know, thanks again for your help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So, remind me...

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...what's the difference between good articles and featured articles? (Typed via my Galaxy Tab A.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

A brief summary at Wikipedia:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article, and I would summarise in that a FA has a much higher standard for content thoroughness, as well as much higher standards for formatting and presentation. CMD (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New statistics tool to get information about an editor's GA history

Latest comment: 7 months ago53 comments17 people in discussion

I've created a GA statistics page that takes an editor's name as input and returns some summary information about their interactions with GA. It shows all their nominations and reviews, and gives a summary of their statistics -- number promoted, number that are still GAs, and the review-to-GA ratio. Please let me know about any bugs or enhancement suggestions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this tool, Mike. I noticed when I input my name, I'm credited for two nominations that weren't done by me. This is because I reverted some out of process promotions (see this diff) and it appears the tool thinks I was the nominator, because I was the one who made the edit restoring the nominee template, even though the real nominator's name was present within the template. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that -- the tool can get confused by things like that. I fixed the one you linked to; if you tell me what the other one is I'll fix that too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
That would be 1990 San Diego Chargers season. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
One other comment: the tool makes it look like my nominations to promotions ratio is lower than it actually is, because it is actually counting GAs later promoted to FAs against me (4 such articles in my case). Is there a way this could be accounted for by the tool? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I would consider that to be working as intended: the tool is now reporting your actual ratio of reviews to successful nominations, rather than artificially inflating it by not counting some of your nominations. This was discussed at §Using all GA nominations for the GA statistic rather than current promoted ones above. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm planning to make that change in the numbers on the GAN page too. I haven't done it yet so please comment at the earlier discussion if you disagree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
My concern is not with the review ratio, I agree that it should reflect all nominations I've made to be fair. It's more that it makes it look like I've had 5 GAs that were delisted, when only 1 was actually delisted and the other 4 are now FAs. I'm not sure what the answer is for this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Mike!
One comment: it looks as though there's something wrong with the "Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs" field: it returns 0 for me, but it should be 21 (Brothers Poem and Corinna are now FA). I see for your stats it instead reports that all of your GA noms are still GAs, though two (Amazing Stories and Ghost Stories (magazine)) have since been promoted to FA. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The numbers for my stats confused me too, but it's because two of them predate the cutoff for ChristieBot -- Space Science Fiction Magazine and John W. Campbell. That coincidentally cancels out the two that have since been promoted to FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The "Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs" number is now fixed; it was case-sensitive and now is not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, also comparing the results given against SDZeroBot's attempt, I notice that your tool misses Women in Classical Athens Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
It appears about 70 GAs were not properly categorized in the database; not sure why, but I'm doing a run now that should fix them. Please let me know if you see more omissions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Superb work, Mike. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
GA nominations: 197
Promoted GA nominations: 179
Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 0
GA reviews: 301
Ratio of reviews to successful nominations: 1.7
What does "Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs" actually means? I have about 150 or so that are still GAs. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks like there's a bug in that calculation; I will take a look at that next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Should now be fixed -- the tool was case sensitive for that value, but I've made it case-insensitive. If we ever get two users at GA whose usernames differ only in case I'll have to change it back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks like the issue was actually that my search was "Lee Vilenski " rather than "Lee Vilenski" (mobiles tend to add additional spaces for reasons). Searching just for the username gives the correct info. In case someone else mentions it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
One small thing in the GA reviews section, the table lists the nominators as reviewers instead. -- ZooBlazer 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The stats for me seem incorrect.
GA nominations: 0
Promoted GA nominations: 0
Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 29
GA reviews: 0
Ratio of reviews to successful nominations: Infinite
Obviously, I have done GA nominations which were then promoted to have that number that are still GAs; and I have done a number of reviews. All of these were within the last 6 months, so they were surely captured by ChristieBot. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems the problem is the tool sometimes gets into a state where it can't get to most of the data. I fixed the problem for now by restarting it so you should see your numbers now, but it will no doubt happen again. I'll see if I can figure out what's going on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I've got a similar issue with my stats:
  • GA nominations: 0
  • Promoted GA nominations: 0
  • Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 14
  • GA reviews: 0
  • Ratio of reviews to successful nominations: Infinite
I tried checking PMC and Premeditated_Chaos in case the issue was with the space, or my signature, but no dice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
User:Tim O'Doherty, who also has two FA nominations to his name, asserts to have nominated 8 successful GAs and reviewed 12 GAs, some of which I have been involved with. However, according to the GA nominations page and the new GA statistics tool, it shows that Tim has neither nominated nor reviewed any successful GAs. I was hoping you, @Mike Christie, could look into this since ChristieBot and the new GA statistics tool were developed by you. Regards, and yours faithfully. MSincccc (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Fixed -- the apostrophe in Tim's username is what was causing the issue. Usernames with apostrophes should now work correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
However, it appears the bot that maintains the "still a GA" number is not recording the data correctly for users with apostrophes, so that number is still showing as zero for Tim. I've left the maintainer of that bot a message. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Also I recently took up Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's article for GA review. As done for other users, shouldn't it show that the article is under GA review? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: I've had four successful GA nominations under my belt, but the tool indicates five, possibly due to the Prince George of Wales nomination being listed twice instead of once. Tim O'Doherty successfully promoted the article to GA-status, whereas AndrewPeterT abandoned the review after making just the opening comments. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The bot decided that AndrewPeterT's review was a pass because there's no record of the outcome anywhere, and the article is currently a GA. I've added article history to the talk page and rerun the analytics for that GA, and the bot now understands it was not a promotion. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan is missing because in debugging over the last couple of days I inadvertently caused a problem for the part of the process that picks up new GAs, which is supposed to run once a day. It'll run again today; if you don't see the GA reflected in the tool's output tomorrow morning let me know and I'll take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: On the project page Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, under the Royalty, nobility, and heraldry section where it indicates that the article Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is under review, it still displays-Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). (13 reviews, 0 GAs) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC) However, we are aware that Tim has 8 successful GA promotions attributed to him both from the new tool and his own record. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
That number comes from this tool, which doesn't correctly handle usernames that contain apostrophes. Per this discussion I am planning to change that number from "promoted GAs that are still GAs" to "promoted GAs regardless of whether they are still GAs"; I can provide the latter number accurately, so the number should be correct then. It'll be at least a week or two till I can make that change, though, as I'm travelling this weekend and don't want to make changes when I'm unable to fix any problems they cause. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Adding my thanks for the creation of this tool. Looking at my stats, I see two oddities:
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Both should now be fixed. I don't know why the California one was assigned to you; I reran that analytics step for that page and it corrected it. For Freetown station, part of the problem was that there was no easy way for the bot to figure out what the outcome was of the first review; there was no "Failed GA" template, for example. I added article history to the talk page and reran the analytics and that seems to have sorted it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll be working on the tool this afternoon trying to figure it why it keeps producing zeros after a few queries. In the meantime here are the numbers for Generalissima:

  • GA nominations: 33
  • Promoted GA nominations: 30
  • Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 29
  • GA reviews: 29
  • Ratio of reviews to successful nominations: 1.0

and for PMC:

  • GA nominations: 31
  • Promoted GA nominations: 30
  • Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 14
  • GA reviews: 107
  • Ratio of reviews to successful nominations: 3.6

The tool will probably be mostly down this afternoon; I'll leave a note here if/when I think I've fixed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a list of all GA reviews you're credited with? My personal count only has 104, I'm curious what ones I've missed ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll leave a list on your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the bug is fixed and the tool should now be working. Please let me know of any other issues, or if this one recurs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mike, would you consider a slight tweak of the sort order? The "reviews" are sorted by nomination date, so my first review is listed at number 5 (the first five are 5-2-1-4-3). It would make more sense to sort the reviews by review date (ideally by start of the review, actually). —Kusma (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Good idea, and an easy change to make, so done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks, Mike Christie. Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA0 is listed in the results for me as "Nominated"; looks like there was some process issue around that review. Also, I think I messed up the template when reviewing Talk:Atul Gawande/GA1 - that should probably be updated to a fail. (I later nominated it myself Talk:Atul Gawande/GA2). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

These should now be fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for creating this. A slight bug in my results, may have been reported above. The tool reports 19 nominations, 19 promoted nominations, and 14 that are still GAs. None of my GAs have been delisted. Three have been promoted to FA. I think the discrepancy for the other 2 is that there were abortive initial reviews, and both were promoted after GA2. That's my guess, and it's not a big deal. Mackensen (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

(Also @Trainsandotherthings, since you raised the same question): the "still GAs" isn't meant to imply that the others were delisted; just that they're not currently listed as GAs -- in many cases this will be because they were promoted to FA, not demoted. I'll find a way to phrase this on the tool's output page to make this clearer. Mackensen, I'll have a look at the other two you mention and see if I can figure out what happened. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Could the tool tell me which promoted GA nominations are no longer GAs (as a column in the table)? Could it even track which promoted GA nominations are neither GAs nor FAs? (Using myself as a test case the tool indicates there should be 4, of which I expect one to be the delisted The Game (mind game) and three to be the featured San Junipero, The 1975 (song) and Why Marx Was Right.) Also, I'm impressed that it seems to track page moves appropriately (Nosedive moved to Nosedive (Black Mirror)). — Bilorv (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not easy to tell whether a page is FA, GA, A, B, etc; there's no single place I can look. However, SDZeroBot does keep track of which articles are currently GA, so I could try checking that and see if I can match up the article names. I might be able to search for the article names in WP:FA or the various GA pages as well. I probably won't work on this for a couple of weeks as I'll be traveling next weekend but will put it on the list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Promotion percentage

I thought it would be interesting to see the promotion percentage for our most prolific reviewers -- that is how many of their reviews end by promoting the article to GA. Here's the list for everyone with at least 100 reviews. This doesn't account for name changes (e.g. Malleus Fatuorum -> Eric Corbett) but I can probably fix that if I turn this into a query on the tool's webpage. I don't think there's necessarily anything negative about a very high promotion percentage -- a reviewer who picks up articles from nominators they know are very reliable might well have a promotion percentage close to 100%, for example, whereas a reviewer who makes a point of reviewing articles by inexperienced nominators (as I've done intermittently) might have an unusually low promotion percentage. Still, I think the numbers are interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting! For comparison, what is the overall promotion rate? —Kusma (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
43,027 passed out of 52,395 in the database; 82.1% promotion rate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
In case anyone else is wondering why my percentage is so low: I don't think it's because I have unreasonably high standards, but more because I tend to pick articles to review where I can reasonably predict the outcome: either a quick fail or a relatively easy pass. I don't want to get drawn into games of whack-a-mole where I point out examples of problematic material in a nominated article, the nominator fixes those examples but not the general problem, and I have to keep finding more examples ad nauseam. For a while that was leading me to deliberately seek out nominations that could be (justifiably!) quick failed, hence my high fail rate. I think for the ones where I initiated a full review rather than a quick fail, my pass rate is much higher. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Very interesting indeed. By my quick calculations, the mean promotion rate for our most active reviewers listed in your table is 86.3% (excluding David Eppstein pushes it up very slightly to 86.6%), and the median promotion rate for the reviewers listed is 91% – so you are marginally more likely to have your nominations promoted if it is picked up by a very active reviewer. This data doesn't let us say why that might be, but a couple of thoughts:
  • Historically reviewers had relatively lower standards than today and were more prolific because reviews used to take less time, and so are disproportionately represented in the "very active reviewer" dataset (there are a lot of names which I do not recognise, or which I do recognise as no longer editing, in that dataset, so this is entirely possible)
  • Very active reviewers have a better idea of which articles are going to pass (either because they recognise the nominator or they have a better preliminary assessment of how good an article is) and favour reviewing better articles
  • Very active reviewers are careless and more willing to promote articles which are not at GA standards (anecdotally I suspect this is not true given the names I recognise on the list)
  • Less active reviewers overcompensate and require things above and beyond the GA standard, and therefore fail things which an experienced reviewer might pass (I have certainly seen this behaviour, but I've also seen inexperienced reviewers pass things which I would not have, so I'm not sure which direction this actually tilts the stats in)
  • Passing reviews take less time on average than failing them, so the most active reviewers are the ones who review the most articles which go on to pass
  • The most active reviewers are the most willing to handhold a borderline article through to passing (perhaps because they generally spend more time onwiki, so they can devote more time to any given review)
Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Who wants to be my 50th fail? ;) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that this is interesting! As you say, I suspect the main differentiating factor is the reviewer's personal choices about what kinds of articles to review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Promotion percentage for GA reviewers with 100 reviews
Reviewer               Promoted Not_promoted % promoted
West Virginian         150 0 100%
Anotherclown           158 1 99%
Ian Rose               137 1 99%
Simongraham           116 1 99%
Rcej                   245 3 99%
Grapple X             122 2 98%
ThinkBlue             356 7 98%
Iazyges               254 6 98%
BennyOnTheLoose       122 3 98%
Seabuckthorn           161 4 98%
Gog the Mild           156 4 98%
Damien Linnane         129 4 97%
Dr. Blofeld           231 8 97%
Shearonink             111 4 97%
CatRacer22             447 18 96%
Zawed                 219 9 96%
LunaEatsTuna           117 5 96%
The Rambling Man       730 33 96%
Parsecboy             169 8 95%
Wilhelmina Will       123 6 95%
Dom497                 123 6 95%
Hawkeye7               185 10 95%
Courcelles             239 13 95%
Gen. Quon             140 8 95%
AustralianRupert       155 9 95%
Ealdgyth               288 17 94%
A person in Georgia   326 20 94%
QatarStarsLeague       141 9 94%
Hog Farm               376 24 94%
Xtzou                 121 8 94%
KCVelaga               120 8 94%
Usernameunique         132 9 94%
Peacemaker67           354 25 93%
Sturmvogel 66         872 62 93%
Nova Crystallis       161 12 93%
Eddie891               120 9 93%
Status                 119 9 93%
Ruby2010               132 10 93%
Dough4872             330 25 93%
ProtoDrake             130 10 93%
Rp0211                 104 8 93%
Auntieruth55           115 9 93%
Whiteguru             102 8 93%
Razr Nation           114 9 93%
Ecpiandy               160 13 92%
12george1             185 16 92%
Jaguar                 682 63 92%
Yellow Evan           171 16 91%
Ed!                   217 21 91%
Kyle Peake             506 49 91%
Tomcat7               171 17 91%
Vami IV               99 10 91%
Casliber               324 33 91%
Zanimum               107 11 91%
Jackyd101             125 13 91%
Cerebellum             91 10 90%
Aoba47                 270 31 90%
Sainsf                 281 33 89%
Mattisse               210 25 89%
Pyrotec               436 52 89%
Juliancolton           107 13 89%
MathewTownsend         179 23 89%
Tim riley             172 23 88%
AryKun                 107 15 88%
Sammi Brie             261 37 88%
FunkMonk               261 38 87%
Miyagawa               225 33 87%
Carbrera               181 27 87%
Lemonade51             97 15 87%
GhostRiver             191 30 86%
Malleus Fatuorum       169 30 85%
Chiswick Chap         298 58 84%
Lee Vilenski           251 49 84%
Jens Lallensack       148 30 83%
Zwerg Nase             86 18 83%
Cartoon network freak 154 33 82%
Sarastro1             88 19 82%
J Milburn             386 85 82%
Wizardman             581 129 82%
Cwmhiraeth             133 30 82%
Hurricanehink         194 45 81%
MarioSoulTruthFan     165 41 80%
Arsenikk               245 63 80%
ChrisGualtieri         102 27 79%
Kosack                 98 26 79%
Amitchell125           188 50 79%
Dana boomer           348 93 79%
Jim Sweeney           86 23 79%
Mike Christie         355 97 79%
Harrias               150 43 78%
Sasata                 145 45 76%
Kingsif               102 34 75%
Calvin999             190 65 75%
Cirt                   209 82 72%
Ritchie333             127 51 71%
Ganesha811             103 42 71%
Hchc2009               73 32 70%
Khazar2               253 117 68%
Premeditated Chaos     72 34 68%
Jezhotwells           386 187 67%
SilkTork               114 71 62%
David Fuchs           66 44 60%
MPJ-DK                 59 44 57%
Aircorn               60 47 56%
SNUGGUMS               124 101 55%
Gary                   101 112 47%
TonyTheTiger           101 113 47%
David Eppstein         35 89 28%

New mentorship page

Latest comment: 7 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The old good article mentorship page can be found at Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor, where it consists solely of an outdated list of usernames. There's clearly interest in mentoring, as it managed to gather 27 mentors over its run, but a simple list of usernames isn't that helpful. I created a basic outline at Wikipedia:Good article mentorship for a new mentorship process. The key difference here is that instead of having to choose from an intimidating list of names, aspiring reviewers can request a mentor in a similar format as GOCE requests.

Subpages:

It's just an outline right now, so please edit the text and layout. Formatting is not my forte. If even just a few people become regular reviewers through this, it would be a significant improvement to the backlog and the good article process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems pretty good to me. I'd be happy if newish reviewers (and nominators) had a guiding hand rather than some of the crazy threads we see after the fact here sometimes. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds great. Maybe we should start a new page rather than using the old mentors page, since that way we know all the mentors are familiar with this system and actively watching it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree, and I've created a new one with a similar format. Maybe once this is up and running a message can be sent to anyone on the old list who's still active to see if they're interested. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

All of the individual pieces should be put together now. But before this gets "launched", I assume the community here would want to discuss how much involvement a mentor would have, and if there are any specific aspects that should/shouldn't be included in their role. And whether the "norm" would be for the mentor to be more active on the review page or on the reviewer's talk page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, can you find a guinea pig who wants mentorship and do a first go at it and a debrief? Maybe it's just me but I think the direct approach will get us to a working model more quickly than talking about it here in the abstract. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing, I just wanted to make sure all of the obvious stuff was established. I was thinking about asking for a guinea pig on the WP:DISCORD given its heavy population of editors who are moderately experienced but not heavily involved in these processes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, much better to ask mentees to request on a dedicated page and have active mentors pick requests up. Could we have some emphasis on "during your first review, consider requesting on this page for someone to provide feedback"? It would be hard to give useful feedback if someone just wrote "I'm thinking of starting GA reviewing—please advise". A mentor needs to have something the mentee has produced (though I suppose that could be contributions history) to scrutinise. — Bilorv (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list - proposal to fix

Latest comment: 7 months ago27 comments8 people in discussion

Let me raise the major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list that I observed first time I submitted an article for GA review a few years ago.

The number of reviews and GAs in parentheses before the user name is misleading as if it was a number of reviews ans GAs that the article received, not the user.

Consider the following example:

Boot Monument (talk | history | discuss review) – American Revolutionary War memorial – (6 reviews, 0 GAs) Relativity (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). (32 reviews, 19 GAs) Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the article "Boot Monument" so far has 6 reviews and 0 GAs or 32 reviews, 19 GAs, suggesting a collective review process for a first-time users who don't understand the process.

Initially, it was only me who understood this way, but later I saw other editors understood the same way as me, suggesting that it was not my fault but a major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list.

I could not find particular examples in the archive to prove my point that other users understood as me, but such cases existed. Maybe I will manage to find examples. However, please do not consider my examples as crucial for considering my request, evaluate my request without the examples.

My proposal is to present the list differently:

Boot Monument (talk | history | discuss review) – American Revolutionary War memorial – (nominated by Relativity who has a past history of 6 reviews and 0 GAs) Relativity (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). (being reviewed by Harper J. Cole who has a past history of 32 reviews and 19 GAs) Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The exact phrase "who has a past history of" can be slightly different, for example consider other variants, such as:

  1. (nominated by Relativity with a track record of 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  2. (nominated by Relativity who has accumulated 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  3. (nominated by Relativity boasting 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  4. (nominated by Relativity known for 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  5. (nominated by Relativity with a background of 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  6. (nominated by Relativity having 6 reviews and 0 GAs to their name)
  7. (nominated by Relativity with a history of 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  8. (nominated by Relativity who has previously achieved 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  9. (nominated by Relativity credited with 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  10. (nominated by Relativity who has been recognized for 6 reviews and 0 GAs)

We can use any of these alternatives to convey the experience and contributions of the nominator and the reviewer in a clear and concise manner.

My proposal makes lines longer by having the names used twice per line: first time in parenthesis and the second time as a signature similar to that generated by four tildas ~~~~, still, it will resolve the usability issue.

If you are concerned about the lengths of the lines, remove the signature, the user name will be used only once. Signatures provide automated way to reply, but there is no need to reply in the GA nominations list.

Additional benefit of my proposal is that will not only make the list easier to understand, but it will bring clarity for new users on the steps of the GA review process. The current format can be confusing for new users who are not familiar with the Good Article nomination process. By explicitly stating the track record of the nominator and reviewer, we eliminate any ambiguity regarding the source of the reviews and GAs.

I believe that my proposal is consistent with Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia values clarity and transparency in its content and processes. The proposed change aligns with these values by making the information more accessible and understandable. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I will appreciate if the editors or administrator who take care of the overall GA review process nominate my proposal to the whole list of proposals as "Proposal N:..." by putting to to the list of the all proposals. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The proposal drive has ended. And for what it's worth, I never once read the nominations this way, and I don't know if anyone else has either. The proposed change would require a huge use of space on a page that's already full to bursting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Please consider reviewing this proposal separately, on substance, not related to proposal drive. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
If your concern is space than my proposal also saves space wasted by tildas, so your concern is addressed by the poposal. Here it how it looks without tildas:

Boot Monument (talk | history | discuss review) – American Revolutionary War memorial – nominated by Relativity who has 6 reviews and 0 GAs.
 Review: this article is being reviewed by Harper J. Cole who has 6 reviews and 0 GAs (additional comments are welcome)

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site. You have been told such before, on this very page—if you can't remember, you will find it in the archives; no need for miffling about with "maybes". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
How would you have proposed to rewrite my comment with this proposal, can you please provide an example? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I could not find in archives due to poor usability of the search feature. Wikipedia should not be for nerds. My recent example was related to the reviews Talk:Ketotifen/GA1, Talk:Modafinil/GA1, and other reviews by User:BeingObjective. He submitted to many reviews and provided pass or fail message but didn't formally conclude the reviews, when we asked him to conclude reviews, he wrote that he he thought that it is a collective process and his opinion was only a vote. This was in 2023. When I submitted my first article I also thought the same way as User:BeingObjective. Maxim Masiutin (talk) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you and BeingObjective did not bother with the GA instructions, which clearly explain the GA process. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30, you can find the sections relevant to you, through a process I believe nerds call "reading"—I don't know if you're as unfamiliar with it as you are with "clicking". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It can be even simpler: just moving the "(6 reviews, 0 GAs)" after the username and date. So using the examples:

Boot Monument (talk | history | discuss review) – American Revolutionary War memorial – Relativity (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) (6 reviews, 0 GAs)

 Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC) (32 reviews, 19 GAs)

Skyshiftertalk 01:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is also a solution. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
If there must be a change this is the way to do it, but I am not convinced there is a need to make a change. Say in either case it is read wrongly, does this matter much? Not really. CMD (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
It matters much because misleads the newcomer into belief that the counters are related to the article being reviewed, that the review is collective process of votes so that if they click to add their vote to the already big number of reviews of the article it would not hurt. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think the current structure implies any kind of collective voting process. But let's agree that you thought it was - how many people aside from you have actually made that error? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how many people aside from me have actually made that error. The current structure has counters related to user near the article not near the user, there is no reason in positioning it that way. It should be posisioned correctly and unambigously. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
BeingObjective made this error, he wrote about it, but this list of users is not exhaustive, as we may not be aware of all cases, users may not complain or we may not ask them the reason. Typical signals to watch if when a reviwer submit to a few reviews and do not complete at least one. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Even if only me made this error, i.e. was caught by this usability error - that was enough to fix. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This usability error affects not only the newcomers but old editors as well who suffer from their nominations clicked by newcomers misled by this practice of putting counters of user near the article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
No, the "usability error" affects only those who can't be bothered to read the instructions, such as the now-blocked BeingObjective and yourself. Everyone else has managed to get their heads around this, presumably because they spend their time reading instead of making assumptions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can see BeingObjective never said anywhere that they were confused by the "(X reviews, Y GAs)" thing, so I don't know why we are citing them as evidence for changing the system. If we were implementing this from scratch I think I would support Skyshifter's proposed ordering, but I really don't think it's so significant that it's worth changing everything around now we have an established order. People are used to the current system, and the chance that changing it confuses people (and potentially breaks any bots or scripts which expect the layout in a particular order) seems to me to be a good reason not to change things unless there's a compelling reason to, which I'm really not seeing at the moment. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If nothing else works, read the documentation principle means that you don't have to intentionally make obscure design to force the user read the documentation. You didn't comment on whether the current location of counters or that proposed by me and User:Skyshifter is the correct one. If you prefer instead to discuss rule following without starting a new discussion thread, let us do so.

Before you ask others to follow the rules, start with yourself and show by example. I once joined as a second opinion reviewer and concluded the review as Fail while it was a procedural/technical error, I was not authorized to conclude the review as a second opinion reviewer, it was the exclusive competence of the first reviewer. Instead, you admitted my completion of the review and admitted discussion on merit on whether my Fail vote was appropriate or should I have changed my mind to Pass. This discussion was supported by other editors, yet nobody, following the rules, cancelled my completion vote and provided the way for the first reviewer to complete the review as prescribed by the rules.

As for the blocked user BeingObjective issue that you raised, let us also discuss it if you think it is important. He followed the rules on target audience in medical articles and helped rewrite articles in proper language removing jargon, but didn't follow GA rules. He made valuable contributions to the quality of articles yet got banned.

Folllowing rules on article quality and improving the article quality such as BeingObjective did has more merit as it brings more value to readers than following rules on GA process which brings more value to editors rather then users. We write encyclopedia for readers, we are not a social network. Blocking editors such as BeingObjective led that he was the only one editor ever who answered my calls for expert opinion, other calls just hang for months. More users you block, worse for the reader will be. Editors such as BeingObjective should not cope throught and design minefileds of interface design ambiguities and rules scattered through various texts - the thing he didn't manage to do. We now cannot ask him how he interpreted the GA counters because we blocked him.

George Johnson | "Hanged by mistake 1882. He was right we was wrong but we hung him and he's gone.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you seriously comparing this to a hanging? You ought to be blocked for the amount of bloviating you've done to date all based on your inability to follow simple instructions. If you really think that GAN "is collective process of votes" then we are clearly dealing with a PEBCAK error. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, once you block a Wikipedia user, this user is gone forever, we cannot ask BeingObjective about GA review because we blocked him. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
As for the user BeingObjective, I don't think that it was a PEBCAK error in that case. That user could rewrite articles for simplicity to be understood by general audience as required by Wikipedia, and he could provide expert help on Medicine when I used "expert opinion requested" template. You cannot do that, but you can understand GA counters. Each person has different abilities and we have to acknowledge that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI to achieve the same result for you. You may take that as a final warning. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  Please see the ANI discussion Maxim started at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:AirshipJungleman29. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Several reviews open at once

Latest comment: 7 months ago14 comments6 people in discussion

I recently reached out to SafariScribe (previously Otuọcha) regarding the reviews they've opened, a total of 22 over the last four weeks:

Completed:

Open:

I've expressed my concerns that this is an unreasonable number of reviews to be doing at once and that they may not be fluent enough in the language to pursue reviewing at this time, but they disagreed. As I said to them, I appreciate their drive and I think they could do a lot of good for Wikipedia, but this isn't the best way to go about it. Previous discussions at their talk page (permalink) and mine (permalink). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed them, but as they haven't actually abandoned a review yet, I haven't engaged. I would suggest that they try to pick up reviews one at a time though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hm, the grammar in their replies to you is not encouraging... -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
And it's reflected in the copyedits they're asking for in reviews, which is why I was hoping this could be addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien, I agree. I would recommend all of their open reviews be reset. All they seem to have great intentions, I think there is a lot of learning to do before they are able to go through this type of reviewing process successfully. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I see this page now says, "Warning: nomination is malformed -- Status indicates review has started but there is no review page" re: Lashauwn Beyond. I am hoping someone can fix this, so the review can get picked up. Was a bit disappointed with the result of the Dwayne Cooper GAN (Talk:Dwayne Cooper/GA1), but oh well! Thanks for any help with the reset here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

SafariScribe appears to have realised they have bitten off more than they could chew with Jude Law, Pure Japanese and Lashauwn Beyond, and requested to delete those reviews without correctly fixing the talk pages, which I have now done. I don't quite know what they were insinuating with "glorious contributions" at Talk:Dwayne Cooper/GA1, but that was definitely a sub-par review; there is in any case no prejudice against immediately renominating. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Another Believer, @Thebiguglyalien, @Gonzo fan2007, @AirshipJungleman29, @Asilvering, thank you all for such an impactful assessment, it'do add to my person like I always say. However, English is my first language and I do speak it fluently, I may also have some errors in my sentences which I admit and have taken care of it—reading more books, revising my proficiency, and other self improvement works. The problem is that: typo via keyboard, speed typing in mobile, feeling less concerned to the flow of the lang because while speaking, its not usually identified in where I stay, Nigeria. I appreciate what you all discussed and 've taken record of them. In not varying worlds, there are also justifications that seems provocative. One of the things I've learnt do far is that, people changes by day, there are more to improvement as well. I will also be proud of my reviews, even though some says it's not likewise. I'm not here for any argument but addressing such cases will make Wikipedia a better place. I love to see people correct me while I taken it to heart. On civilly, reverting should be done in reviews only if he/she have discussed that with the reviewer. Like I said, no one has found fault with my review, even when I give a little still promising truth of an article. What if I was about asking a second reviewer. Lastly, I appreciate all of you and your contributions but know that It's for the best. Thanks and will needs some piece of "good" advice. For reviewing, I'm stopping for now. Regards. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
SafariScribe, you still have Talk:Maybe You're the Problem/GA1, Talk:An Act of Conscience/GA1, and Talk:The Skeptical Environmentalist/GA1 as ongoing reviews; are you saying that you will not complete them? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29, please stop adding words to my mouth and understand subjectively based on ones response. Maybe you're missing 'future'. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
SafariScribe, the word "future" has not been in any of your comments. What does "For reviewing, I'm stopping for now" mean? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29, My bad, apologies. But you are here for years and should possibly know what some editors are up to. I mean taking it slowly for now. Any advice? — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
While I have been editing for a couple of years, I have not yet received mind-reading abilities. Taking it slowly is probably a good idea. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete GAN

Latest comment: 7 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The Bertram Fletcher Robinson article's GAN was obviously not thorough. The reviewer literally rewrote the GA criteria list with some AI bot and this was the only noteworthy thing the reviewer said:

"After a thorough assessment of Bertram Fletcher Robinson, I can affirm that it successfully meets the criteria for Good Article status on Wikipedia. The article is well-written, with prose that is clear, concise, and accessible to a broad audience, adhering to the Manual of Style guidelines in all respects, including the lead section, layout, and incorporation of lists. It is verifiable, with all references correctly presented and reliable sources cited inline for any content that could be reasonably challenged. There is no evidence of original research, copyright violations, or plagiarism. The article is broad in its coverage, addressing the main aspects of the topic while maintaining focus and avoiding unnecessary detail. It represents viewpoints neutrally, without editorial bias, and remains stable, not subject to ongoing edit wars or content disputes. Furthermore, it is appropriately illustrated with media that are tagged with their copyright statuses and have relevant captions, enhancing the reader's understanding of the subject."

We can see that this was just a rewrite using some artificial intelligence bot, further displaying the fact that this review was just rushed. Otherwise I see some redundancy in the prose as well as one of the sections being way too long.  750h+ | Talk  09:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this perfunctory and harsh?

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Pokelego999 recently quick-failed Super Mutant, and then nominated it for deletion ~2.5 hours later. It's been a while since I've done GA reviews, but I have a couple of concerns:

Is this article really so bad that a quickfail was appropriate?
Is it normal for a GA reviewer to nominate an article they've reviewed for deletion without waiting for the nominator to make any appropriate improvements? Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Normally I would have left it alone, regardless of my concerns, but I've discussed the topic with the nominator and we both agreed to send it to AfD. In any case, I quick-failed on the rationale of Rule 3, which indicates that the subject needs broad and significant in-depth discussion. The discussion in the article is rather bare per reasons I've outlined in my comments on both the review page and in the AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, the quick fail and RfD are two separate acts. If you think the subject isn't notable, it can't be a GAN. Whether or not the reviewer wants to give the nominator enough time to find the sources is a bit up to them. Considering the AfD seems to be going towards a "redirect" verdict, it seems like it's suitably non-notable. No amount of work can make it notable.
I think if you have notability concerns, taking the article to AfD seems like a suitable next step. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Crusading movement

Latest comment: 7 months ago20 comments6 people in discussion

@Borsoka has nominated this at GAR, flooded the nomination with his own point of view and closed this without giving me any chance to respond.

That doesn't seem like due process. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I would be more sympathetic if the close paraphrasing wasn't ubiquitous and blatant as described. Good articles simply cannot contain any plagiarism. If there's an acceptable quick, unilateral GAR, it's done for these reasons. Remsense诉 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:GAFAIL for close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
None of the close paraphrasing incidents raised against the article are outstanding Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
During the article's FAC plagiarism was detected by other reviewers as well. Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
That ignores the point, that none of the issues raised are outstanding. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the principal problem: you have been unable to understand for years that plagiarism is a serious problem. Borsoka (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Still, none of the issues are outstanding—that is the key point. That and the fact that has been pointed out to you, you are WP:INVOLVED so should revert you clousre and let a neutral reviewer pick this up. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Please revert your close Borsoka: per the GAR instructions, "After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article." (emphasis added). Additionally, as you opened the reassessment, you are considered INVOLVED. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I closed as per GAFAIL because sections rewritten by the nominator still contain plagiarism. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:GAFAIL does not apply to GAR, Borsoka, only to GAN, and again, you are involved per NACINV. If you do not revert your close, I will do it for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Your interpretation may differ from other editors' interpretation. @Remsense and Serial Number 54129: what is your opinion on the issue? Plagiarism is not debated. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
There's no interpretation to be had. WP:GAFAIL applies to Good Article nominations, not Good Article reassessments. The reassessment process is outlined at WP:GAR, which says that "After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article." Clearly NorfolkBigFish was making improvements to the article, and so delisting it was out of process. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I think at this point it would be fine to allow someone else to close the GAR now that eyes are on it, I agree that the GAR guideline says what it says. Remsense诉 14:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
It needs reopening, and then someone with a fresh pair of eyes to review it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted the close and reopened the discussion, since Borsoka is unwilling to do so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
And yes, Norfolkbigfish, WP:FORUMSHOPPING at two different noticeboards is extremely poor behaviour. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fair point @AirshipJungleman29, I have learnt something and won't repeat this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Regular backlog drives

Latest comment: 7 months ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I've made the backlog drives subpage "permanent" in the tab header to give it more visibility, since we've agreed that we ought to be having drives more often. We didn't agree on timing or number of backlog drives, though. Here's an inventory of most of the suggestions that seem applicable and possible:

  1. We have three backlog drives a year
  2. They are regular and recur in the same months every year
  3. Some are themed/only address part of the backlog, to cut down on reviewer fatigue (this is proposal 14)
  4. January and August look like good times
  5. Swap Unreviewed nominations with Old nominations at Backlog Drives Progress (this is proposal 6)

In light of those, here is a proposal:

  1. Three drives a year, in January, May, and September
  2. The January drive is the "main" one, targetting all nominations, but especially old ones (ie, prop 6); bonus points are given for reviewing longer and older articles
  3. The May drive is particularly newbie-friendly; we put extra effort into recruiting new reviewers, give points for mentorship, etc (I'm happy to brainstorm/co-ordinate on this)
  4. The September drive is focused on some particular element of the backlog drive, and the co-ords will draw up a list of qualifying GANs in advance (possible examples: articles by editors with no GAs, articles by editors with more reviews than GAs, etc); points will still be given for reviews that aren't on that list, but the aim is to wipe out that list in particular.

In the earlier discussion, @AirshipJungleman29 said I mean, sure, but all of them require people to do the things. If you want to showcase model reviews, reward good reviews, be a mentor, or anything else, get on with it. I stepped forward with GAR and have been basically running the process for a year. So, here I am, getting on with it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Regardless of whether we will have regular backlog drives (I expressed against regular backlog drive on Proposal 1 discussion and gave arguments), I liked very much to have a list of past drives at Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives#Past Drives. I didn't know that we had this list. Anyway, the special permanent page for GA drives, even if we will not have many GA drives the future, is a good think that I appreciate. For example, we can have announcements of future drives or analysis of past drives there. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping forward. The proposal sounds good and fair—a solid foundation to start with, and to change if things don't work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I like the proposal, although since the last drive was in March, I think it'd be too soon to have one this May. I'd like to see the next one about recruiting more reviewers—maybe with two streams of awards, "Reviewing" and "Mentoring". — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Encouraging new reviewers sounds great, definitely worth a try in the next backlog drive. —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think it would be good to have a backlog drive this May, that's too soon. So the next drive would be September. Lots of time to figure out how best to make it newbie-encouraging. -- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
May is too soon, but September is too far away - what if we did one in July, and one in October? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I considered those months but decided it was best to keep them at equal intervals, since my idea is that this will be a recurring thing with a fixed schedule. Since our most recent drive was all the way back in August of last year, September didn't seem too far away to me. But I don't think anyone will die of confusion if we end up with this year being March/July/October and then every drive thereafter is planned for January/May/September. (For all we know we won't stick with this thrice-yearly schedule anyway.) -- asilvering (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan to me! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bilorv, how do you see this working? I understand you to mean something like dividing participants into two categories (newbies/reviewers and mentors), then giving a point for the completed review to the reviewer and the mentor? -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't quite know. I think people would sort themselves by either asking for a mentor or volunteering as a mentor. NPP backlog drives often have some "re-reviewing" element with a barnstar, so serving as a mentor might earn you a "teamwork" barnstar. Maybe there would be some special barnstar for completing your first GA review. Or maybe the key element is just advertising (notifying WikiProjects, something well-timed in The Signpost, talk page messaging people we think could be interested). — Bilorv (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Links to the mentorship page

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There's a discussion about Wikipedia:Good article mentorship above, but I'm creating a new discussion because this is a visible change that should have clear consensus. Should links to the mentorship page be added to WP:GANI and Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Tab header so they're visible to new reviewers? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with the addition of these links. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do! -- asilvering (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible hasty GA review

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I nominated U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee for GA status a while back, and the reviewer passed it with essentially no comments. That is extremely rare, especially for an article this long. I asked them about it, and they said that in general they thought it met the GA criteria, but weren't very familiar with the GA review process. As such, I would like to request a second opinion. I'm not asking for a reassessment; instead, I'd appreciate if someone would look over the article and suggest comments on the talk page in the same manner as the GA review process. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The review is at Talk:U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee/GA1. Not a pure checklist, but has no source checks and not too much explanation. Looking at the article, obvious questions emerge such as how the entire lengthy second paragraph of Route description could be sourced to two maps. CMD (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The route description is sourced to a lot more than two maps. I'd appreciate if someone would be willing to take a look at it, though. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
In the look I took the paragraph is sourced to Tennessee Atlas & Gazetteer (Map) (2017 ed.) and this one-page pdf. If there are other sources you should probably add them. CMD (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible Good List

Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

So I was looking over a few pages and found List of Smallville characters which is a GA despite having List in the name. Is there a reason its a GA and not a FL? The nomintation page seems to be unavalible. Should it be taken down and sent to FLC?Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It was titled Characters of Smallville when it was promoted so didn't have list in its name. Nomination page is at Talk:List of Smallville characters/GA1. Indagate (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Well now it does so should it be reassesed? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the title is itself a reason to do so. The lines between list articles and prose articles are sometimes blurry, and this is a case in point. TompaDompa (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Something being called a list doesn't neccesarily make it a list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

GA bot

Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Titanic Memorial (Washington, D.C.) passed GA this morning and the bot hasn't added the icon or left me the standard message. Is there a glitch in the matrix? APK hi :-) (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Noting that the article hasn't been added to the GA Lists, although this is probably not the issue. Will add it now. CMD (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. APK hi :-) (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Christie This is at mismatches now. I'm happy to fix it manually, but checking if you want to troubleshoot this. CMD (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Go ahead and fix it manually; thanks. I had a look but can't tell what happened, but the bot did crash at around the time it should have promoted this article. I have an idea as to what caused the crash and will be trying to fix it soon -- it is happening every now and then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, done manually. CMD (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Contesting GA quick fail

Latest comment: 6 months ago12 comments8 people in discussion

Child abuse in association football have been quickly failed for WP:COPYWITHIN and WP:OR. While the 1st is a quick fix (that I have done) there is no clear details about the later (see Talk:Child abuse in association football/GA1). I have asked @Schierbecker to provide more elaborate answer as I want to improve the article and did not receive any reply although the editor is active. I understand there is no deadline here but not providing a coherent feedback from the beginning makes it hard to resolve the issues and - sometimes - contesting the editor decision as these decision are not made in vacuum and the assessor does not hold absolute powers to promote or fail an article. I wonder if other editors can take a look and either become a WP:3O or provide a more substance to the quick fail to help me improve the article. At the end of the day the GA process is there to help improve articles up to our standards and this is a very important topic that I truly want to get it right. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what Schierbecker was thinking, but at a quick glance the first thing I notice is that there are five paragraphs of text (375 words) in the section §Definitions, of which the first sentence (36 words) is actually about child abuse in football; the remaining four paragraphs do not mention football at all and the sources all appear to be about child abuse more generally.
Once we get into the stuff which is actually about child abuse in football, it all seems to be random collections of stuff: for instance, all we are told about France is that "Ahmed G., former amateur football coach, was sentenced to 18 years for sexually abusing and raping young players." Is this an important fact about Child abuse in association football? Is this the only, or most significant, case of child abuse in association football in France? It's unclear, because the only source is a contemporary news report. This is an article about a broad social issue, but it seems to be made up of a patchwork of random claims sourced to reports about individual examples of the issue: what it really needs is to be based on reliable sources about child abuse in football generally. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The section title is “Known cases by country” not sure what are you confusing there.
The definition of child abuse in general is needed because it’s not different from football. It is not like there is a football specific kind of child abuse.
the section also goes into details about other aspects relating specifically to child abuse in football FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Separately from Caeciliusinhorto's insightful comments on this specific article, to answer the question of "contesting" a quickfail in general: there is no process for contesting a quickfail. If you think the reviewer was wrong and they aren't amenable to changing their opinion, you can always renominate the article. Keep in mind that any future reviewer may well agree with the first quickfail, and a failure to address valid concerns from prior reviews is explicitly a quickfail criteria in and of itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it will be a huge waste of time to re-nominate the article without addressing the first reviewer comments. It will be a circular argument if the first reviewer did not comment properly and the next reviewer just agreed with them because they can read minds which I currently can’t (working on it. And that is why I am here FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes, pinging or replying on an article's talk page doesn't necessarily notify an editor. Make sure to check the editor's talk page and inform them before posting here. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, exactly. That is how it works though. Unless you think the GA Review was done in bad faith (in which case, this isn't the venue for a grievance), you can't change someone's mind about an article. If you fundamentally disagree with what they say, simply renominate. If you agree that it needs work, but want time to make those changes, just make the changes and renominate. You can't force someone to wait. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Personally I think that raising the issue here (as indeed the OP has done) would be a legitimate course of action if you think the quick fail is simply inaccurate. That doesn't have to imply bad faith, merely that something fundamental was missed. Clearly not the case here, as we see from the replies - this quick fail was justified - but making someone renominate and go to the back of the queue again when maybe no other editor would have quick failed it, seems somewhat harsh.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd argue that the renomination should happen regardless, and a comment here stating your thoughts and allowing another editor to pick up the second review if they agred is a better course of action. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
What are your core sources establishing the subject of the article? Because at a glance, I can't see that the article has a backbone that forms its scope. Looking at the first 31 citations, only citations 1 and 2 discuss the subject of 'child abuse in assocation football', and then citations 28 and 31 discuss the more general subject of 'child abuse in sport' (the latter of the two being focused on Zambia specifically). The remaining sources may in instances provide support for the article, such as providing a definition of child abuse, but these should be supplementary. They shouldn't be predominant within the article. They also generally shouldn't be necessary. If a source doesn't comment on the article topic directly, it probably doesn't belong in the article. Consequently, there is copious material that isn't tied to the topic concretely and is probably extraneous. As is, the mainframe of the article is closer to a 'list of instances of child abuse in association football' with an unfocused definition section than it is to an article on 'child abuse in association football'. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
“instances of child abuse in association football” that is a good title as child abuse is child abuse. FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The only parts of the article that are WP:DUE are the first paragraph of the "Definition" section and a highly summarised version of the "Children safeguarding in football" section. Everything else is extraneous information that should probably be cut. The "Statistics" section in particular strikes me as particularly WP:SYNTH-like; this may be what the reviewer was referring to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

GAN count of GAs now includes GAs that are now FAs or have been delisted

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Per this discussion I've changed ChristieBot to assign a GA promotion count to an editor by counting all GAs that were promoted, regardless of whether they are still GAs. There are a couple of pros and cons to this change:

  • SDZeroBot (which maintains the count used up to now) does not include any articles that are no longer GAs.
  • SDZeroBot does not include counts for editors whose name includes an apostrophe, though for Tim O'Doherty the maintainer did a manual update. I think Tim is the only editor active at GAN with an apostrophe in their name, so this was not a current problem.
  • ChristieBot does not include any GAs that predate the use of subpages for GAs (i.e. "/GA1" as part of the page name). SDZeroBot does include these. There are several hundred GAs like this but there are no active editors with more than a handful of GAs that old, so I hope this will have no noticeable effect on the counts.

Please let me know if anyone sees a problem with the new numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd be particularly interested in input from participants here at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Complex_copyright_issue since it involves a current GA. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Crusading movement: several cases of plagiarism

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As the nominator (Norfolkbigfish) has failed to detect several cases of plagiarism in the article crusading movement for three weeks, I think the reassessment process can be closed, and the article should be delisted. The article should as soon as possible be restored into the redirect page it used to be before Norfolkbigfish filled the article with texts copied from copyrighted material. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The article has now been listed at WP:CPN, which will handle the question of whether the article needs to be revdelled/redirected. If the copyright clerks decide yes, than the GAR close will be procedural. I suggest waiting for that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Older GARs needing comments

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Posting here to encourage participation in reassessments from more people than the regulars at the GAR page. These are older discussions where improvement is not ongoing and which could use more participation.

Any comments on the above would be useful. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

GAN statistics tool now shows current state of the article

Latest comment: 6 months ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Per a suggestion from Bilorv, the GAN statistics tool has been updated to add a column that indicates if the article is currently a GA, FA, or neither. This has significantly slowed the tool down, so I may add a checkbox to make it optional to report this. By "slow", I mean it takes about a second for every ten GA reviews + nominations to be reported on. The most prolific GA reviewer/nominator has nearly two thousand articles to display, which means it will take their page about two or three minutes to refresh. For most people it should respond in under twenty seconds.

The tool looks for the strings "{{featured article}}" and "{{good article}}" in the article text, and assumes that anything that doesn't have either is either delisted or was not promoted. As usual, let me know of any issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, works for me on smaller accounts well, but time adds up fast as you note. Any chance checking for a category on the talkpage would be faster? CMD (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think so -- the slowness is caused by having to open each of the GAs as a Wikipedia page, and doing that for the talk page probably wouldn't be faster. I just realized I could probably open the various GA listing pages and check for those, however, and similarly for the FAs. That could be faster. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I just tried that change and reverted it; it was unreliable because so many GAs are still in the GA pages under names that are now redirects. I'll see if I can think of another way to do it, perhaps with categories. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
That shouldn't be the case. Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches lists only four. Sometimes it gets backlogged up to the 20s, but shouldn't be a noticeable percentage of GAs. CMD (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. I will take another look; perhaps I misinterpreted the results I got. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I've rewritten the code to use the GA lists and it is a little faster, though it still takes about two minutes for the most prolific users. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Very nice! Do you need to check the article text or would it be enough to check whether the talk page is in Category:Wikipedia featured articles etc? Also, I am confused how my GA/FA for Anna Blackburne ended up in the "Physics and astronomy" subtopic; I don't think it belongs there. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The subtopic codes are a bit haphazard; "natsci" is presented as the "primary keyword" for all Natural sciences, but actually codes for the physics and astronomy subtopic. I have changed it to "biology". CMD (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Super, thank you! —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Blackpink/GA1

Latest comment: 6 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

This nomination was opened for review by Garethphua on 18 April but the actual review was never conducted; today, 750h+ failed the review, writing, I am failling this nomination as the reviewer is an unexperienced user with only 15 edits. Unfortunately, this is not the proper process—the nomination should not have been failed, but either the review unwound or deleted—and 750+'s advice to nominator Nkon21, you may renominate the article, would have lost the nomination over six months of seniority in one fell swoop, since it dated back to 4 October 2023.

I have removed the inappropriate failure (in the form of a FailedGA template) from the article talk page and reinstated the original GA nominee template with page=2 and the 4 October 2023 date. Apologies to Nkon21 for the inconvenience. I hope that a more experienced reviewer ultimately selects your article to review. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, my apologies for this. The Sydney Morning Herald 16:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
The page was blanked, then restored, and is currently the subject of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Blackpink/GA1. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, i didnt understand how the GA review system works, i accidentaly opened the review and didnt know how to close it.
i didnt find the review instructions clear, i suggest those who know how to edit the instructions to do so. Thanks in advance and apologies for the inconvenience. Garethphua (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Garethphua, it is not much of an inconvenience. Could you clarify which part of the review instructions you found unclear? Or perhaps missing? This would help us in refining. Best, CMD (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I kinda forgot what was unclear, but could you add how to remove a nominatiom, i couldnt find the button or source to edit for it. Garethphua (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Garethphua, that depends what you mean by "remove a nomination". If you mean to take the nomination entirely off the list, you would remove the template from the article talkpage, but that's not an expected process for new reviewers. If you mean how to close a review once you have started it, the instructions state to contact the nominator or to leave a note here. I'll add a wikilink for that second part if that helps. CMD (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Dazed and Confused (film)/GA1

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I couldn't help but notice the lack of activity in this GAN page: neither the nominator nor the reviewer has touched the review page since it was created. Can someone intervene? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I have left an inquiry on the reviewer's talkpage. CMD (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Mike Christie: I've passed the article Aishwarya Rai Bachchan as GA earlier today and even updated the article's talk page as well as the Good Article nominations page. While ChristieBot has added the good article icon to the article, it is yet to leave a message on the nominator's talk page. Furthermore, the GA statistics tool recently created by you also shows the article as "Under review" at the time of writing. Would you please look into the matter? It would be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

ChristieBot crashed in the middle of that run; it is crashing about once every fifty or a hundred runs, for reasons I haven't yet figured out but am working on. It won't post that notification now so you may want to do so manually. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, if someone here could action the edit request for Software maintenance, that would be great. I would like to nominate the article at GAN, which I can't do until then. Thanks in advance Buidhe paid (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

To repeat here for onlookers, everything is looking good here and I have implemented the changes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Next step in helping new reviewers: Improved instructions or reviewing guide

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I've got WP:Good article mentorship up and running, but we should be taking other steps to help reviewers. First, I'd like to get User:Thebiguglyalien/Good article reviewing guide into the process and make it into something practical. Would there be any interest in cleaning it up, moving it out of userspace, and making it into a more "official" guide for the reviewing process? Or perhaps to rework the instructions based on a condensed version of something like this? Our current instructions explain the technical aspects of starting and ending a review but say very little about the review process itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I think some thought should be given to merging this with WP:GANI. WP:RGA is technically a guideline, but is so out of date I'm not sure it's supported by consensus. A page which combines them and WP:WGN would be ideal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The question then is what a merged page would look like. Would it be a full detailed set of instructions like in my userspace page, or would it be a more condensed "here are the basics of what to do and what to check"? I definitely support merging WGN into this as well. At this point I wouldn't object to marking RGA with {{Historical}} or {{Superseded}} and making a revised GACR/GANI the guideline, if there's consensus for that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, RGA is so out of date that people have started adding reviewing instructions that should belong there directly to GANI (steps 1 & 3). I think what could happen is a thorough update of RGA to bring it to current standards, as befits its "guideline" status, and replacing any non-procedural instructions at GANI with a pointer to RGA. I think a boundary between the "what to do" and "what to check" is helpful, and if consensus comes in the future that it's better to have them together on the same page it can be merged then. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I'll draft something more guideline-like and post it here for feedback, unless someone else wants to take a whack at this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

GAR talk page notices

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

How long are you expected to wait between posting a notice on the talk page of a GA and opening a reassessment? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking there's no requirement to post a notice prior to opening a GAR at all: WP:GAR simply says "consider raising issues at the talk page". Featured article review, which does require a talkpage notification, says "give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns" so if you are leaving a note on the talkpage that seems like a reasonable timeframe to work with. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
So, there is technically no requirement for a talk page notice for GAR, or to wait a specific amount of time after giving the notice? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
There's not. The idea originated with this sprawling discussion and has not been widely practiced (I think I'm really the only one doing that). I've been waiting two weeks, although since I only try to have two GARs open at a time, it's been more intermittent than that. Hog Farm Talk 17:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
All the same, it's an excellent and civilized thing to do, and if the article is being watched by the GA nominator or anyone else who cares about it, the notice will very likely save the need for a GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for a GA for an article

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi team, could anyone please consider the article Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film). It is regarding a movie and when i done a normal check I felt its fine. Could anyone please go through it and can you give me any suggestions before submitting for GAPaavamjinn (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You could ask in WP:PR. Here, it is a place where you could ask for suggestions to improve the article to become GA or FA, or any higher-status class articles. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Josef Ng/GA1

Latest comment: 6 months ago9 comments4 people in discussion

While I greatly admire ZKang's work, I believe he fundamentally erred in failing this GAN on notability grounds, given that notability is not a GAN criterion. In the first place, taking instruction from Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not, I seriously disagree that this is an example of BLP1E. Even if it were, that should have been an AfD matter, with the GAN put on hold until after the conclusion of the AfD discussion. Just wanted to hear what others think before putting this up for a renom. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

A few things: 1) yes, you are right to say that notability is not a GA criterion, but 2) they appear to suggest that they failed the review because the article didn't meet GA criterion 3a), not purely on notability grounds, and 3) you could surely have brought this up on ZKang's talk page, rather than before the 1,200 page watchers here? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Notability actually is a GA quickfail criterion: "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid". In such cases, the notability banner could be needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 actually we did communicate privately prior to this and he suggested that I just ask for a renom, hence my coming here to seek the consensus of the 1,200... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 20:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
and also sort of as a general enquiry about whether or not notability ought to even be relevant to GANs. David's reply seems to say yes but I wonder if there are differing philosophies on this or if some more concrete guidance exists... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 20:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
The banner quickfail criteria is for existing banners, not ones that could be added. Of course, if the situation is serious enough that banners could be added, it might be a quickfail for those serious reasons. The fail sounds partially related to Wikipedia:Very short featured articles, of which there are indeed different philosophies. I suspect on a quick look at the article (without looking at the sources) that the question surrounding notability is more about framing (person vs event), and that is also perhaps philosophical. CMD (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The "or needs" wording of WP:QF reads clearly to me as being about ones that could be added. If it were only about existing ones, that part would be irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, it does say that they should also be "unquestionably valid", so failing because notability is suspect should probably be followed with an AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The "or needs" pays heed to the needs, which would be the "those serious reasons" I mentioned. The banner addition in that case is a symptom, whereas existing banners are a cause on their own as it shows the nominator has not bothered to clean up the article. I do not think this was technically a quick fail, as there was some review and a few days thought. That said, I would agree that this sort of fuzzy disagreement should be taken to another venue. Not sure AfD is right though, as a reshaping of the topic wouldn't delete the article. CMD (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg

Latest comment: 6 months ago43 comments9 people in discussion

Would anyone be willing to review the aforementioned article? I assure the community here that this is not a drive-by nomination. I am the article's second-highest editor and the fifth-largest author. Furthermore, the four authors ranking above me in terms of authorship have been inactive for a long time. Victor Trevor last made an edit on English Wikipedia in October 2023, Soulparadox in April 2018, Light Show in March 2024 (though he has made only 37 edits to English Wikipedia since November 2021 and none to Zuckerberg's since March 2017), and Likeanechointheforest since May 2023. Hence, I look forward to someone taking it up for GA-class assessment. I will most willingly respond to any comments made on the GA Review talk page so that the article can be improved to GA-class. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You should be aware that GA nominations may take a long time to be reviewed, usually many months, and there's no order or predictable timetable to it. You'll just have to be patient. In the meantime, why don't you review someone else's article? It is not required, but you can benefit your own nomination by just reducing the number of open nominations awaiting review. That way, when a new potential reviewer shows up, there would be a higher chance that yours will be the one selected. Cambalachero (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not discrediting your work here, but fifth-largest author is a fairly generous phasing when it's 2.5% of the prose. I understand that the other authors are not active, but some things are just not reasonable to GA when no single author has contributed to that degree. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
MSincccc's attempts to persuade people that he is lead author or editor, when he has a tiny proportion of the authorship are well known, and frankly getting tiring by now, particularly when they have been told several times. " I have 14.7% authorship whereas you, Keivan, have 8.5% authorship", "I am the second highest author", "I have 4.2% of the article attributed", It was a mistake on my part that I claimed to be a significant contributor to Sherlock Holmes' article", "I have made the ssecond largest number of edits to the article and further rank among the top 15 in authorship"... in all these cases, they are either only technically a ranking author in number of bytes or characters, never, that I could find, in actual prose additions, or anything else that persuades me through demonstration that they understand the material. And when the sheer number of discussions and editors becomes disruptive, well. ——Serial Number 54129 17:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree; I want to assume good faith here, but taking an article mainly written by others and doing a couple tweaks before submitting it to GAN seems pretty firmly against the spirit of things here. When other people have done far more for the article, even if they're inactive, they're the one who deserve the recognition, not the final person to add a couple finishing touches. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Remember that the GA process is about the article, not the editor. The rules about the "main" editor are only meant to prevent clashes over who gets to decide if the article is ready for nomination, to answer the points that may be made during the discussion, and other tasks related to the process. It's not meant to be an award. If a user finds a decent but abandoned article and nobody else minds if he does so, he may nominate it and manage the discussion as if he had written it himself. Cambalachero (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Totally agree. If Stephen Hawking wrote the best article Wikipedia has ever seen and forgot to nominate it for GA/FA, I wouldn't insist that it remain B-class forever just because he's dead and no one could hope to improve it. MSinccc has posted an appropriate message on the talk page, and if the nomination is successful, I don't think anyone would mind one of the original editprs putting a GA badge on their userpage if they return. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I did leave a message on the article talk page. To note all facts, all the authors above me are presently inactive as I have previously mentioned. In that case, the article will never come to GA-class status. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Please understand that I'm still learning and growing, being a kid. I've dedicated considerable time and energy to contribute significantly to all the successful GA promotions attributed to me. My sincere desire was to elevate the aforementioned article to GA-class, and I've diligently worked towards that goal. I eagerly await feedback from others. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, I've made numerous prose additions to the articles of William and Catherine. I've never run a bot on those articles (the ones I ran had to be reverted as they were from Google Books). Furthermore, I've given up my claims of authorship on the Sherlock Holmes article. Also, I did contribute significantly to Philip's article to make it GA-worthy. Regards and yours faithfully. MSincccc (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 and @Generalissima I'm not sure why Serial Number 54129 is questioning my genuine claims of authorship in the articles I've contributed to over the last two and a half years. MSincccc (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Because you have consistently misrepresented your contributions at the expense of others. Because you have repeatedly been told your approach is wearing. Because you seem to regard GAs as a right. And because you have never attempted to change your approach even when being called out on being wrong (see discussions passim, cf. Sherlock, cited above). ——Serial Number 54129 18:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The Sherlock Holmes article and its drive-by nomination have become a strawman by now. I have apologised and not repeated my offence. I am open to suggestions to improve my work here, and I have kept my word. Regarding this article, I have contributed to it over the last two-plus years and am quite familiar with its content. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
It might come across better if you framed any future posts in this vein along the lines of explaining the work you have done on the article, your familiarity with the sources, etc, as opposed to just saying "I have such-and-such authorship percentage." The first is substantive, the second is merely a statistic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
MSincccc (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
That's practically the opposite of what I suggested. Do you understand what I mean when I say "explaining the work you have done on the article, your familiarity with the sources"? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos Apologies for any confusion. I'm well-versed in the events to be covered in Catherine and William's articles, the appropriate sources to cite, and the preferred wording. I've extensively worked on citation parameters and articles using British English. Currently, I'm focused on articles about David Cameron and Liz Truss, two former British prime ministers. In the future, I aim to bring articles on William, Catherine, and Bill Gates to FAC once I find relevant book sources and more high-quality content to support the nominations. Being a child, I'm open to suggestions and would appreciate mentorship, especially regarding GA nominations like this one for Zuckerberg. Wishing you all a great day ahead (though it's already evening here). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
There you go. That's the kind of post you should be making when you're preparing to bring these articles to GA. Don't highlight authorship percentages, highlight the substantive work you've done. You'll get much less pushback. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Just to note that Liz Truss was promoted to FA last October, and the FA nominee is still active as a steward on the article. I’m not sure it needs any additional work done on it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
SchroCat has correctly highlighted the inexactitude of MSincccc's involvement in Liz truss; re. Zuckerberg, you are 2.6% author and as far as added prose goes... there is an anonymous IP—with 1.9%—who have contributed more. Sorry about that! 17:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
If someone genuinely wanted to get Mark Zuckerberg to GA, I assume they'd do the basics and at least sort out the WP:LEAD, which is full of novel information. Lawyering about authorship when the basics haven't been done is not promising. If it is not withdrawn I am inclined to quickfail it. CMD (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if a reviewer could provide some comments that I can then endeavour to address. I would be glad if a reviewer left some comments which I will try to follow. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I gave a specific comment above. At any rate, GAN is not meant to be peer review. CMD (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis I meant that instead of quick failing the nomination, it would be helpful if the reviewer who eventually assesses the article leaves constructive comments that I can address to improve the chances of the article becoming a successful GA. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you planning to address the comment I left above? CMD (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes. @Chipmunkdavis. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis I've condensed the lead section and relocated all citations except for the Forbes references, which pertains to net worth, to the article body. I'm proceeding in good faith and welcome any feedback that could enhance the article's chances of becoming a GA. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Why is his net worth and Times Person of the Year accolade not relevant for the body? CMD (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It could be integrated into the article body, and I'm prepared to do so. However, if we opt for this approach, it would need to be applied consistently for all billionaires whose net worth is sourced from either Bloomberg or Forbes and deemed relevant for inclusion on Wikipedia. This includes figures like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jensen Huang, among others.
Additional comment: @Chipmunkdavis, Could you please review the article and provide feedback there? This way, I can address the comments and work towards the article achieving GA status. It's just a request. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this, but I, for one, find it extremely irritating when GA nominators nominate obviously-subpar articles, without a clue why they are subpar, and then expect reviewers to hold their hand as they go step by step through a rewrite of the article. That is not what reviewers are for. If you are going to nominate an article, you should (1) understand the GA criteria, at the level of being able to conduct a competent review, (2) review the article you are about to nominate, yourself, and find the points where it might not meet the criteria, and (3) fix the article, on your own, to clean up the problems you found in your self-review.
What you seem to be expecting instead is that someone else does all of the work in finding problems, and all of the work in describing step-by-step how to fix those problems, and then you get all the credit for the GA for being their typist. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't wish to claim credit for a GA if the article is being improved based on the reviewer's feedback. CMD suggested removing the Forbes citations related to Zuckerberg's net worth from the article lead. My response was that if we remove them, it should be done consistently for other billionaires' articles as well. Currently, the article is well-written with no cleanup tags, unreliable sources, and clear and consistent prose. I've been working on the article for over two years. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
My suggestion is that the article in question, as well as others you mention, adhere to WP:LEAD. Such adherence is per WP:GACR a component of being "well-written". CMD (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis I have moved the Forbes and Time references to the article body under the "Recognition" section. Thanks for your advice. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/GA3 has now been created as an account's third edit. CMD (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis This is the first comment left by a user who has just made three edits on English Wikipedia-You could possibly mention the many controversies he has been in, as well as the popular jokes about him being a lizard. Please look into the matter. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis Should I renominate the article after having saved the page? It is very unlikely that the user will post any further comments. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Please do not close the review yourself. The standard course of action is likely that it will be closed and the nomination restored to the original date, but that does not need to happen after one day, others may comment. CMD (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis Can the review be closed if the nominator hasn't posted any comments beyond the opening ones and has been inactive for more than a week? Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Not by the nominator. CMD (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis Who will be closing the review in that case then? WP:GAN/I#N4a states that the article can be re-nominated in such a situation by the nominator. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
In all cases, it is not a good idea. Renomination is not closing. CMD (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis So can I re-nominate the article after the present review has been closed by a user other than me? Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Per my comment earlier on the standard course of action, if that is followed you will not need to renominate as the old nomination will be restored. CMD (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I would appreciate if someone here would take a look at Talk:The_Open_Definition#Edit_request. I would like to nominate the article for GAN but I have to wait until the edit request is implemented. TIA Buidhe paid (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeking mentor to improve article to GA

Latest comment: 6 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. I wrote a biographical article that went through DYK and did well there (51,000 views). I would like to improve the article and bring it up to GA status. I'm an experienced editor but I've never edited for GA, so I would like to work with a mentor who is experienced with GA reviews and could make editing feedback or suggestions. Main issues might be prose quality and breadth of coverage.

I'm currently in the "2024 Election Wiki Scholars" WikiEdu course, so they can give me guidance on various technical aspects. Please let me know if you or somebody you know might mentor me with this effort. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You can post at Wikipedia:Good article mentorship ProfGray or, if you like the look of one of the mentors, you can contact them directly on their talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I did not post there because that is for new GA reviewers, not for editors hoping to nominate for a GA. Right? ProfGray (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh right, ignore that. Which article are you referring to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It's Jex Blackmore, who might be seen as controversial, but so far there has been no edit warring, just some vandalism during the DYK spike in views. I'm a scholar of religious studies and I came across this intriguing person. ProfGray (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't look that bad, so I would suggest just nominating it and seeing what a reviewer says ProfGray. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you aren't feeling brave enough to nominate this for GA right away (at a very cursory glance there are no major red flags!) I'm happy to take a look at the article and give you some feedback – looks interesting!
Aside from asking here, you might consider Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green. Blackmore is arguably technically out of their scope, but their sister project women in red explicitly includes "women and other gender minorities" and there may well be people watching that talkpage but not this one with relevant thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/GA3

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/GA3 should be removed. The review was taken by a user who has 4 edits and wrote: You could possibly mention the many controversies he has been in, as well as the popular jokes about him being a lizard.. 750h+ 13:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Dia (film)/GA1

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've failed this nomination, but the bot didn't seem to notify the nominator that it's a fail nor did it remove the GAN from WP:GAC. Something's off. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see everything worked correctly -- the nominator was notified and the GAN was removed from the main page. The bot runs every twenty minutes and takes about eight or ten minutes to run so in the worst case you could be waiting thirty minutes after you complete a fail or pass for the bot to do its job. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I see. I guess I was just a little impatient. Thanks. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Squirtle/GA1

Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

My apologies if I'm not allowed to do this, but shouldn't the reviewer have asked for a new reviewer instead of failing it? Spinixster (trout me!) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not best practice. If a reviewer opens a review page and does not want to proceed, and no actual review has happened, they can request that the page be deleted which allows for a new page to be created. You could request that. Otherwise, we can reset the nomination date for the new review to the original one. CMD (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I see BlueMoonset has already done this. CMD (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I just adjusted the close on the review page to be a withdrawn reviewer rather than a failure in addition to updating the article talk page to restore the nomination's seniority and remove the improper "FailedGA". Thank you, Spinixster, for bringing this to our attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The review was odd Talk:Squirtle/GA2. 2001:4455:36D:9100:41E3:8099:FF76:2CC7 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, seems like no spot check was done. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

ChristieBot crashing on Talk:Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present)

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

ChristieBot is unable to transclude the GA review to Talk:Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present), which is semi-protected. As a result it's been crashing every run trying to do so, and so has not been updating the main GAN page. Per WP:UAL it seems as though ChristieBot should have the extended-confirmed permission which would allow it to edit this page, but it can't. I'm about to go to work and so don't want to edit the code since I won't be around to see if it works, but if someone could either give the bot the permission, if that can be done without going through an approval process, or manually transclude the GA review, that should fix it. The former is the preferable fix if it can be done quickly since that way it would be definite that that's what the problem is -- UAL does seem to say bots automatically have the permission so I suppose the problem could be due to something else. Anyway, thanks for any help with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Having queried the interface directly it seems the bot may have this permission but is missing something else. I've posted to ANI to ask for further help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
This was a bug in the library. I've added a workaround but the transclusions may not work properly right away; I'll monitor them and fix any that fail manually until it is working reliably. It is not going to be possible for the bot to transclude reviews for protected pages; those will always have to be done manually. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Should be a rare enough occurrence. Is there somewhere the bot dumps an error message noting the need for manual intervention we could look at? CMD (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The bot currently has a couple of different ways of handling errors. Errors that are going to cause the same problem over and over again (e.g. it can't parse a GAN template because the nominator has created it manually and messed up the parameters) prevent it from adding that nomination to the GAN page, so it reports those in a section at the end of WP:GAN. That's not suitable here, because this is a one-time error: once the bot has tried to transclude the review it never tries again. The bot also writes some errors to User talk:ChristieBot/Bug messages, which is intended more for my use -- it tracks unexpected events so I can figure out if there are things I can do to make the bot more reliable. I could have the bot write to that page, but I don't think it would be worth anyone watching it for this super-rare event -- this is the only time it's occurred in the last year and a half. I could have the bot leave a message here on the GAN talk page if that would be OK? The other notifications the bot leaves will still work -- the talk page messages, for example. At the moment there is some activity around the bug, so it might be the case that the people who maintain the library will fix it in which case it will just start working again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Return and Query

Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Oldest vs. Highest priority

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any longer a distinction between these two (now that nominations are simply sorted by date), except that the "Highest priority" box seems to have fewer entries? If not, should we merge the two boxes together? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The lists are slightly different (the fifth entry currently showing for me is Blackpink for the oldest unreviewed noms, and William L. Keleher for the most urgent). Whether they are sufficiently different for it to be valuable to have two separate lists is another matter: currently four of the five entries are the same. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Guidance

Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I have made a few new climbing articles, but more importantly, have overhauled and expanded many key 'climbing topic' articles such as aid climbing, big wall climbing, ice climbing, alpine climbing, grade (climbing), climbing route, and also climbing BLPs like Barbara Zangerl.

My question is whether my standard of editing is anyway near GA-level, and if it is worth bringing any of these articles to GA level? Any advice would be appreciated, and no problem if the feedback is that I am far off. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Without doing an actual review, it's difficult to say whether the prose is great, but it's certainly laid out in a good way and everything is cited. I'd suggest picking your best one and nominating it. The first review should give you a good indication of what the reviews are like. For what I see, they look like they'd be pretty likely to pass after fixing issues from a reviewer.
Even if there was a major issue, you'd also know more about what the standards are. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick feedback. I will take your advice and give it a try with one test article. Appreciated. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Aszx5000: - I had a quick look at Aid climbing. It seems well-structured, nicely written, fully cited, and well illustrated. You shouldn't have a lot of problems at GAN with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that Chiswick Chap. I am also pretty active on WikiCommons and do try and hunt for images that help explain things in the articles (either historically, technically, or as examples of leading routes). Delighted that it made an impression as well. thanks again, Aszx5000 (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I notice that as I have cleaned up the climbing topic articles that IPs have returned to take an interest in them. I would love to see if I could take a lot of the key articles in climbing to GA-level. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

GAN page

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Squirtle and Pikachu GAN review page should probably be deleted, its a little odd for only 15 edits user to review an comprehensive article like Pikachu. 2001:4455:36D:9100:4525:7C00:7FBC:AB4B (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

These are different users, and the Squirtle GA has already been closed. CMD (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

QPQ discussion space

Latest comment: 5 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Is there a page where people looking for a QPQ (GA review for a GA review) can seek out one another, if not, should it be created or would that be discouraged? GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

In the recent proposal drives (check the talk page archives), QPQ proposals did not come close to passing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Those proposals were for mandated QPQ. It sounds like GMH is looking for a space to discuss voluntary QPQ. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
See proposal #4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
No, there isn't, and suggestions to create an "official" page of this type were discussed and did not find widespread support, and many people are skeptical that it is a good idea at all. —Kusma (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be really nice to have a page for voluntary, informal QPQ. Skyshiftertalk 13:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

One of the reasons the GA process had a bad reputation a decade ago was the practice of mutual positive reviews with minimal scrutiny. So any structure for QPQ should have something in place to prevent low quality reviews and quick passes. —Kusma (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion: Vinland Saga

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, this is exactly what it says. I passed this article for the Vinland Saga anime series far too quickly (combination of factors, including should've known better), as pointed out by Reidgreg. When I raised the possibility of a GAR, they were hesitant due to how recent the GA was and recommended I bring the subject up here. Thinking back, I was wrong to pick up and review the article as I was then, and a second opinion or re-review of the article is needed. ProtoDrake (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi ProtoDrake, thank you very much for bringing this up here. Regarding the review, Talk:Vinland Saga (TV series)/GA1 is unfortunately insufficient, it does not indicate any review of the article. The article should receive a full review (see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles). Regarding steps, this is recent enough (12 May) that I don't think a GAR is needed, the review pass can simply be reverted. You are the only editor (besides Christiebot) of the review page, so you could tag it as WP:G7 if you still feel it wrong to pick up the review, and do not want to do a full review and would like someone else to instead. (You could also I suppose tag it as G7 and reopen it yourself again, if for some reason you want to both review it yourself and have a technically fresh start.) If you have questions about reviewing, you can always raise it here or discuss with a WP:GAMENTOR. Best, CMD (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Mysterious auto-failure

Latest comment: 5 months ago11 comments3 people in discussion

See this notice on my Talk. I believe this happened because the page was moved (undiscussedly), thus making the nomination page appear not to exist, since it is under the older page title. The page's Talk itself doesn't show it as having failed. In any case, I'd like to just erase the nomination, since no review ever took place, and it's either falsely shown as failed or as awaiting a second opinion (when no first was ever given). Zanahary (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Zanahary, don't you want the article reviewed at GAN? We could "erase the nomination", but that would lose all of its seniority. It was indeed the page move that caused the problem, because while the article moved, the review page is still under the article's original name; I'm not sure whether it's best to see if the article gets moved back, or just move the review page now, and let it get moved back to its original name if the current request to restore the original name prevails. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Maybe let's wait until we see the result of the page move, but I would rather just start again without seniority than have it marked as second opinion needed, which is a designation I imagine scares off any would-be reviewers who aren't very experienced with the process. I think it's enticing enough a topic that the loss of seniority would be alright. Zanahary (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
It can be started again with seniority by simply editing the timestamp in the nominations template. However, it looks as if the problem is that the page mover agrees to reverse the move but cannot do so for technical reasons? If so, and there's no disagreement about moving the page back, I can do that -- anyone with the page mover right (which includes all admins and a few others) can do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
That would be great, thank you! Zanahary (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Done -- I think the bot will stop complaining now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much @Mike Christie! I see now on its Talk it is listed as unreviewed, but on the nominations page it says it wants a second opinion. Is it possible to resolve this to indicate that it's awaiting review, not a second opinion? Zanahary (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Never mind, it's fixed now! A bot update thing, I think. Thanks again! Zanahary (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
No, BlueMoonset fixed it by resetting it to the next page number without changing the timestamp. And thanks for removing the move request; that was careless of me -- I should have done that when I did the move. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I adjusted the GA nominee template so that rather than being a "second opinion" request, it's treated as a regular nomination awaiting a reviewer, with no loss of seniority. Sorry, Zanahary, I meant to post that here, but got distracted by some incoming email. I hope the nomination gets picked up soon; there are, unfortunately, several dozen older noms also waiting. I think there's a GAN backlog drive coming in July, so maybe then if not before. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help @BlueMoonset and @Mike Christie! Zanahary (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Confused

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone. I'm looking for advice since I haven't really encountered this kind of thing before. The review page for Shirt (song) (link here) was created 16 days ago and I was told it would be started by the end of the month. I reminded them a week after that, and they still said they were busy. I gave it another week, and I see they went on a wikibreak on 31 May. Requesting a 2O; should I get a new reviewer? PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 06:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I've followed the steps at WP:GAN/I#N4a; the nomination will be returned to the queue shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Round-robbin reviewing?

Latest comment: 5 months ago16 comments6 people in discussion
Note: I have created in a page at WP:GARC as a concept of what this may look like . —— GMH Melbourne (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Further to the above discussion (pinging AirshipJungleman29, Premeditated Chaos, Skyshifter, & Kusma), I understand the issues that may arise with a one-on-one voluntary QPQ reviewing and I agree that the concept will sacrifice the quality of reviews. A potential alternative solution could be a discussion space where it pairs up 3-5 users and then A reviews B, B reviews C, and C reviews A's articles, thereby mitigating the COI in each review, I am happy to set it up and coordinate. Thoughts? GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I would submit my GANs to one of these!   Especially if cross-pollination is encouraged, both in people being invited to join the review circles (we wouldn't want them to get stale editorially) and people within the circle encouraged to comment on GANs in the circle other than their primary. Remsense诉 06:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
this sounds like a fun idea if it can be properly organized! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
(Sawyer, I just realized you use TemplateStyles to fit more in your signature. That's genius...) Remsense诉 10:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I found out that using TemplateStyles isn't technically necessary for the use he's putting it to. Case in point... → —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
you're giving me too much credit! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea! Skyshiftertalk 09:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd be happy to participate in an experiment if it can be set up; this sounds interesting. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it's shaping up nicely! It may also be useful to allow users to indicate their preference on which other article they'd like to review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thats what the topic-of-interest parameter is for, perhaps i'll change the name to be more clearer. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
With a page now ready for this idea, would anyone be opposed with adding it to WP:Good article nominations/Tab header for a around week a week while it is being proposed/ as a trial of how it may work. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
We seem to have enough participants in this thread to conduct a test run. It may also be beneficial to keep the trial more lowkey and see how things turn out before opening the process to general participation. I don't have a strong objection, however, if other editors think differently. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Is the "Coordinator" one of the reviewers/participants, or another individual? CMD (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: The coordinator would be another individual and would pair and notify users, I am happy to assume the role. If there's another way it could work I am open to ideas. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Moving sections (sport)

Latest comment: 5 months ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hi guys - I know I've asked this previously, but the cue sports section (within other sports) now has 200 entries. Cricket has a section of its own, and has 51 less GA articles. Do you think we could swap them around? I get that cue sports aren't quite as populated as some of our other topics, such as football or motorsport (I'm working on it though!), but it is significantly larger than one we already have. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, if I recall you asked back in the Vector 2010 era, we are in the bold new Vector 2022 world where the lists are vertically compressed. I would support creating a lv3 Cue sports heading in recognition of the substantial work done in that topic, and the usability of the lists. Please don't do it boldly though, lv3 might have technical ramifications. However, I see no reason it can't be split into multiple lv5s now, that can all be moved together later if there is consensus to split. I would appreciate a split by sport, I saw at a glance some pool and some snooker, there might be others, but it's not easy to tell from some event titles, and obviously impossible to just tell from the biographies. As for downgrading Cricket, interesting question and we are about to lose another GA there, but doesn't need to happen to split off Cue sports. CMD (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I wouldn't make the change myself. There are a few issues with doing changes by specific sport, as there's quite a bit of overlap. Almost all snooker players have played pool or billiards (and vise versa). The other issue is that we have "snooker" but then also a mismatch of all other cue sports. We'd have to have an "other cue sports" topic, which I'm not a fan of as it suggests it's lesser than snooker.
I do think there is a suitable bio Vs non-bio split which would be suitable if there was a level 3 header for it. (~60 bios, with the remainder split between tournaments , governance and articles about the different games). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Don't mind a bio split, mostly coming from the angle of being a bit more informative to those less familiar with the various sports in question. CMD (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Just to confirm, is anyone happy for this change to be made? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Christie and Novem Linguae: please note above proposal to create a new lv3 section, a Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation#Cue sports. CMD (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
ChristieBot only cares about the sections of the GAN page; it doesn't interact with the GA sections at all. If this won't change the GAN page organization or create new nomination categories or keywords it shouldn't require any changes to ChristieBot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I think this would be more for Novem, because the GA promotion script uses the different headers. Good to know ChristieBot has no issues though. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on nomination process

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

With respect to the assistance of the nominator, I am having a few problems completing a GAN review of Rayman (video game) and need some guidance. Some of these problems are compounded by delays in me responding to the nominator, but I'd really appreciate some feedback so I can improve how to handle situations like this nomination for best practice in the future.

Basically, the nominator, despite their best intentions, has largely contributed to the article by rewriting the prose. Where they have done that, it is riddled with mistakes. As seen in the review, nearly every sentence of the article has some issue or other that needs to be fixed, mostly in terms of tense and wording. That is fine and I am working through that with them, but I am only at the copyediting stage of the review. I'm not sure the reviewer understands some of the feedback and whether I could do better in explaining to them. For instance, a suggestion to 'omit' something from the article led to them adding that word in multiple places. Or some substantive feedback, such as suggesting the topic sentences of review paragraphs thematically reflect the content, seem to be ignored. I feel like what I am doing is really, in the end, directing them to write word for word what I feel the article should be to meet the standard.

How can I best help the nominator, and how should I best handle a review process like this where the nominator has good intentions and is trying their best, but there is a lot of quality assurance issues in their contributions and nuance that is being missed? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, if the article is not up to GA quality, and the nominator is having trouble understanding the fixes that would be necessary to bring it to GA quality, you may simply need to fail the nomination. There is no shame in doing this as a reviewer. It is the nominator's responsibility to make sure the article meets the criteria. An inability to understand what looks to me to be fairly simple feedback is not something you're responsible for. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Blackpink/GA1

Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Talk:Blackpink/GA1 was not a proper review. The reviewer has made 118 edits and it was rushed. 750h+ 07:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Slowpoke (Pokémon)

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone should look at the GAN review. Its not reviewed properly. 2001:4455:36D:9100:395D:8B1D:4133:4588 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

What to do when a reviewer picks up an article scheduled for a circle

Latest comment: 5 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I started a review for an article that I later found out was scheduled for one of the GA circles that GMH Melbourne is organizing. I think those circles are a good idea, but I'm mentioning this here since this conflict will probably come up again and it would be good to make it clear what the expectations are. I think the point of the circles is to avoid substandard QPQ reviewing, but guarantee a review of the participants' nominations. If someone outside the circle picks up one of the articles, I think that's a good thing -- it means the person scheduled to review no longer has to do that review (though we might encourage them to pick up another article instead). I don't think there's any reason for a reviewer to deliberately avoid articles scheduled for circles, though I wouldn't deliberately pick one either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've also been trying to come up with a process for when this situation occurs. Two options I have thought of are a) asking the user to provide comments on the other reviews in the review circle, or b) ask the user to review another article in the GAN list in the spirit of fairness. I also agree that we shouldn't prevent articles scheduled for circles from being reviewed. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any pressure not to review articles that are listed as available for review. If the list at WP:GAN wasn't representative of the ones actually available, I'd feel less inclined to look through it and start reviewing a nom. They should be available to anyone up until the moment that it's decided the nom is part of a circle, and once it is decided, the review page should be created. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this. Another layer of friction for reviewers is also likely to be especially offputting for people who have never reviewed before, and discouraging new reviewers seems like a decidedly undesirable outcome. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
If this initiative is to go forward, perhaps the circles could be organised in advance, allowing those involved to 'soft nominate' articles and only fully nominate them when the circle is agreed. This should allow them to be picked up very quickly by the other members of the circle. CMD (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need for that -- it would add more overhead to the circles, which seem to be moving pretty quickly at the moment (a good thing). I like GMH's suggestion that if a circle article is picked up, the editor who was scheduled to review it should be encouraged to pick a random other article to review instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps one from the "oldest unreviewed" list? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I think this would go against one of the purposes for the GA circles which is to help address the backlog. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps I should add a message at {{GARC-new-circle}} saying "If another user starts a review you were assigned before you were able to, kindly find another article to review at WP:GAN and inform the circle below." GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

GA quickfail discussion

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recently opened a discussion at WT:USRD#Failed GA regarding a GA review I quickfailed. It would be good if I could get some input regarding my action. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Does a previous failure to meet GA criteria stay on?

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I recently reviewed and promoted Tamil Nadu to Good Article status. It was unsuccessfully nominated a decade ago and the old notification of failure to meet GA is on the Talk page. Does that notification stay on the Talk page, even though it's now a GA? It seems to contradict the current status unless read carefully. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried to merge the new review into the {{Article history}} template. The important bit is to update the "current status". —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

GAN sorting uses different categories than Good Article nominations?

Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a reason why User:SDZeroBot/GAN sorting uses a different category system than Wikipedia:Good article nominations? I was looking for a few articles in "GAN sorting" to see how long they had been waiting for reviews, but the categories don't match up at all; the only way to find an article was to do word searches by the article name. For example, Charlemagne is listed under the "History" category in "Good Article nominations", but under "Culture/Biography" in "GAN sorting"; Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth is listed under "Social sciences and society/Law" in "Good Article nominations", but under "Geography/Regions/Oceania" in "GAN sorting". It would be helpful if both lists used the same categories. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The bot's sorting is done automatically using a machine learning tool, and includes articles under every topic it thinks is relevant (so you will see that Charlemagne, for example, is listed as "Geography/Regions/Europe/Western Europe" and "History and Society/History" among other topics). I imagine they differ because the ORES classification was developed after the already-existing GA system, and they weren't concerned with making them compatible - the ORES system the bot uses is used to categorise e.g. AfDs as well as GAs, which had developed its own categorisation.
I suppose we could change the way the WP:GAN page works to sort articles using the bot rather than the current system, but that seems like a bunch of work for no clear benefit. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The benefit is that it makes it easier to use both pages. There is no way to use the Sorting page to sort by the categories on the GA nominations page. Suppose I want to see the oldest article in the History category on the GA Nominations page, to review it because someone’s been waiting a long time for it. There’s no way to do that, because the History articles are scattered about by an entirely different category system, putting Charlemagne in “Culture/Biography”. There’s no way to see the oldest “Law” articles waiting for a review: the decision of the High Court of Australia (Fair work) is sorted under “Geography”. I don’t see any benefit from having a sorting system that isn’t based on the categories used on the Good Articles nomination page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
There’s also the point that relying on a bot/AI to determine the categories is less useful than relying on the judgment of the nominator who decides which category to put an article in when they nominate it. The decision of the Australian High Court in the Fair Work article is notable as an article about an important legal issue from the highest court in Australia. But the bot ignored that, and decided it was most notable because of its geographic location. Judgment by a human is more accurate here than a bot. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
If you don't want to rely on the AI classification (I never do!) then you shouldn't use the bot which uses AI classification. You can use User:ChristieBot/SortableGANoms if you want a sortable list which uses the manual categories. (But in the specific case you are talking about the bot did classify Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth under History and Society/Politics and government; the ability to classify a nomination into multiple relevant categories seems like a useful feature actually!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

splitting the world history sections

Latest comment: 5 months ago15 comments4 people in discussion

at Wikipedia:Good articles/History, there are a few sections that are worth splitting in my opinion:

  • Historical figures - politicians (357 articles)
  • Historical figures - other (452 articles)
  • North American history (217 articles)
  • European history (326 articles)
  • Monarchs (365 articles)
  • Royalty and nobility (303 articles)

they're all getting difficult to read due to the giant walls of text. what are people's thoughts on how to split? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Could split United States history into a subsection, which would make a small difference although I suspect that subsection would remain in need of splitting sooner rather than later. There are a couple of options for European history, British Isles history seems an obvious one as being easy to define geographically and has quite a few items, splitting on continental Europe geographically is a bit more tricky with anachronisms (eg. what do you do with Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin), although clearly defined regions like Italy might work. There's probably a couple of obvious subgroups for Monarchy, Royalty, and Nobility with 20+ units, perhaps staring with Roman/Byzantine. CMD (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
yeah i think splitting geographically will make the most sense, even with edge cases. splitting off British & US-American items would be a great first step ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Many of the figures in Historical figures - other are miscategorized. Many of them are nobility, and should be put in the Royalty and nobility section. Some are military figures, and should be put in the military people section. Religious figures should put under religion, artists under their respective sections, etc. There's even some animals, which should be filed under Animal domestic breeds, types, and individuals.
For politicians, monarchs, nobility, etc. it seems like they could be split by continent.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Added in animals to their proper section. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
If shifting Animals from Wikipedia:Good articles/History to Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences, please remember to change the topic on the article talk pages as well. CMD (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Ah. i am about to run and can't do that atm - id really appreciate it if anyone could Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Ah, didn't realise you'd already started. I'll handle the 12 moved, despite personal misgivings that the animals were likely mostly respectable historical figures. CMD (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
i'll start moving some of the "other" figures into their proper sections, so that we can know what the actual makeup of the "other" section is. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Done up to the Os of these, was reverted on Nelson (cat) by Tim O'Doherty. There is also Judy (dog) in Warfare. CMD (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi CMD, sorry about that. I'd say it's closer to history than natural sciences. Happy to discuss. Cheers - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not strongly opinionated, aside from feeling it would be best to have something clear and consistent for animal individuals. Might split them into their own lv5 for a start, there's about 25 and I'm not seeing the natural link with breeds/types. CMD (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I've split off the individuals (there were 30, although given the articles are just single names the line length is relatively short) and saved Olaf the Peacock. Would be good to hear more thoughts on where they should go. CMD (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Shifted Judy as well and finished the matching. If there is a consensus to move them, should be easier to now move them all together. CMD (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
i noticed that too. & i think by continent would work pretty well. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Do aviators fall under the subject section Transport?

Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Asking because unlike some of the other subject areas, Transport does not mention related people/professions as included, and none of the nominations currently there are for biographies. AddWittyNameHere 13:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I reviewed Jean Batten, the article was placed under world history, historical figures: other. However, there is a section within transport entitled air transport people which might also be an option (and in fact I'm wondering if I put Batten in the wrong place). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Good to know I'm not the only person uncertain of where to place a nomination, then! Mine might be a little more "squarely" placed in transport than Jean Batten because it's about an aviation pioneer that was also an airline transport pilot, so guess I'll go for transport, I suppose, but yeah, world history - historical figures was my other guess. (It could even technically fit under military because he was a military pilot for a brief portion of his career, too--but that's not what his notability comes from, so not a great fit altogether) AddWittyNameHere 23:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings Yeah I agree that Jean Batten fits better under "air transport people" than "world history, historical figures: other". That historical figure section is massive (400+ articles) while air transport people only has 9. Jean Batten's article and achievement is also similar to Juan Bielovucic, who is already listed within the air transport people category. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I've moved Batten to air transport people. Hopefully I did it correctly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Fusajiro Yamauchi

Latest comment: 5 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not too sure if this article meets the criteria for what makes a good article. At a glimpse:

  • Amateurish prose: Indeed, due to the fact these places...
    • Thus in the goal to inherit the company, Fusajiro was adopted...
    • Fusajiro then has the idea of using the Hanafuda cards of lesser quality...
    • Many other examples of this.
  • Awkward wikilinking: Just as Hanafuda cards were allowed again in 1885 so too did occidental playing cards (Standard 52-card deck) become allowed...
  • Grammar errors: ...these western cards so called "Trump" by the japanese population...
  • Randomly inserted sentences: (The sen is a subdivision of the Japanese yen which became obsolete in 1954.)
  • Questionably sourced media (one is straight up ripped from Eurogamer)

The GAN review seems to be lacking as well, with a very light prose check, no discernible source spot check, and no copyright check, which I'm 99.8% sure is just an incorrectly-done review. Should I proceed with a reassessment request, or can this GAN be rescinded altogether? joeyquism (talk page) 01:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That was a very recent GAN, closed 9 June 2024‎, it can be reopened if needed. First step is to raise it with the reviewer. CMD (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe the lack of source and copyright checking and the amateurish prose are both grounds enough to go ahead and reopen the review. Of course I assume WP:GOODFAITH from both parties, but it seems that this is a case of WP:CIR. I've informed both the reviewer and nominator that the review has been reopened. joeyquism (talk page) 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I think "amateurish" and "CIR" are a little harsh. It just looks like people who are working to learn best practices and could use some helpful advice—something that tends to be rarely given for up-and-coming editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough - I didn't mean any offense by my use of these terms, just for the record. I've also extended a hand to both editors in case they are in need of any help during the GAN process. joeyquism (talk page) 03:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for those very polite and well-worded talkpage messages. CMD (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Forgot to reply to this - no problem. joeyquism (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Song articles without sigcov of the song

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Oftentimes when looking at song GANs, there are several nominations where all of the sourcing is about the album and none of the sources are specifically about the song. This raises some notability issues and goes against WP:NSONG, but how should we handle this at GAN? There's of course the perennial dispute about whether non-notable articles should be passed through GA. But besides that, can these song articles pass criteria 2 and 3 if all of the sources are about the album? These are common enough that I feel some sort of consensus or precedent should be established. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, either the article is notable, and can be a GA, or it's non-notable and should be deleted. AfD is the likely place to work that out. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Nominator temp-blocked as a sock-puppeteer

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey all. A GA nominator whose article I was reviewing has just been temporarily banned for one month for sock-puppeteering. I haven't had to deal with a case of a nominator being blocked mid-review so I don't know what to do. Should I leave the review on hold, pending their return? Or should I just close the review as failed? (I still don't think it meets GA criteria as of now). --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest failing it; they can always renominate if they still want to after they return from the block. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Gone ahead and failed it. Thanks for the advice. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

GAN page not updating

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It appears ChristieBot is getting partway through its run and then crashing before it can update the GAN page. I suspect I know what the problem is but I can't do anything about it till I get home this evening about eight hours from now, so GAN is not going to update until at least then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with bots like this is that they often have a bus factor of one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Eight hours of decreasing backlog though. CMD (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Should be fixed now, and I think I've fixed the underlying issue that caused it as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

GA summary on list pages

Latest comment: 5 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Raising this change for discussion here. Removing the repeated summary seems reasonable, but making the navigation more inaccessible is going to add further friction to the manual cleanups needed by making it harder to switch between lists. Wondering if there is a way to keep some sort of more compact navigation bar at the top. CMD (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be consistent between the different GA pages. There's no point if each one has a different style for navigation Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
All pages used Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary, what this change did was hide it. CMD (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Prhartcom as the person who hid the summary (twice).
My take is that this should be consistent across all of the different GA topic subpages, though I see this has been done on all of these pages. A compact navigation bar would be great as well, if that's possible. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping and the feedback. Glad everyone likes it. Oh all right, I suppose now we do need a compact navigation bar to each of the 15 topic pages; I will start work on that. It will be very clear yet simple, similar to the page contents seen at the top of the Wikipedia:Good articles/all page (that combines all the topic pages). Cheers, Prhartcom (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
All right, I did it; its on the Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare page only right now. Next I'll make it a template and put it on all the topic pages. Hope it's okay? Prhartcom (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
A definite help. Is there a reason not to have it in columns given the apparent desire to save vertical space? CMD (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
It uses an existing stylesheet element. It matches the page contents below. It looks good on mobiles. Prhartcom (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

GA review of Charles De Geer

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm sorry to have to put this issue here, as I'm in principle against any quarrels with fellow editors, but I think my GA nomination of Charles De Geer was not properly reviewed. Apart from a general point that the article is not focused enough, which for reasons I tried to put forward I found was unfair or at least not obvious, I received very little constructive input on what to improve and how. (For the record, I would also like to underline here that while it may seem an unfocused article if treated as a bio of someone notable only for being a naturalist, I would tend to agree; however the subject of the article was notable for several different things, which should reasonably be reflected in the article.) Where I did receive such input, I either made the relevant changes or put forward my reasoning as to why I had written what I had written in the first place. Despite this, the nomination was closed as failed by the reviewer Wolverine XI, without any real reply to my points in the review. I tried to raise the issue with the reviewer on their talk page but got a similarly short and negative reply. I therefore raise the issue here; I am of the opinion that my nomination was not given a proper review and my replies were not taken into consideration by the reviewer. I don't know what the procedure for this kind of complaint, and I'm sorry to have to raise the issue, but I really think this has not been a fair and constructive process. I'm very open to constructively improve the nominated article, or any other reasonable course of action, of course. Finally just a note to say that I may struggle in the coming days and weeks to respond quickly as I will be out sailing until early July. Yakikaki (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a harsh review, and Wolverine XI's communication has been really quite poor, but I don't think it quite reaches "improper": the paragraphs on Lövstabruk do breach criterion 3b), in my opinion, by including too much unnecessary detail. Of course, if you don't feel the issues have merit, you can renominate immediately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Put it back into the queue when you're done sailing, and I'll be happy to give it a full review. I have experience with highly detailed biographies of naturalists from Nordic countries. Esculenta (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Esculenta, I'll do that. Yakikaki (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Merchant's House Museum

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Given that the original reviewer wrote at Talk:Merchant's House Museum/GA1 that the article should be a pass, and two further opinions (including mine) agree, can someone formally pass this as a GA? (@Epicgenius: FYI). Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I have closed it. It looked like they had closed the discussion thinking that was all that was required. Let me know if it's the wrong category. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Moving sections (again)

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi guys, recently archived talk Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 32#moving sections (sport) had a (somewhat weak) consensus of moving cue sports to its own section, and potentially moving cricket to it's spot in "other sports". Is that something someone could handle for me? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I've split off Cue sports, and left Cricket as is for now in case there is more input. Let's see if it works smoothly. In the meantime, please divide it up into some subgroups. Best, CMD (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Good work. It's done something weird to the recent promotions feed: [1] but otherwise looks ok right now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
That bot owner is on a Wikibreak, hopefully it will rotate out soon enough. CMD (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I've changed my mind about hard caps on open nominations

Latest comment: 4 months ago45 comments16 people in discussion

In the past, I've objected to hard caps on how many nominations someone can have open at once. My reasoning was that it's unfair punishment to our most active content creators and that it only masks the problem. After running the numbers, I believe these arguments are outweighed by other factors.

As of the most recent GAN report, there are 677 nominations under review or awaiting a reviewer. There are 58 nominators with at least three nominations, making up 340 noms in total. We make up almost exactly half of the backlog. If we emptied the "Nominators with multiple nominations" section by reducing everyone down to two noms, the backlog would instantly decrease by 224 nominations, bringing us down to 453. That's one third of the total backlog just made of those extra nominations. If we limit it to a more generous five noms, that's still 95 extra nominations beyond that limit.

To the argument that limiting noms only hides the full backlog, it's about how the noms are weighted. Right now, these "power users" make up half the backlog despite being a minority of the total nominators. This is unfair to the people who wait months longer in line just so we can double, triple, quadruple dip. To the argument that it makes it harder for efficient nominators to nominate, there's a way to make your nom a higher priority: review! Review the noms above yours in that category, or just review in general to lower the backlog. Even if new noms instantly take their place, those will have a more recent nom date. This way, there won't be one person who still has eight other nominations ahead of you after you review one of theirs. Or you could review for people who only have one nom and won't immediately replace it, which is often a new nominator who should get priority anyway. Alternatively, there's Wikipedia:Good article review circles where you can get a reviewer much more quickly.

Once my current nominations are done, I'm going to voluntarily limit myself to no more than five at a time. But these limits only have significant effect if we adhere to them collectively, and I'm switching to a support !vote on such a measure. I'm also going to ping the few people who have more open noms than I do in case they'd be interested in a similar voluntary limitation: Magentic Manifestations, Chiswick Chap, Aszx5000, Gonzo fan2007, Ippantekina, Aintabli, Epicgenius. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this is not a very good idea. The "power users" are often our most experienced and dedicated contributors - so notably, they tend to have articles that are high quality to begin with and thus easier to review. Reviewing a newer editor's GAN is often far more difficult, because they aren't used to all the inns and outs yet - this takes an entirely separate skillset from reviewing an Epicgenius or Chiswick GAN (namely, that only an experienced reviewer would be as good at it!) I really don't looking at reducing the backlog as a numbers game is beneficial; what's important is getting articles reviewed in timely manner, which I don't think the "power users"' GAs are contributing to. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh dear, this old chestnut again. I'll just say that it's bound to have something like the Poisson distribution, that's just how nature is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, generally an experienced editor's work is easier to review, given that the length and complexity of the article are the same. But by sheer volume, one experienced editor with lots of noms, myself included, is going to squeeze out those newer nominators who need the most attention. And like I said above, reviewing those nominations would be incentivized relative to an experienced nominator, as newer nominators wouldn't immediately have another nom ready to go. It's not a numbers game, it's about weight, and it would be fewer articles at a time being reviewed more quickly than a whole block of them being reviewed slowly.
And to approach from the other angle, I believe we should more readily (quick)fail nominations that aren't ready for GAN. It shouldn't just be "is it far from the criteria" but whether it fails the criteria in a way that puts an undue burden on a reviewer. These are ones that probably shouldn't have been nominated anyway, but they take up a disproportionate amount of reviewer time. When nominations aren't ready, we can direct editors to peer review, GOCE, the Teahouse, help pages, or wherever depending on where its weaknesses are. I'd say a limit on max noms plus holding nominators accountable for making sure nominations are ready is the best combo. We could get nominations in and out much more quickly that way while using GAN as a lightweight quality assurance/verification process instead of as Peer Review 2. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the trend has been to increase GA standards rather than to accept that GAs aren't expected to be perfect (and that no article is, honestly). I doubt we'll secure any kind of consensus for returning GA to the lightweight process it was written as. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Given how little oversight there is, there's really nothing stopping individual reviewers from deciding how strict or lenient they want to be with the criteria, with failing, or with how they think the process should work. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Generally I'd agree, except that people who are "caught" doing reviews that others find inadequate are regularly dragged here and castigated. And when mistakes are caught in a GA that passed, reviewers catch flak for it.
On the other hand, people don't like being the "bad guy" and failing articles that aren't ready, so we give infinite time and chances for articles that frankly aren't up to snuff. Some noms will get upset that you failed their article, and nobody likes being on the other end of that conflict.
Basically, there's a competing social pressure to be incredibly thorough yet infinitely forgiving. Reviewers can't win, they get discouraged, and difficult articles sit around for ages. We need to change the culture around GA reviewing if we ever want to make a meaningful change in the backlog. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd be willing to strike out everything I said above and go in the opposite direction. We could just as easily say it's a free for all on nominating but then be more firm with reviewing and quickfailing so weak noms don't bog us down. I'm actually more inclined toward that than a hard cap, except right now there's no consistency in reviews, and of course many nominators feel entitled to a pass. I personally am willing to be the one to say "this isn't ready for nomination" (and I have been trying to look for those nominations lately), but like you said, it needs to be part of a broader cultural change.
I'm going off on a slight tangent now, but I believe there are more sub-standard reviews that slip through the cracks than ones that get "caught". I watch many of them go by feeling like my hands are tied because there's also a stigma against accusing people of doing bad reviews, and it's gotten to the point where I just ignore them unless they start reviewing one of mine, in which case I ask them to return it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I prefer to review the new nominators, starting with the ones who have done reviews, which usually means a higher failure rate and slower reviews for the passes because they are learning. I do this because I believe in encouraging a good review/nomination ratio, but another benefit is that it is an opportunity to teach those nominators how a good review should look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree there is a stigma against accusing people of doing bad reviews. People do it on this talk page regularly, and the prospect of being publicly shamed creates a chilling effect for new reviewers.
I do want to point out the contradiction between suggesting that we use "GAN as a lightweight quality assurance/verification process" and saying reviewers should basically review how they want, but then bringing up "sub-standard reviews". We can't have speed and perfection. Either we accept that the process is supposed to be lightweight and allow reviews to be lightweight, or we keep tightening the screws and watch the backlog climb. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm probably part of the problem -- I can't really do "lightweight" reviews. I personally want peer reviews and suggestions to improve my articles much more than I care about another green plus, and so my reviews tend to be in depth and address more than the GA criteria. And nobody calls me out on this, even for monstrosities like Talk:Chinese characters/GA1. I am not sure whether dedicated coordinators who look at every review for some quality assurance would help or harm, but this might be worth brainstorming about. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I suspect coordination would start off at what we are de facto doing now in a haphazard and likely arbitrary manner, which is checking that reviews are 1) not checklists, 2) do source checks. I doubt it would crack down too much on being over-picky, especially as there is a lot of grey zone in the criteria. CMD (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it's OK to point out issues that go beyond the GA criteria, so long as the nominator is clear that those comments don't need to be addressed to get the article to GA, and so long as there are not too many -- some nominators don't want to bring the article up to FA standards and shouldn't be asked to. But letting them know that a link is dead or MoS issues that are not in the GA criteria is fine, so long as they understand what's a GA comment and what is not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Reducing the backlog by artificially throttling nominations does nothing to increase the rate of promotions of GAs. It is hiding the problem (we aren't getting enough GA reviews done and enough GAs promoted) by addressing the symptom of the problem rather than doing anything to improve the unwillingness of editors to do more reviews. We could decrease the backlog to zero by shutting down the whole GA process and cancelling all current nominations; do you think that would be an improvement? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
To the argument that limiting noms only hides the full backlog, it's about how the noms are weighted. Right now, these "power users" make up half the backlog despite being a minority of the total nominators. This is unfair to the people who wait months longer in line just so we can double, triple, quadruple dip. – Right there in the original post you're replying to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
There is no line. Nobody requires review be done chronologically. Nobody will yell at your reviewer and you if your nomination attracts enough interest to get reviewed quickly. And we tried prioritizing frequent reviewers and new participants instead of listing nominations chronologically; it didn't help. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with David Eppstein here. When we tried to push first-time nominators and frequent reviewers to the front of the line, it just increased the number of GANs that had been sitting in the queue for six months or longer.
I think the issue here is that the review process is still fairly daunting. No one wants to be yelled at for looking at an article, determining that there are no (or very few) problems, and then quick-passing the article. Conversely, no one wants to be yelled at for looking at an article, seeing that it's riddled with problems, and then quick-failing the article. Quick-passing and quick-failing articles are both seen as problematic, even though there's nothing wrong with the latter.
Therefore, many reviewers find themselves having to conduct intensive reviews, which means that fairly long articles are often skipped over by all except the most experienced reviewers. Many of these long articles come from power editors, which may be why it seems like the power editors are dominating the GAN queue. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to suggest a return to the old sort order (though I did prefer it), but I think it's wrong to say that "all it did was increase the age of the oldest GANs". That's exactly what you would expect from reducing the importance of age in the GAN sort order. It doesn't mean the old sort order achieved anything else, but neither is it evidence that it didn't make a difference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I meant to say that the change in sort order increased wait times for nominators near the bottom of the list. Currently, the newest nominations are near the bottom of each section, and the oldest nominations are near the top. Back when we were using the other sort order, we were grouping the nominations by username, so users near the bottom of the list saw their wait times increase. Granted, the other sort order did help decrease wait times for first-time nominators, but I think that came at the expense of everyone else, which is what I was getting at. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Wasn't that the point? If the sort order was causing those with better review ratios to have their wait times decreased (new submitters having a perfect ratio), then the system was achieving what it was meant to do. CMD (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, in that respect, it was working as intended (i.e. people with better review-to-nomination ratios didn't have to wait as long).
I was trying to make the point that reviewers' limited time was diverted to people who have a lot of reviews and relatively few or no GAs. If someone was a prolific reviewer but an even more prolific nominator, they would be disadvantaged; e.g. if they had 100 reviews and 200 nominations, they were pushed further down the review queue than someone with 100 reviews and 10 nominations. Power users are more likely to have dozens or hundreds of GAs, so under the old sort order, they would be inherently disadvantaged because of the raw numbers of GAs that they had (unless they conducted even more reviews to make up for this).
Perhaps it may be a good idea to consider formatting the GAN lists as sortable tables. That way, reviewers could decide on whether to review nominations by people with better review-to-nomination ratios. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Epicgenius We could make User:ChristieBot/SortableGANoms more prominent somehow. Right now it's just a link above the nominations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. That is exactly what I was thinking, but I didn't even realize it already existed. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I was also unaware of this page until now, and second Epicgenius' comment immediately above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien, Epicgenius, Trainsandotherthings: this would be easy to do, and I agree it might be beneficial. That part of the layout is hardcoded in ChristieBot at the moment. If someone mocks up a GAN page header they think would be preferable, I can change the bot to hardcode that text, or possibly to transclude it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Quickfails are not problematic in the slightest, as long as the reasoning is there. The difficulty is merely in the length of the average review. When people say "I'm not good at reviewing", what they actually mean is "I find reviewing tediously boring and don't want to do it", which is perfectly understandable.
To prevent WP:DCGAR happening again, we have decided that quality reviews must be directly enforced through the GA criteria. Now, each review must go over the prose, images, sourcing, and do a source spotcheck. At FAC, this is handled by multiple people, and the source spotcheck is not needed after the first successful nomination. We have got ourselves into a situation where the "lightweight review process" is multiple times more onerous than the heavyweight process.
Is there a better way? After DCGAR, I remember that SandyGeorgia was encouraging the institution of GAN coordinators who would check reviews, as the FAC coordinators do. I think that option, in combination with lowering GACR standards, could help encourage reviewing—but only, of course, if editors with high nomination/review ratios want to pick up their own slack. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree, quickfails should not be problematic if done correctly. However, I noticed that nominators sometimes challenge GAN quickfails even if the reviewer has done everything correctly, e.g. this thread from a few days ago. I was trying to make the point that some reviewers may be afraid to quickfail articles because they fear being confronted by the nominator; sorry if that isn't clear. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, and not even just quick fails, but any fail that takes less than a day or two. There are a couple of noms I've had on my mind for awhile that have been submitted with eg. unsourced sections, but the idea of pulling them out and failing them feels like more effort than it is worth. CMD (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Some thoughts generally agree with the above discussion that throttling noms doesn't solve the problem, that being stricter on reviews (i.e. quick failing) may push people to improve the quality more before nomming and that having a backlog in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. My own reflections on the challenges of WP:GAN come down to a lack of incentive for reviewing articles. When I started nomination articles at WP:GAN, I told myself that I would keep a 2-to-1 ratio of reviews versus my own GAs. I did that mostly out of fear of being ostracized by the community for not reciprocating. WP:DYK and WP:FLC provide good examples of the extremes (where WP:GAN is in the middle). DYK requires QPQ, increasing the QPQ requirements for frequent DYK users during backlogs. WP:FLC on the other hand, limits you to one active nomination at a time (allowing for a second nom after your first has substantial support). I would argue that neither process is running very well, with backlogs or lack of reviews still being a challenge.
I think the most important thing to remember is that the purpose of recognition is to incentivize and encourage content creation. So long as WP:GA encourages me and others to create fairly well-written articles, it's doing its job. To conclude on that point, I wouldn't support any changes that would limit the incentive for users (especially users who create a lot of good content) to keep writing. That little green icon will get up there at some point, it really doesn't matter when though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
After reading the replies, I can say that I'm back in the "I don't know" camp, but at least we got a discussion going! I'm sympathetic to PMC's point above, and others that have expressed similar thoughts, that it's more of a cultural issue than anything that can be directly solved by fiddling with how we organize nominations. But it just happens that most of the people close to GA's "culture" monitor and participate in this talk page, so this is where any concentrated change would happen. Personally I've been trying to be more open to failing nominations that weren't ready to be nominated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Replying to myself so I can think aloud and express general thoughts. My takeaway here is that consensus is against limiting our own nominations as a means to reduce the backlog, and instead we should be more willing to fail nominations if they're not ready for a GAN review. Maybe we should be a little more firm with nominators who make a scene about reviewers who fail a nom, in the same way that we're being more firm with nominators who make a scene about inadequate reviews. I still don't love that the most active content writers have such a disproportionate number of nominations, but good points have been raised about other factors at play there. At the end of the day, like SusunW said, there's really no way to incentivize reviewing for someone whose focus on Wikipedia isn't reviewing and trying to do this can be counterproductive. And like I've said before, GAN reviewing is harder than other reviews because all of the pressure is on the one reviewer, even if they're better at reviewing some aspects than others (looking at you, source reviews). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
My answer to this problem has been the same for a while now: I don't review nominations of those who refuse to meaningfully contribute to reviewing (and have a decent number of GAs, I'm not punishing people doing their first ever nomination). But when I see someone with 50 GAs and 0 reviews, I cannot in good conscience ever take up one of their nominations. I work hard to keep my review/GA ratio close to 1, so I'm not expecting anyone to do something I wouldn't do myself. We need a cultural shift towards this mindset, in my opinion (and some will disagree with me, which is their right). We also have the age-old problem of how to incentivize reviewers, which many brighter than I have tried to solve.
I think large numbers of open nominations are in part a symptom of these known issues, excluding the (thankfully rare) bad actor nominating crappy articles en masse (and I'm sure some of you know exactly who I am referring to). Bottom line - when I see people argue so strongly against any reform yet refuse to do any reviews themselves, I really have no sympathy for them. If you don't want to do reviews, fine, but don't expect others to prioritize your nominations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
been watching this conversation quietly - completely agree with the above that this is a cultural problem that really needs a broader informal shift rather than acute reforms addressing only the symptoms. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment – Every time these discussions come up I am less inclined to participate in the GA process, if I am being honest. I find the pressure to review more articles disheartening. Encouraging reviews is fine, reforming the processes is good too, but discouraging writing and limiting collaboration for improving articles is counter-productive. The entire point of GA, IMO, is improving article quality, but if all we are to do is focus on pushing reviews through, the processes begins to focus more on quantity, which to my mind is how we end up with so many poorly written articles to begin with. We are a very diverse community of volunteers. Not everyone's skill-sets are the same and assuming that we can all do the same tasks equally well fails to recognize our diversity. The constant chastisement of people who don't review more doesn't encourage people to participate, but in fact does the opposite, at least for me. (For the record, I have nominated only 1 GA all year (at the request of the reviewer). Although I have written articles that would benefit from collaboration, I have not nominated them, but forced myself instead to review other's work. I spent over a month helping an editor at peer review prepare their first FA nomination, reviewed 5 FA/GA nominations. Not big numbers to some people's standards, but that required a huge amount of effort for me, as my reviews are meticulous, and I am incapable of making them less so. I see no value in holding anyone to my standards, but rather think that all contributions which lead to a better encyclopedia are valuable.) SusunW (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
My comment was not directed at you, I specifically pointed the finger at people who refuse to review at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Trainsandotherthings, I didn't mean to imply that it was. If I did, I apologize. Communication is sometimes quite challenging   SusunW (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Generally I think we should try to be more positive about all contributors here. Perhaps we should celebrate reviewers more (COI alert: I tend to review more than I write) instead of looking down at non-reviewers (although it is a very human thing to do). I like reviewing SusunW's biographies (and I really enjoy working with her) so I am sad there have been so few of them here recently.
I am very interested in seeing whether the review circles idea can work as a (completely voluntary) way where people who are OK with doing some reviewing get their own nomination reviewed faster. If this becomes popular, people will have a choice: do a review to get your own nom reviewed very soon/put your nom on the pile with no questions asked about reviewing (and that means you may have to wait until the next backlog drive). —Kusma (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Kusma I enjoy working with you too a lot. I am going to rip a bandaid off here and be vulnerable for a minute, but maybe it will help some people understand that reviewing is not simple for everyone. When I review I file, I tell myself, this time I am just going to read it, make comments, do a spot check and move on. But that never happens, ever. I read through the article. I start a 2nd read through and when I get to the first citation, I check it. I tell myself at the second citation to just accept it, but my brain says, what if it doesn't verify the information or has a copyvio? You have to sign-off that it's okay, so I check it. And this continues through every single citation. If I find an inconsistency, instead of just asking the question do you have a source that supports this?, I must know if there is a source. Or, I encounter something that the context is unclear. If a source is off-line do I AGF? Totally depends on whether other checks have had no problems. So I research (sometimes for hours) to find a reference that supports the data, provides context, or is accessible. Only if I cannot find a source do I just ask the question.
By this time, an entire day has passed and I am probably only 1/3 to 1/2 way through the article, so I post what I have from my notes to WP. I rewrite each query to make sure that what I am asking is clear and a suggestion, not a demand. I preview it and rewrite it again before I finally save it and move on. Day 2 and Day 3 are more of the same until I finally reach the end of the article, drained and exhausted. I hope that the nominator will take at least a day to respond to give me time to regroup. I review the responses as meticulously as I did the queries and finally make a decision on the outcome. Instead of feeling successful, my feeling is relief that it's over. And then I see a post on this page, admonishing people about not doing enough reviews and I force myself to do it again. The struggle is real, and it is hard. Howie Mandel once said I know my approach is not logical, but in spite of that I am compelled to do the illogical. That's me. We cannot assume we know why people don't do reviews, but we can change our approach to one which encourages people to do what they can. (And yes, I rewrote this 5 times.) SusunW (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to write this out Susun. The work you have done over the years to improve articles on here has been amazing and very inspiring, it has always been a pleasure to read what you have written and to work with you not only on reviews but other projects too. It's heartbreaking to hear you have been so discouraged by these periodic discussions on reviews, and I apologise profusely if I have contributed to that discouragement. Discouraging others from doing such good work should never be what we aim to accomplish here, and it is not a good sign if we are going in that direction. I agree completely that we need to reevaluate how to encourage more reviews without discouraging nominations, and to be more holistically positive towards each other. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
So—to be direct—you find GA reviewing difficult because you don't actually do GA reviews. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Grnrchst we're all good. I honestly just wanted to offer a different perspective to remind everyone that we don't all have the same access and abilities. The internet has been a great bridge but its anonymous nature can also make us forget that there is a real human on the other side. I don't often speak of my struggles, but perhaps it can help us be more "holistically positive towards each other". AirshipJungleman29 I am uncertain what you are saying, I do and have done GA reviews. SusunW (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
My two centimes: Since my foray into good article nominations, I have tried to maintain at least 2 reviews for each nomination. Not only do I enjoy reviewing articles, because it gives me a way to read in-depth on subjects that I normally wouldn't have spent more time on, but I also try to be a net contributor to cutting down the backlog. My frustrations with the ever-growing backlog has, at least in part, come from a selfishness on my part.
Off the top of my head, there are at least a couple dozen or so articles that I have written to (I think) a GA standard, but which I haven't nominated due to the length of time it takes for nominations to get reviewed. Often I'll end up finishing an article, having polished off its prose and gone through every source I have in a number of languages, but then I just don't end up nominating it because I already had a number of months-old pending nominations that I was anxious to get reviewed. I think the only time I have exceeded five open nominations is during the ongoing WiG edit-a-thon.
I seriously regret that I have let my frustration at this process bubble over into support for certain restrictions, so I can't rightly support TBUA's proposal, despite understanding where he's coming from. The reason I want the backlog to be reduced is so that we can get more articles nominated, not restrict incoming nominations and punish some of our best writers. I would like applaud GMH Melbourne's recent review circles initiative, which I think could be an excellent way forward with encouraging more reviews. Let's consider making more positive projects like this, rather than imposing negative restrictions. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I have only seen the ping for me by the op of this thread. I am new to GA, so if I have made too many nominations, I can certainly take some off, and don't want to be disruptive. Given my nominations are in the niche area of climbing, I felt that I needed to give a range of noms to attract/tempt some interest from reviewers. Two of them have been given GA status (and a third is almost there), but I never considered that I would be able to do the reviewing, is that something that I am meant to be considering at this stage? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Aszx5000, reviewing is entirely up to you, and I was just trying to open another discussion on how to get articles reviewed more quickly. Based on the discussion above, it seems that we're largely okay with lots of nominations at once (and personally I'm glad to see more niches showing up). If you're interested in reviewing other people's nominations but not sure where to start, you can make a post at the mentorship page so someone can help you with your first review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Thebiguglyalien. I though I would have to have more GAs under my belt before doing reviews. Let me get through a few more as I am still learning new things, but would love to give it a try later, and will follow your steps. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this a list or an article

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I nominated Grade (climbing) into the GA queue, which I overhauled and expanded, but given what happened with my GA nomination of Rock-climbing equipment, I wonder if it is really a list, and therefore maybe an FLC? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like an article (with some incorporated list-like material) to me, without any obvious flaws of a type that would lead me to quickfail it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I will leave it in the GA queue. Feedback is much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#GA-banned user violating topic ban which you may be interested in. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

July backlog drive

Latest comment: 4 months ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Yes, it's happening! I'd apologize for the short notice, but a July backlog drive has been on the backlog page since April, so instead I'll apologize for disappearing for most of May-June and not getting to this earlier.

The aim this time around is to encourage participation by people who haven't done many GA reviews before. Experienced reviewers are encouraged to assist newbie reviewers with their reviews - but if you want to ignore the theme and just bang out a bunch of GA reviews as usual, go right ahead. This format is obviously somewhat experimental, so if anyone has suggestions, please do suggest away. And if anyone else would like to volunteer as co-ordinator, so far it's just me by my lonesome and I'd love to have you. -- asilvering (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, is it possible to get a list of all editors who have reviewed 1-4 GANs? A list of editors who have GAs but have never reviewed would also be really helpful. I have no idea how to generate either of these. -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
For the first question, does User:GA bot/Stats give you what you need? For the second, yes; do you want it restricted to editors who have a GA in the last N years, for some value of N? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, for the first one, that's fine. Though if there's some way to restrict the list to only active accounts, that would be even more useful. For the second, yes, a restriction like that would be useful, though I'm not sure exactly where I'd draw the line. The last two years maybe? Or if there's a way to only get active accounts, that would be useful too. Define "active" however seems workable. My aim is to come up with a list of people who might be interested in participating in the backlog drive as a newbie reviewer. -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
OK -- it'll be a few days, as I'm traveling, but I should be able to get you the data by some time this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: I've never been a co-ordinator of a GAN backlog before, but I have participated in previous ones, so I'm interested. What and where could I help? Vacant0 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Glad to have you! I'll add your name to the backlog drive page. While I'm at it, pinging @Ganesha811 and @Vaticidalprophet, who were also co-ords of the last one - are you folks interested?
The main part of the job is checking off reviews as editors post them as finished on the drive page - checking to make sure the reviews aren't seriously inadequate, and double-checking what additional points for length might be given, or if you think the review is so good you ought to give it a discretionary bonus point. Since this drive is specifically encouraging collaboration between newbie reviewers and more experienced reviewers, this will be a little (but only a little, I hope) more complicated than usual, since you'll also have to award a point to the assistant reviewer. I anticipate also that there will be more questions than usual and that we may need to assist with matching newbie reviewers with experienced ones.
Also, if you'd like to revise the barnstar awards list, that would be great! I just copied the one from the March backlog drive. But I think it would be nice to tailor it a bit - for example, we could have a barnstar for the editor who assisted with the highest number of reviews, some kind of special "thanks for joining" barnstar for newbies (I think there's a "promising newbie" barnstar somewhere?), or so on. I haven't put any further thought into it than that, so if you want to go ahead and rework the list, it's much appreciated, and all yours! -- asilvering (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Considering that assistant reviewers will get one point per review, I could create a couple of barnstars (e.g. a 5 point one, a 10/12 point one, and the one that reviewed the highest amount of GANs). Or we could only stick with one barnstar for assistant reviewers.
The only barnstar that I could have found similar to "promising newbie" is {{The New Editor's Barnstar}}.
Also, do we want to include qualifying old articles, like for previous GAN backlog drives? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Hm too bad re: promising newbie. Since I imagine most GAN newbies will not actually be new editors. Whatever you find that you like, go for it.
This drive deliberately doesn't have points for reviewing really old articles, to keep the focus on bringing new people into GA reviewing. Earlier, when we discussed having multiple backlog drives as part of the broader discussions about what to do with the backlog, there were concerns about reviewer burn-out or reviewers holding off on doing reviews when there aren't backlog drives (since another one will be around the corner). So the idea is that the January drive is the "main" drive, the mid-year one is focused on recruitment, and the fall one addresses a specific portion of the backlog, to be determined closer to the date, depending on what looks like it needs the most help. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Before uploading anything, I'll send it first on Discord in case of possible corrections . I'll be busy tomorrow so expect barnstars to come during the weekend. Cheers,   Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy to assist as a co-ordinator, but I do have some work travel in July which means I'd have to take on more of a background role - checking a few reviews where I can, not making any big decisions. If that's ok, feel free to add my name! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, are you available to update the progress tracker for this drive? If you are, that would be great! If not, no worries of course. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Ganesha811, thanks for asking. I'm going to be away the first week; though I might be able to log on at night, it won't be as timely as usual. Another difficulty is that I would be required to make the second column the number of old nominations (90 days or more) rather than the number of unreviewed nominations (which we have always done before), per the general RfC that was held earlier in the year, so rather than just taking the number from the Reports page and adjusting back the hour), I'd have to do a more manual calculation. I'm not sure I'll have the time to deal with the extra work involved. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Hm, good point. And since we aren't targetting old noms specifically this time around, maybe we should rethink the progress list, at least for this drive. A running total of reviews opened/ended might be the way to go this time. I'm happy to do that one, since I tend to be around when a new day starts on UTC time. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
asilvering, I'm not sure how that would work with the current {{GAN changes}} template in terms of display. You may need to create your own table. But I would keep the total number of nominations as the first column, since that tracks how many are outstanding at the beginning of the drive, and all the way through to the end. Good luck! I'll sit this one out, then, unless you change your mind on how you want it to work. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Is a reviewer allowed to contribute to an article during the review?

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

While looking at a certain GAN nominee that needs a review (I have not decided yet whether to review it or not), I noticed that some of the statements in the article had dubious sourcing. I was able to find some sources that I felt were more reliable + had valuable information. I also noticed some translation errors; as the original language is a language I speak, I would be able to correct these translations. Would I as a reviewer be allowed to recommend these sources to the nominator + offer translation corrections? I understand that reviewers are not allowed to significantly contribute to the article before review. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jaguarnik, recommending sources is absolutely fine. It is always great when a GA reviewer's suggestions make an article substantially better. A problem only arises when you end up contributing so much to an article that you would have to review your own work; in such cases, best to ask for a second opinion. —Kusma (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
(ec)You can certainly make suggestions to the nominator, and to be honest for minor corrections (punctuation and typos for example) I would recommend making the changes yourself, since it takes longer to type out "you have mispelt 'supersede'" than it does to correct it. However, do be sure you're right when you make such changes. I have frequently made more extensive copy edits than that when I am confident that the nominator won't mind -- e.g. when the author clearly has English as their second language, but the article is well-researched and close to GA standard, I'll do some clean up editing. This is more of a judgement call. For the translation corrections you're suggesting, you might ask the nominator if they would mind if you just did the fixes yourself, in case they disagree with your translation. Few nominators will object. One circumstance in which I will not make changes myself is if the point at issue is something I suspect the nominator is unfamiliar with -- I'd rather they made the fix so they understand the issue. None of the above is required, and many reviewers won't change a single comma on the article they're reviewing, and that's fine too -- it's your call. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Withdraw

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to withdraw Afraid of Tomorrows for GAN consideration. The article will certainly not pass as is, and I'd rather expand it first myself than wait for a review to tell me what I already know. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I see you've deleted the GA nomination template from the talk page; that's all you need to do if the review has not started. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Alright, good to know. Wasn't sure if it would be removed automatically but I see that it has been. Thanks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Category organisation

Latest comment: 4 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Grouping these here, if no further comments or consensus is reached I plan to implement these at the end of the month, before the backlog drive starts. CMD (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Video games

Wikipedia:Good articles/Video games is one of two long lv2 categories with no lv3 split (the other is Lang & Lit), and one that feels it has a very obvious split: between the Video Games (and series) themselves, and everything else (provisionally I propose "Context and content"). Regarding the lower splits, the video games are currently divided into five-year blocks, some of which are getting very large. There's no clean split there, but if there is a desire to maintain the chronological split it could transition into two-year chunks for at least the 21st century, imitating Music. The other large sections is "Video game characters", currently at 200. This seems a simple candidate from pulling out series, with the two obvious candidates being Pokémon (26) and Final Fantasy (at least 34, I think, it's a complicated series). 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC) CMD (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe break out some entire series into their own subcat? Eg you could put all Final Fantasy, Mario, Pokemon, etc grouped together (both games and game-adjacent articles). That seems more helpful to me than these huge by-half-decade chunks. -- asilvering (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Well that would invalidate my lv3 split, but I'm not in opposition. I have pulled out just the characters for now, which can be a start for pulling relevant articles out from the other subsections too. Pokémon is easy enough, the games all include the word Pokémon, Final Fantasy has a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix. CMD (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I would go the other way on this - games should be listed strictly chronologically. Having some sorted by series, and some sorted by chronology, seems strange and "surprising" (in the bad sense) to me. SnowFire (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a better idea for how to separate them? The issue at hand here is that when the categories get super long, they should be subdivided. But the chronology sections are already divided in 5-year blocks. We could make the categories shorter by shortening that to 2-year blocks, I suppose, but I don't think that's likely to be helpful to anyone. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
An alternate lvl3 split could be "by date" and "by series", in that case. I do agree that your originally proposed lvl3 split is better than no lvl3 split at all. -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Rail transport - time for some splitting?

In Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology#Transport, we have 208 articles classified under "rail transport" and a whopping 243 articles under "Rail bridges, tunnels, and stations: United States". I think we should discuss breaking these into subcategories. Some ideas I have for breaking down the general rail transport category are "rail lines", "rail accidents and incidents", "rail companies", and "rapid transit/tram systems". Rail bridges, tunnels, and stations: United States could be divided into rapid transit stations and heavy rail stations, while we could add a "bridges, tunnels, and facilities" section to hold pretty much everything else, including freight facilities (I think the only one is Northup Avenue Yard, my nomination). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Note the general rail transport category is basically an "others" group for all rail-related pages that don't fall within a subcategory. The proposed subcats make sense in the abstract, at a glance I can see a lot of incidents. Unsure if I'd cleanly split rail lines and rail systems, something encompassing systems and lines like it could pick up related articles like Northern line extension to Battersea too? Can't at a glance figure out how many company article there are. Splitting stations from bridges, tunnels, and facilities also sounds sensible, to the point it raises the question of whether to split them entirely rather than just in the United States, but that doesn't mean the smaller action won't work. CMD (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
My thinking was I'd throw out some ideas and we as a community evaluate which make sense. A separate rail accidents and incidents section seems like a no-brainer to me, as does one for bridges, tunnels, and facilities. A lot of the U.S. articles on railroads cover both a company and the line(s) it operated in a single article, making them hard to split between lines vs. companies. We can always make more changes in the future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I've split the facilities etc. from the United States, a heavy/rapid station split will require more time and/or a subject matter expert. I looked at accidents and incidents quickly and only found 9 so left those alone for now. If splitting lines/companies/systems becomes a bit complex, perhaps splitting off just the United States here as well would be helpful. CMD (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Biology and medicine reviews

Latest comment: 4 months ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I was looking over the GAN's in the Biology and medicine category and noticed that 11 of these were started by Wolverine XI, all within the span of five days (June 10th through 15th). I thought to bring this up here because I'm concerned that the quality of these reviews will suffer from the quantity that this user has taken on, which I think is more than evident in the fact that 8 of them haven't even been started yet. Some of these reviews have received no comments for two whole weeks since their inception.

While I commend their ambition, I don't think this practise is conducive to the standard of quality that the Good Article system should uphold. Perhaps something can be done about it? The Morrison Man (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm busy with another project (at the moment). I should have all these articles reviewed by Saturday. After that, I'm retiring from reviewing GANs. Reviews can take some time, so people should be patient. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
If you haven't really gotten started on some of those, you may want to CSD them so that another reviewer can pick them up. You don't need to rush yourself to get through them all this week. You can call this a learning experience and toss some back into the queue. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
It is Saturday (at least where I am): I can see that Wolverine XI has managed to make comments on two of the open reviews, but the remainder appear to be blank. Wolverine XI, I would echo the concerns here that you may have taken on too much here: the reviews you have done (see e.g. Talk:Enchylium polycarpon/GA2) are really a short list of isolated prose and content points rather than full reviews. In particular, we need some evidence of source checking, image review, copyvio checks and so on. In other places, the comments are so brief as to be of little help: writing "please write a proper measurement" against that are 5–7 x 1-1.5 μm doesn't really tell the nominator what is wrong or how to fix it. Similarly, I don't think the review on Talk:Charles De Geer/GA1 really gave the nominator a fair go: the article looks very close to GA standard to me and I would have thought it an excellent candidate to get up to that status in the course of the review.
As the other commenters here have said, reviewing is a learning process and we always have to go through practice to get good at it, but it would be polite to delete those review pages so that others can take them on, or return to them once you have finished your active reviews more fully, if they are still un-taken. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll add that I brought this up on their talk page, and I was not reassured by their response. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Having read it, neither am I honestly. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Since Wolverine XI seems not to understand the issue and is still editing without addressing the concerns here, I suggest the blank reviews be deleted. We may also wish to go over their completed reviews, as the ones they've worked on indicate that they don't totally understand how the review process works. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
You can delete them; I have other projects—both on wiki and in RL—to complete. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 08:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I have tagged the empty ones for deletion. Regarding Talk:Enchylium limosum/GA1, Talk:Katablepharid/GA1, and Talk:Enchylium polycarpon/GA2, Wolverine XI left comments indicating some improvements needed on 15 June which have not been responded to, so my preference is to close those as failed. CMD (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
That seems like a good solution. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
That would seem like the best course of action, yes. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Request Help with Abrupt GA Delist at Florida State University (Main article)

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

We are 3 days within the 7 days to contest an abrupt GA delist, so I am requesting additional editors and assistance today to resolve this delist while I simultaneously try to persuade the delisting editor to reverse their action. Another editor and I were in the middle of an appropriate GAR of the Florida State University main article. The cooperating editor and I were waiting for a subject matter expert to weigh into non-free materials assessment. All other matters were style and minor. A third editor enters and without establishing collaboration or consenus and abrupting delists the article, which has had GA status for years. Kindly help me resolve this matter. Sirberus (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Florida State University, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Florida State University/1. CMD (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The GAR was closed after two weeks of no activity on the reassessment page, and a week of no edits to the article, with copyright issues still unresolved. Closing the reassessment as delist in this situation does not seem problematic to me. That said, the reassessment has now been reopened – is there anything else that needs to be done here? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree—I have left comments at the reassessment, and will close it myself if there aren't arguments against. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Rule of thumb for blank review CSDing

Latest comment: 4 months ago31 comments6 people in discussion

There are some long-outstanding review pages that don't have any real activity on them at all. Normally, another editor will come in and check up on them, and eventually they get CSD'd when there's no response from the reviewer. Here is one where Thebiguglyalien just came through to do just that. But in the interests of not dragging out this procedure unnecessarily, could we perhaps institute a general guideline for when we should simply nominate these for CSD without further discussion? How about one month? To be clear, I'm talking only about reviews that have not been started at all, beyond the usual "I'll take this review" opening comment. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I took a page from BlueMoonset's book (as it's mostly just them doing it) and nudged some of the inactive reviews, but I didn't give more specific instructions specifically because we don't have an agreed upon procedure like this. Anything like this should also apply where the reviewer has set up a template or headings but didn't fill them in with a review. For the ones where there was activity, we might also consider talking about second opinions, because right now the second opinion system is kind of useless. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't mean to imply you'd done anything out of the ordinary, I just grabbed that one as a good example of what I mean by a blank review. I'm just suggesting that we make a guideline to cut down on this extra "are you still here" "[silence]" "nominator, what do you want to do?" in the process. -- asilvering (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I think having a general procedure to point to is a great idea. I'd suggest a week. If you open a review but make no comment in a week, the review can be closed and the nomination returned to the queue. No penalty or particular shame, it's just a politeness to the nominator, so that the nomination has the chance to be picked up by a reviewer who has the time to dedicate to the review at the moment. Ajpolino (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
My initial thought was that a week was much too short, but on reflection, automatically clearing out reviews that are still blank a week after they were opened would probably cut down on the number of reviews that get stretched out over several months. == asilvering (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to recommend deleting without nudging, and also feel a week after opening is a bit short. Reviews can take time, and that time might only be possible on weekends or similar. That said, a week after nudging seems pretty harmless. If there is a consensus that nudging is not required, I would recommend multiple weeks, maybe 3-4, for CSD. There should be no prejudice of course to the same reviewer restarting the review page if they come back to it. CMD (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
What do you think about "nudge at one week, CSD after a week of no response"? -- asilvering (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I suppose I could be convinced so long as the response can just be a brief "I am working on this", although it still feels a short timeframe for a nudge. As a general thought, the same principles being discussed here should not only apply to empty reviews but to partial ones, just with a different resulting process (CSD for empty, archiving and resetting for partial except in the few circumstances 2O may be useful). CMD (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Hm, I deliberately restricted this thought to blank reviews only, since I think partial reviews should be handled on a more case-by-case basis. There are lots of reasons why a review might have stalled out. Reviews that are simply blank, however, are all basically the same "case". -- asilvering (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was thinking of past nudging of months-old reviews, but appreciate the value of maintaining a narrow proposal here. CMD (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I like the idea of applying this to stalled reviews of any stripe (of course, as CMD said, we would archive rather than delete stalled partial reviews). The reviewer could always start the review again at any time. No one is being penalized. Asilvering's suggestion of one week til nudge, another week til close, sounds good to me. If the reviewer responds in any way that would reset the clock. The idea is just to return nominations to the queue if the reviewer truly doesn't have time to complete the review. Ajpolino (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Is there anything the bot could do that would help? E.g. a "stalled review" section at the end of the GAN page, listing open reviews with no edits for more than N days? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that would be excellent. In a perfect world, I assume we would want a blank review that gets removed (possibly even an incomplete "stalled review"?) to also be removed from the bot's count of an editor's GA reviews. Not a huge deal either way, of course. Ajpolino (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
If a review is deleted and another review is later done with the same page number, the prior review is no longer included in an editor's GA review count, though if the later review never happens the earlier one won't get removed from the stats. If the review is just marked as failed and the page number is incremented, the reviewer does get credit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, no edits for more than n days would be helpful. If it could check "no edits to article OR to GA review page" that would probably be the most helpful way to list them. N = 7? No one's suggested a time shorter than 7 days for any of the hypotheticals we've been discussing. -- asilvering (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll have a look at this some time this weekend if I get time. I think what you're asking for should be possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Thinking about this some more, I'd like to get agreement on exactly what we'd want to see in a section called "Stalled reviews". Suppose the reviewer opens the review by posting a full review with their first edit -- that's not a stalled review, so is there a way to avoid including those? Some reviewers post an empty reviewing template as their first review; if they never edit it again that counts as stalled, but how could the bot tell those apart? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Aren't they both "stalled" if there's no motion after n days? -- asilvering (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but I think an automatic list is only going to be helpful if the entries mean that someone needs to look at the review. If the review were to be deleted, it would disappear from the list, but if the list includes reviews that aren't blank and aren't going to be deleted then it won't be possible to tell if someone has already taken action. I could remove anything from the list if someone else posts to that page -- i.e. someone not the nominator or reviewer. Would that work? CMD, any thoughts? Since you were dubious below about the process to deal with non-blank stalled reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
My first idea for the bot would be to place a talkpage reminders for reviews which were opened but have had no edits since. This would miss say a review where someone writes "Will get to this soon" and doesn't, but on the other hand it would have no false positives. I would not put a section on the GAN page itself, that feels a very public sort of reprimand. We already have Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report, which gives an indicator of what is stalled even if it doesn't state the time of last edit. CMD (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think we should have automated talk page reminders for this! I thought we were talking about a line on the Report page you mention here. Reading back up, I see I misunderstood Mike Christie's initial comment, where he said "at the end of the GAN page". I don't think that's a good idea either - I was thinking about the Report page. -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Actually I did mean on the main GAN page, in a section at the end, but if it would be perceived as a reprimand I agree that might be a bad idea. The way the FAC nominations viewer does it is to have "Inactive for N days/weeks" after each entry. Something like that might be possible; it doesn't single anyone out. That would not be easy to convert into "I need to go look at this particular review", though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I do think it could be perceived as a reprimand. The Report page, less so, I think, since barely anyone uses it. I've gone through the longest-running open reviews before both this backlog drive and the last one, and found in most of the cases that no other uninvolved editor had popped in to check on the reviews. For that reason, I don't think it would lead to significantly more people being hassled if there was a "no edits for n days" listing on the report page. I do think that having that list on the report page would allow stalled reviews to be noticed much earlier than they are now, which seems to be a timeframe of at least a couple of months. -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the speedy deletion of incomplete reviews is rather controversial whenever it gets brought up at MfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Sure. No need to CSD incomplete "stalled" reviews. They can just be closed and the nom returned to the queue. The same could be said of blank reviews of course. I don't have a strong preference on CSD vs. close-and-ignore for truly blank review pages. Ajpolino (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, no intention of applying a CSD rule-of-thumb to incompletes, just the ones with no review whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I was referring to @Ajpolino and Asilvering: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Blackpink/GA1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not talking about this kind of review. That's a complete review. It's a poor one, but it's complete, not blank. -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The current Talk:Blackpink/GA1 was not the one that was the subject of a MfD, the MfD was about the previous version which was essentially blank. That said, it was an MfD complicated by a new user engaging in procedurally questionable actions rather that added to the page history, so that particular case is an outlier. (The current Talk:Blackpink/GA1, being as you note poor but not empty, was invalidated and the counter incremented.) CMD (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I and the MfD were discussing the original review which was deleted Asilvering. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I suppose my confusion here is an argument in favour of not CSDing these pages... but I do strongly agree with you and jpxg in that discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing new nominators

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

We've had multiple discussions about whether nominations from editors with no GAs deserve to be reviewed earlier than other nominations, but I'd like to make a different case: reviewing nominations from these editors as soon as possible is beneficial for GAN.

I've done a lot of first-time-nominator reviewing, and my observations would include:

  • They are more likely to fail
  • They are more likely to be ill-prepared
  • The nominators are usually (but not always) enthusiastic about the process and keen to fix any issues
  • They also, more often than not, are clearly delighted by success in a way that those of us jaded by ten or more GAs have probably forgotten.

The two most important observations, though, are:

  • The first review is a great way to show them how a review should be done -- detailed spotchecks, verification of sources, no complaining about aspects of the MoS that aren't part of GACR, and -- a key point -- how communication works between the nominator and the reviewer.
  • The first promotion is the perfect time to encourage them to review. They've seen how reviews work, and they're successful so their skill is validated. If they've already done a review, I sometimes post a note on their talk page after promotion telling them that that's why I picked their GA to review, and saying we always need reviewers.

I think first-time nominators are the pool from which we should be hoping to draw the innumerable reviewers we need to keep GAN going. If you review first-time nominators, you will see more than your share of editors who (currently) lack the skills to put a GA-quality article together, but you'll also be helping to attract new reviewers, more effectively than any other method I can think of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

well-said :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
indeed! -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Whoops

Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
  Moved from Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2024 § Whoops

Hi. I did my first review and closed it as passed without realizing that I needed an experienced reviewer to check it. So, could anyone take a look? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  • User:CanonNi, I didn't know you had to get this checked. I looked over the review and it seems like you addressed all the salient points, and it looks like you took it seriously. I glanced over the article, and the parts I looked at had no obvious prose problems, they had secondary citations, etc. So at least at a cursory glance I don't see any trouble. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Questionable reviews

Latest comment: 4 months ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Please see User_talk:TheNuggeteer#GA_on_Philippines_at_the_1924_Summer_Olympics, and also Talk:Jorge Choquetarqui, where I followed a suggestion by User:750h+ and undid the status change. Wait--I see this is part of a contest. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I've commented at the GA review; I think it needs to be speedy deleted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Also Talk:Giado concentration camp, where the editor didn't know what blockquotes were. Drmies (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    It is worth noting that these reviews are ineligible under the contest, which has specific recommendations for review length. I have dropped a note to the coordinators about making it more explicit. CMD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Talk:Giado concentration camp/GA1 doesn't hint to me that the so-called reviewer checked that any of the citations are of texts that actually say what they're presented as saying. Come to think of it, I don't see any evidence that the reviewer even read the article, let alone read a sample of what it appears to be based on. If I were the nominator, I'd take this "review" as an insult. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    I was very surprised at the speed and commentlessness of my two GA passes—I assumed it was an experienced editor, but the blockquote thing should have tipped me off. Let’s be light on this editor, whose profile indicates he is gen alpha, so around 14 years old at most. It’s easy to misunderstand how involved a GAR is supposed to be, for those who aren’t familiar. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    Age discrimination is not a helpful rectifying action here. We are meant to be non-bitey to all editors. CMD (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    I'm all for sweetness to every soul. Just, a 38 year-old might take his mess-up being discussed in a certain way very differently from a 14 year-old. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    I repeat my comment about pre-emptive discrimination. CMD (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    I breakdance beautifully before you and we shake hands? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I've tagged the remaining reviews (Sikidy, Giado concentration camp, and Jorge Choquetarqui) for CSD and restored their nominations on their respective talk pages. I'm not sure what if anything needs to be done with the transcluded reviews or the good article topicons, so I haven't touched them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the topicons should go; not sure about the transclusions ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is List of Smallville characters a GA?

Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Shouldn't it be a Featured list? I think it's still good shape-wise; I don't keep up with this show, so I don't know if it's up-to-date. Spinixster (trout me!) 10:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The article seems to have been named "Characters of Smallville" when it was originally a GAN, which was fine then, but it later got moved in a RM to the current title. It should likely be either removed as a GA (as an ineligible list) or assessed for FL status. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
While it has been renamed to a 'list of' format, it is absolutely not a list article. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, comparing it to a similar Featured List article, say, List of The Mandalorian characters or List of Millennium characters, it's quite similar. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Off-topic, but boy does that Mando list badly need a revamp. The minor characters section is almost entirely unsourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about a review: Taj Mahal

Latest comment: 4 months ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Hi! I want to bring to notice that the review done for Taj Mahal seems to be done by a reviewer in a haste with the review not done as per all the GA criteria.

Background: The article was a GA for many years (2006-2021) and it was de-listed. The article has gone through multiple reviews (eight GA/FA/peer reviews/reassessments to be precise), with three previous assessments retaining it as a GA. The concerns raised in the previous review where it was de-listed (gallery, citation tags, expansion of certain sections), have been fairly addressed. The article is fairly expansive, was a GA and has gone through improvements to address the issues.

In the current review, the reviewer seems to have taken up a few random citations and has found contentious reasons (e.g. "It is not available in Google Books", "it is rather vague", "Author's meaning is different") for discrediting them, quickly failing the GA on the same. Ironically, some of these sources discredited are reliable, verifiable, and have been there for years through all these reviews.

As an editor, I would have been happy to provide clarifications if this was discussed and would work on improving the article if constructive comments have been provided. As comments provided previously have been addressed adequately, the current review adds little value as to what needs to be done. Would request clarity on the below points:

Book citations have been rejected simply because it is not accessible on Google Books or it requires paid access. As per WP:CITEHOW and WP:RS, onus is on providing the required details and not that the book should be available for free or in Google books, I presume. This is of concern as majority sources quoted here are journal sources with paid access and books. There has been no concern raised on this over the years through multiple assessments as well. I request for clarity on verifiability of books not accessible through Google Books and paid journals with respect to the GA.

While there are quick criteria for the failure of GA, in my opinion, the review has not done justice to the article and certainly is not a case for quick failure. Would request further comments or second opinion on this as to how to proceed. Thanks!

Tagging co-nominators as well: The Herald and DreamRimmer.

Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

As co nominator, I agree with MM. The review seemed to have been done hastily for a former GA and former FAC. Also, it would be better for an experienced GA reviewer to take up an article like Taj. It is definitely not in a quick fail criteria and can always be improved upon. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I gave a full reply on the review, but to me this is overstating the prominence of "inability to access sources" in the review, and it doesn't mention some fundamental issues with OR and failed verification. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien To me, your revert seem to be only justifying what has been done and does nothing to address any of the concerns. Please let me be clear here. The intention is to productively work on the comments/issues, so that it can be addressed and I do not want to simply waste our times in engaging in a fruitless dispute just for the sake of it with no real clarity at the end as to what to do. Whether it is a GA fail or a pass, a GA review should be fair enough to do justice to the editor(s), who put in effort and nominate the article. I will state in certain terms that this review at best throws some clarity requirements for a few statements and does not provide much to help in improving the article further.
Your comments also conveniently fail to sufficiently address any of the questions or clarifications raised here. So it would be helpful if these are addressed point by point. I am repeating this, as this was the whole pointing of raising this here as this would again help in getting clarity on these issues, so that they can be worked upon.
1. It has not addressed the basic question of why book/journal sources were simply considered not verifiable because somebody was not able to access it. Shouldn't a clarification be sought from the editor in the first place? Are book sources not available in Google Books prohibited as per WP:RS? Does the GA criteria say that if the source is not available in Google Books or requires a subscription, it has to be considered unverifiable and quick failed?
2. There was no comprehensive review on all the criteria. The page has gone through iterations and if it is quick failed with few suspect comments (which in my opinion is nowhere close to the criteria for quick fail), another reviewer might do the same for another paragraph and GA reviews will roll on forever. Unless there is a comprehensive review with comments and some kind of consistency, I do not see a point of having a GA framework.
3. In my opinion, for vague or rather unclear statements, an editor's response has to be sought. It might at best be a minor edit if there is a disagreement and the entire statement does not certainly become unverifiable because the interpretation of particular word(s) were different (your answer to one of these issues seem to be suggesting exact copyvio from the source).
As a last request, let me know from your experience as to what should be done as an editor here based on the comments, so that I will proceed accordingly with the page concerned.
Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
1. Books and journals do not have to be accessible to the reviewer as you state (although the nominator should be familiar with them).
2. There does not have to be a comprehensive review of all criteria if there are sufficient issues identified for any one part. It is not expected that as part of the process significant issues will be found and given time to be addressed, articles should be as ready as possible before nomination.
3. I am not sure what this is asking, but disagreements can be handled by discussion.
What should be done as an editor is to edit the article in question and ensure the sources back up the information they are citing. From the examples provided, there are improvements that can be made in this regard. CMD (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Or, if you think there are no improvements that can be made, you can simply renominate the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, as reviewer I've provided answers to the points raised by Magentic Manifestations at Talk:Taj Mahal/GA1#Response to Magentic Manifestations. I stand by my decision to quick-fail the article because the sample of six spot-checks clearly indicate the failure of citations to directly support material, as required by WP:V. I therefore consider the article to be, per WP:GAFAIL, a long way from meeting the requirements of criteria#2, which includes WP:V. The spot-checks have also revealed breaches of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Happy to discuss further. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@CMD, Thanks for giving clarity on the points. I do agree that there are clarifications needed + improvements that can be made and I am happy to do it. My whole point was that this could have been resolved through a simple discussion if the reviewer was willing to do it in the first place and it certainly did not satisfy the criteria for a quick fail (hence my request for a comprehensive review!).

@AirshipJungleman29, I will sort these out and re-nominate it for a proper review.

  The user PearlyGigs is engaging in unnecessary and irrelevant discussions/mudslinging on the GA page, bringing out my past reviews/edits. This does not reek of someone who wants to engage on a constructive conversation.

@PearlyGigs A discussion is what you ought to have done before. Request you to stop engaging in discussion not related to the subject at hand and not to go on a WP:Witch hunt, which is against the basic rule of civility. Keep the discussion to the relevant subject at hand. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Magentic Manifestations, I had walked away from this to concentrate on Leon Leuty (GAN backlog) and Charles the Bold (GOCE backlog). How you are handling a current GA review is entirely relevant to your criticisms of myself and Thebiguglyalien in respect of WP:GAFAIL and the way to use verification spot-checks, because it underlines your evident misunderstanding of the approved process.
As for "mudslinging", I think accusing me of feigning ignorance and suggesting that Thebiguglyalien endorses COPYVIO would qualify for that. Your being the victim of a witch hunt is rather an exaggeration considering that I have merely explained, albeit at length, my rationale for the GAFAIL, which includes noting that your objections indicate a failure to understand and comply with WP:GAN/I#R3. Your approach to the Ken Anderson review seems to confirm this and I think it is a learning point for you. I am not interested in any of your "past reviews/edits". Ken Anderson is a current review, now on hold, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to pass it without getting confirmation that an offline source in your spot-check sample directly supports its material?
Perhaps, as you are obviously so offended by the failure of the Taj Mahal review and so certain that I am entirely in the wrong, you should take your issues to WP:ANI? I will be happy to discuss the matter there if you are not prepared to WP:JUSTDROPIT. PearlyGigs (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@PearlyGigs How I handle my GA reviews is irrelevant to the GA review of the page discussed here. If there is an issue with such specific review, the respective nominator can address that and you are neither his/her voice nor the ultimate judge of things here. FYI, I have not failed the article for GA with dubious reasons for the sake of not spending enough time.
As for you cannot provide relevant reasons for the questions raised, you seem to be hell bent on dragging things irrelevant to the GA process at hand and proving that I am right. You seem to be offended as the issue was brought here and have added a larger retort bringing in a whole plethora of unnecessary jargon. As clarified by CMD here, try and understand the how the citations work and engage in a proper discussion next time, which could solve most of the issues and save time for everyone. Also, as two users have pointed out in the review page, try and familiarize yourself with the GA process by taking shorter, less traffic articles next time.
I have as such mentioned that the discussion on that particular GA is going nowhere and has dropped it. So please stay within the ambit of what is discussed and stay out of other discussions in which I am involved unless you have a due cause/constructive contribution or this is definitely going to go to ANI. Ciao! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:DISENGAGE is one of the site's wiser policies. If anyone who reads this discussion should wish to ask me anything, or offer any useful advice, please go to my talk page. Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

2023 nominations

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We're now half way through the year 2024, but there are still over a dozen nominations from 2023 that never got reviewed. If you're not sure what to work on, consider reviewing one of these:

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Assist

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I went and did a part of a GA assessment of Aoi Koga earlier today, can someone used to the GA process check if it is good? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@AlphaBetaGamma, you can list this on the backlog drive page as well, to increase the likelihood someone picks it up soon. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Correction

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The original review for 2022 City of Edinburgh Council election was messed up by a now blocked editor. The nomination was passed earlier today but, when updating this page, the bot hasn't recorded it as my 12th GA. Is there a way to correct that? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The GA numbers are usually updated overnight, but there have been a couple of discrepancies recently so I just ran the update manually. The database now shows it as a pass, so the next time the GAN page updates your numbers should be up to date. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Godzilla Minus One/GA1

Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

@Broc and Eiga-Kevin2: Hi, I was about to nominate this newly-promoted GA for WP:DYK and found an interesting factoid in the Critical response subsection, until I spotted close paraphrasing on a few texts in that section:

Article Source
Tokyo-based film critic and journalist Mark Schilling wrote that Japanese critics frequently rebuke the films of writer-director Takashi Yamazaki, partly because "most are left-leaning" and view a few of his films, most notably the war drama The Eternal Zero (2013), as "nationalistic if not outright jingoistic". Schilling also mentioned that critic and historian Inuhiko Yomota was critical of Godzilla Minus One, calling it "dangerous". Japanese critics, though, have long been hard on Yamazaki, one reason being that most are left-leaning and they see some of his films, especially his 2013 action drama “The Eternal Zero,” about WWII tokkōtai (kamikaze) pilots and based on a novel by rightist author Naoki Hyakuta, as nationalistic if not outright jingoistic.

Even “Godzilla Minus One,” in which a plucky band of civilians, including a disgraced former tokkōtai pilot, band together to save Japan from Godzilla, was called a “dangerous movie” by essayist and film historian Inuhiko Yomota in a Facebook post.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, American critics praised its drama, low-budgeted visual effects, and usage of kaiju as a metaphor for social commentary, with many favoring it over recent Hollywood productions. U.S. critics have unanimously praised the film for the remarkable visual mileage Yamazaki got out of the project’s relatively small budget, as well as the story’s moving human drama and canonical use of the kaiju as a metaphor for social critique. [...] Godzilla Minus One seems to be earning especially favorable comparisons to Hollywood’s recent output of franchise sequels —
According to Dana Stevens, Ryunosuke Kamiki's performance is memorable because of his ability to convey the protagonist's vulnerability and emotional distress. Kamiki’s anguished, vulnerable performance is one crucial part of what makes this protagonist so memorable,

Broc, were you able to examine thoroughly the prose for close paraphrasing issues? Because there could be more in this section and elsewhere. The examples above are just from English-language sources, I think the Japanese ones should be examined further. If it turned out that the article contains even more CLOP issues, then it may need to undergo a GA reassessment. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy thanks for pointing it out. I did run Earwig while doing the GA review and did not find major copyvio issues.
Regarding the close paraphrasing you pointed out here:
For the first sentence, I don't see the substantial similarity between the left and right column. The article uses direct quotes when needed and provides attribution to the author in-text.
The other two sentences also provide clear attribution, in-text ("according to...") and with an in-line reference. However, I agree that they look rather similar to the original and could use direct quotes instead.
Per WP:CLOP, Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism however, in all three cases you raised there is clear in-text attribution. If these are the only copyright issues, I don't see the need for GA reassessment. Broc (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Broc: Ah, okay. I thought the texts and those of the sources looked nearly identical in structure and flow; missed that one CLOP policy. And I assume you checked the Japanese sources as well? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy all I did was reading the policy, don't consider me a copyright expert. If you think the issue needs expert judgment, please raise it at WP:CP.
I did check a few Japanese sources as spot check; however, I don't speak Japanese myself, and the machine translation is often unreliable. Broc (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
OK thanks. I apologize for this inconvenience. I think that'll be all. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk on chat board about quick passes by relatively new editor

Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

There is an ongoing chat about a few GA reviews that basic contain no recommendations for improvements....quick flyby passes if you will. I thought I would bring this up in a neutral manor focused on content before someone else does so in a more aggressive tone towards this good faith editor. The tone in the chat is very aggressive as if there's something else going on. @PearlyGigs:

Both the examples below do not seem egregious in passing of in my view....as in nothing outrageous outstanding.

Moxy🍁 01:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Moxy. Thanks for the ping. I'm not sure what you mean by a chat board, unless it's the Taj Mahal topic above. I'm happy to have any of my reviews reconsidered as long as the feedback is constructive. Thanks again. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
PearlyGigs, these reviews are shorter than we tend to see, hence why they may appear to be flyby passes, although they are not a checklist so they clear that bar. One issue in both is that a reviewer should not just say "no evidence of original research or copyright issues", they are required to specific what sources were spotchecked to determine this. One mentions that most sources were inaccessible, which is fine, but it does imply there were one or two which could be checked. CMD (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, CMD. In the first four reviews I did, including Meligalas and Talbot, I wasn't sure about how to report the findings and I followed what I saw in other reviews. I did check some citations at the time but didn't record them because other people don't. After Mike did the Norman Hunter review for me, however, I realised that the spot-checks need to be itemised and I've been doing that since. In fact, I've just completed the sample at Talk:Suleiman of Germiyan/GA1. Hope this is okay. Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Spot checks are relatively new compared to other requirements, and so are still sometimes forgotten. That example is great, but note the spotchecks are also to check for plagiarism in addition to verification. CMD (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
That's right, but plagiarism stands out. Verification is not always so easy to determine. PearlyGigs (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

New editor GAN

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Kzyx is a relatively new editor and hasn't been editing since 24 June. The page itself isn't yet at GA standards. What shall I do with the review? (Talk:Fu Wuji/GA1) 141Pr -\contribs/- 20:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Fail it if you don't feel the article doesn't meet the criteria and there is no improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Another fun quickpass

Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I noticed that Breonna Taylor just got nominated for GA and then quickpassed. Both users here are relatively new editors; those being Nickscoby, the nominator, and DeadlyRampage26, the reviewer.

Obviously, we need more GANs and GANs reviewers and I'm happy when new people get into it - but there's certain articles that need more care with the review, especially for controversial or complex subjects; and we need very experienced reviewers for a nominator's first time approaching a GA and vice versa. There is, notably, no evidence that there was a source spot check of any sort performed.

The article is certainly in a good shape for a topic like this, but I feel like this is one really need experienced folks to peer over before we can count this as a proper GA. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I posted at DR26's user talk page. I agree the review had some problems, as does the article (at which I'm involved, btw). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I'm happy to address problems that you see with the article. Thanks. Nickscoby (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Talk:Breonna Taylor/GA1, no OR/copyvio source checks. (I am surprised this is a separate article, but that is not a GA issue.) CMD (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh OK I understand. I am new to this and was matching what I saw with the criteria but I think that if you think a more in depth review is required that does make sense DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi DeadlyRampage26, thanks for your review. I actually appreciated how you went through each criteria, the issue here is more interpretation than depth. On the source issue mentioned on your talkpage, there are a number of unsourced areas in the body (ie. not the WP:LEAD), which we would generally pick up. Regarding what I mentioned above, GACR2 cannot be met without seeing if the sources do actually support the article and there isn't any copying. Now, it is definitely not necessary to go through and check every source, but reviewers should spot check a few to make sure. For example, the first sentence of Adult life is "In 2011, Taylor attended the University of Kentucky (Lexington) as a first-generation college student and returned to Louisville after one year", supported by this source. That source does support attendance at the University of Kentucky in 2011, but does not seem to support the claim of being a first-generation student or a return to Louisville. CMD (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article review circles

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Good article review circles is still promising, but I notice that its coordinator User:GMH Melbourne has been less active lately. If I can make a suggestion, we should probably add one or two more coordinators, and then maybe add a link to it somewhere so people familiar with both nominating and reviewing can find it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I had been thinking about opening a discussion here as well. I think the process has gotten off to a great start: 12 nominees received reviews in the past month as part of the three "test runs". I support integrating it into the wider GAN process and adding links to it where relevant. As for additional coordinators, PCN02WPS has shown some interest on the talk page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd also support integration into the GAN process as a whole. I'm happy to hop on as another coordinator to help ease things along if people are good with that. Might go ahead and start up another circle soon to keep the number of waiting articles on the lower side. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
PCN02WPS you have my endorsement at least to boldly add yourself to the coordinators list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Checking review (2)

Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Can someone check another review for 2022 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar election, any help will be appreciated! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Important note TheNuggeteer, the WP:LEAD does not need its own sources. What is important for the lead is that it is a summary of the body (ie. not have anything significant that isn't in the body), the citations should appear in the body for said information. CMD (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Removed the 'lead' part, thank you for your response! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@TheNuggeteer, that's two unnecessary fails you've done now in short order. Quickfails are really intended for articles that are badly beneath the GACR, not just articles that are merely imperfect. Significantly, articles are not expected to be comprehensive at the GA level, just "broad". You defend your fail of the above article by arguing that it's missing a section on campaigning, but it's not required to have this section (and doubly so if the sourcing doesn't support having such a section). I would recommend holding off and waiting for responses rather than failing nominations so quickly in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't get why you're treating GA reviewing as if you're grinding a video game, TheNuggeteer. In the past day, you have started three GA reviews and taken a pretty slapdash approach to completing them. Perhaps you have not read the reviewing instructions? If you have, I would recommend rereading WP:GAN/I#R3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Checking review

Latest comment: 4 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone check my review for Communism in the Philippines, any help will be appreciated! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

TheNuggeteer This is a pretty good review, but I think you didn't need to fail it; unless it'd be require a complete rewrite of the article or something very difficult to reasonably do in a few days, it's best to put it on hold and then fail it after 7 days if the changes haven't been made. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, I fixed the problem. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi TheNuggeteer, just as a note that you may want to refer to sources with something a bit easier to identify than "Source NUMBER", as a slight copyediting of the article or the addition or removal of sources will throw that right off. Alternatively, you can add a specific article version ID to the review so that the numbers will all be the same. On images, do check the licences. (It appears all four are public domain in this case.) Best, CMD (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both Generalissima and Chipmunkdavis for your response, CMD, I have added a note stating the revision. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I saw that the nomination was a drive-by one, with FloridaMan21 adding a little, what should I do in this case? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Nothing really in this case. Drive by nominations are not necessairly a bad thing if the reviewer is familiar with the sourcing - the problem is, they usually aren't. 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar election/GA1

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would appreciate guidance about this review. I'm happy to re-nominate, I'm just unsure of the correct way forward. I've sorted most of the comments that I can but there were a few things that I disagreed with and would have preferred the opportunity to respond rather than having it failed. I have left comments on the review page about the points raised. Tagging the review so they are aware (TheNuggeteer). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

If they're not willing to reopen it then you just resubmit as soon as you're ready. Noted your comments on the review page. It certainly looks surprising that they went for a fail given the modest issues found, but that's basically water under the bridge now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
No worries, I shall renominate. Thanks for your help. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI regarding good article reassessment

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
AN/I closed, civility block CMD (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

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

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent incivility by EEng about disruption in a good article reassessment which may be of interest to those with experience at GAR. Pinging @GAR coordinators: Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Or, for a direct link, the assessment itself is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/2. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2024 (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.

Question about inactive reviewers

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone. On 10 June 2024, a GAN review for Cécile Fatiman was opened by Caeciliusinhorto. Two weeks after the initial comments were left, the reviewer informed me that they'd been delayed by real life stuff. They again left some comments on 9 July 2024, but have been entirely inactive since then. This review has been left open for over a month and a half now, and I don't see the end in site. Is there anything I can do about this other than wait for their return? I'm anxious to see the process for this article through to completion. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Two weeks of inactivity isn't terribly long when real life hits, so mostly you should just wait a bit longer. You could send a ping and/or talk page message to remind the reviewer that this GA review is almost completed and just needs final checks; some people do take note of pings or messages even if they do not edit. WP:TIND. —Kusma (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on review

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Looking for some feedback on the recent review I completed of MidCity SmashedBurger before I start another GA review. I am quite nervous I am going beyond the scope of GA, and would appreciate some line drawing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The criteria say The six good article criteria are the only aspects that should be considered when assessing whether to pass or fail a GAN. Other comments designed to improve the article are encouraged during the review process but should not be mandated as part of the assessment. In other words, it's fine and encouraged to pick up on whatever points of improvement you can during the review -- technically speaking, for example, spelling, grammar full MoS compliance and factual accuracy are not strictly part of the criteria, but it would be a very strange idea to consciously pass over mistakes in those if you spot them. Reviewers often preface non-criteria comments with "advisory" or something similar. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Spelling and grammar are part of WP:GACR 1a: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct, so that's not the best example. There are however indeed many things that are not part of the criteria that can nevertheless make a big difference in terms of article quality. TompaDompa (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, fair point -- amended, more strictly, to full MoS compliance, which is probably the most common and important case study here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Thankyou. Feel like I'm slowly realising what's in scope, and this stuff helps. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

How do deal with a name change with an unstarted GAN

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, I've recently completed a WP:RENAME and I want to update my nomination template on Talk:Parental rights movement without breaking anything on the back end, so I thought I would check here first. Am I good to go ahead and replace the |nominator= section on the talk page or are there other considerations first? I understand the database is maintained by a bot, so I wanted to check first, or to see if there was something I would need to so as to not miss anything. Thanks, and apologies for any inconvenience, this is my first GAN. — Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You can just change the signature in the template on the article talk page. Anything that contains a link to your user page or user talk page will work; I've just made the change for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you kindly! Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

What should I do if the nominator of an WP:GAN is not the top contributor of the article?

I'm talking about the case with Frieren as I check with Page history tool that User:KjjjKjjj is the 46th in terms of Authorship as the instruction of the nomination is Nominators must have contributed significantly to the article and be familiar with its subject and cited sources

Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Simply remove the nomination template as a driveby nomination if there's no other note about the lack of authorship. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah Okay thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Miminity, it isn't required that the nominator be the top contributor, but a significant contributor. While 46th is unlikely to be significant, if you check the "note" field, this is a co-nomination with User:Xexerss, who is clearly a significant contributor, so the nomination is valid with Xexerss on board. I see that the nomination was removed and subsequently restored, given that Xexerss is co-nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh after I leave a note on his talk page that I removed his GA nomination (as before there is no note as I suspect a driveby nomnation). He/she told me that he/she has a consent with Xexerss and I said to him to put "Co-nominaton with User:Xexerss" on the note field. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Controversial quickfail on Arleta Library Bakery & Cafe

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Earlier today I quickfailed the page Arleta Library Bakery & Cafe. I did this as I believe the article requires a significant rewrite to meet the GA criteria. It looked like this at the time of review. The co-nominators strongly disagree with the quickfail and many of the comments I made in the review, and after this discussion they renominated the article. They noted some criticisms of how I went about the quickfail here. I am avoiding closing any nominations until I receive feedback to avoid reproducing possible issues. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Good quickfail, imo. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Pinging TrademarkedTWOrantula and Another_Believer Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
GA reviews are "cheap" -- there's nothing stopping the nominators from re-nominating it immediately, unlike at FAC. I've been on the wrong side of this as a reviewer before, but in general I try not to fail an article without giving the nominator a chance to respond unless there are serious issues that will take an undue amount of work on the reviewer's part to establish when they are addressed: for example, where there are large-scale copyvio problems, or where enough concerns came up on the sourcing that it would need a more thorough check than is reasonable at GAN to establish that things were sorted out. Other reasons under the quickfail criteria are that the article has unaddressed cleanup banners, ongoing edit wars, or outstanding issues from a previous review. In other cases, generally, it's a good idea to give the nominator(s) the chance to reply and make changes.
It does seem like most of the matters of contention in this review were about what counts as notable or important: that's not as clear-cut as (for example) the article containing missed citations, unreliable sources or policy violations, and so would generally be the sort of thing where a bit of discussion is helpful. The quickfail criteria don't advise an immediate failure simply for not meeting the criteria unless it's a long way away from doing so; in future, it might be helpful to explicitly tie the judgement into the criteria (here, I think the issue was mostly 3b), and to be clear why you think, as the quickfail criteria say, it's not reasonably possible to fix the issues in a sensible span of time. However, ultimately it's your decision when you're the reviewer -- as we've seen here, if the nominator(s) disagree, there's no problem with putting the article up again and seeing what happens with a second opinion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I am also of the opinion that this quickfail was appropriate and within reasonable reviewer discretion, though another reviewer may not have chosen to quickfail. Reviewer time is precious and we should not be expecting reviewers to go above and beyond to salvage articles that are simply not ready. This reads like an advertisement. Honestly, the article doesn't even make any real claim to notability for this restaurant and I'm not sure why it has an article when it needs to clear the higher bar of WP:NCORP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I've read on occasion that notability isn't a requirement under the GA criteria. That doesn't excuse being written like an advertisement with poor-quality sources, though, which often precludes our ability to determine notability... Reconrabbit 13:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Biography GA placed without subtopic

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I recently passed Reed Timmer as a GA, but since there are no other meteorological biography articles (see category), I didn't know where to put it. Should a new subcategory be created for this or is it okay to leave it in the main meteorology section? Reconrabbit 12:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It's okay to leave it in the main section, unless you feel he fits in weather forecasting. CMD (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. @Tails Wx would probably know better than I if he fits there. Reconrabbit 13:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Yep, that’s alright with me. I can’t really think of a better sub-section in the Natural Sciences category for Timmer’s article to fit in, so that’ll be fine! ~ Tails Wx 14:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The nomination of The arts

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

At under 3000 words of prose, this article would be very short for a vital 1 GA. I think this article could stand to see some expansion before being up for GAN. I'd rather not take on a review of this importance personally, this is just my opinion, wanted to attract interested editors. ForksForks (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts. I was also concerned that most of the article was a merely a list of "arts", rather than a discussion of the concept, and opened a discussion as to whether to keep it as vital 1. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
For future reference, it's nice to bring this up at the nominator's talk page first instead of coming to a more public noticeboard for these kinds of discussions. Pinging nominator 48JCL in any case. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, several people have tried to have discussions on this user's talk page about their other activities at GA to no avail, including myself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
It's easy for me to miss norms like this, so thank you. I see people kind of get "dragged" to WT:GAN occasionally, so I figured mentioning it without naming anyone would be more neutral -- but I can see why that could be seen another way. ForksForks (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Quick etiquette question before starting

Latest comment: 3 months ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I have an etiquette question before I decide start working on anything. Is it okay to essentially rewrite a low-traffic Start-class article from scratch if I want to try to get to up to GA? Or do I need to try to keep the original content/format in some way? I know I could also try asking on the talk-page, but the articles I was thinking about (RecA and LexA repressor, they kinda go together) have <30 watchers, so I don't think I'd get many replies (also hoping to get a rule of thumb for the future). I don't want to step on anyone's toes though, so if it's frowned upon to change too much without discussion I can just keep an eye out for a stub that interests me instead. (also please let me know if I should move this to a different noticeboard, I just figured more people here would have experience with what's considered rude in terms of GA-rewrites) CambrianCrab (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It's okay to WP:BE BOLD on most articles. If a dispute arises then move to the talkpage, and it can also help to post on the talkpage beforehand, but there's nothing to stop you editing now. There is also no need to retain the original content/format, although obviously it would be a shame to lose good sources if they are useful. I would recommend using edit summaries so the <30 watchers don't see a random large unexplained edits. Best, CMD (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree with all of that, and would add that any article is fair game for GAN or FAC so long as you communicate on the talk page, and if necessary make sure that the main contributors are aware of your plans. As well as avoiding conflicts that may lead to you finding someone to work with on the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense, thank you both! I think I'll post a notice of some sort on the talk pages before I start implementing anything (and use edit summaries when I actually due implement ofc). It'll probably be a while before I start on anything, I just wanted to double check that there weren't any unspoken rules I didn't know about before I started making any plans CambrianCrab (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
It's always worth checking the page history in these cases, to see if the main contributors are still active. Often, they aren't, or they were IPs, so there's no real point in waiting or notifying anyone. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh that's good to know. Do you know of a good rule of thumb for when to consider someone "active"? Should I lean closer to editing within the last year, or go longer? CambrianCrab (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
It never hurts to leave a talk page message even if it's been a year or two. But also, for low-traffic p[ages there's no reason not to start editing the page without waiting for a response if you feel you can improve it -- the stricture on getting main contributors to agree only applies to nominating the article for GAN or FAC. If you can see other editors have been working on the article or if it's a relatively high-profile page then a talk page about your plans is polite, of course. But that applies regardless of whether you ever plan to nominate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Got it, I'll lean towards messages regardless but prioritize them more for editors with activity in the last couple years. Definitely going to avoid making any significant edits to high-profile pages for the foreseeable future, but I'll keep that in mind in case that ever changes CambrianCrab (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
as the others said, use your discretion to see if there's been any disputes on the talk page or anything like that, but i've done a few from-scratch rewrites of low-traffic articles that are now GA (or FA) and had no issues! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
As someone who's had a low-traffic article of "my own" rewritten from scratch by someone else, I'm willing to bet that most long-term active editors would be really happy to see this happen, honestly. I think it would be weird, if you're going to take something all the way to GA/FA, to not involve anyone still regularly active at all, even if only to ask them what they thought about it. But so long as the edits are genuinely improvements, you're more likely than not to be making people happy. Checking the page history is useful for this, too. Often the kind of ownership behaviour that would indicate someone will be unhappy if you improve an article is really visible in the edit summaries. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
all three of my full rewrites were of articles from 2008-2009 written by a now-indeffed user, someone whose only edit was creating the article, and someone who hasn't edited in nearly 5 years haha. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review History

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a way to see a list of your reviews that includes who the nominator is? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Just put in your username at https://ganfilter.toolforge.org/g_editor_query/ and it will give you a list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Thankyou! Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

October 2024 backlog drive

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

When we discussed having more frequent backlog drives, we talked about having some drives that were "themed" instead of, like the backlog drives we've done historically, aimed at zeroing out the backlog as much as possible, focusing on the oldest articles. This past month we did a drive focused on bringing in newbie reviewers. The next drive is coming up in October and the idea for this one is to draw up a list of articles at the start, and aim to completely zero out that list. So, the question is: what should our list be? We could just make a list of all the articles that have been in the nomination queue for >n days. But maybe we want to focus on something else. Topic? Length? GANs by editors with high review-to-GA ratios? GANs by editors with <n GAs? Something else? Let's get some suggestions going in this thread so we can have a list to decide from. -- asilvering (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

We could let any interested editor submit articles they want reviewed to the list. This could include a reasonable amount (say a max of 3) of their own articles, with the understanding that they will participate in the drive themselves. This could help attract people to the drive, if they feel like by participating they are more likely to get a review.
More selfless editors could then nominate older nominations, those with high ratios, ones they think are especially important, etc. to round out the list.
Further, it might make sense to group articles very similar in topic into small batches of about 3-4 articles, with the expectation that a reviewer may experience a learning curve for the topic area and thus be able to close out those nominations relatively quickly ForksForks (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I have a couple thoughts about the previous drive as we prepare for the next one. First of all, thanks to Asilvering for doing a lot of the grunt work on the previous one!
I was somewhat unengaged by the July drive. It could have been a mix of my work and vacation schedule, but the motivation was not there for me personally. I also felt like the drive's page and promotion were a bit last minute, so despite the drive being listed as upcoming, I don't think any of the pages for it were made until a couple days prior; in fact, after it had already begun, it was me that had to link it from the nom page. For the next drive, we should try to have all of the pages drafted and start promotion and notifications early. Make sure WikiCup folks and the like know it's coming.
Reflecting on the newbie theme, were we able to measure that success? Like what defined a newbie, how many did we get, etc.? Was this a backlog-focused drive or new reviewer engagement drive? Looking back at the drive's page, while some of the prose was changed to past tense to acknowledge its end, the progress table was not even updated to reflect the final count. Did we succeed?
For the actual question being asked here... how about for the October drive a theme of "popular pages". The work list could be noms sorted by number of daily views. It's great to write a GA, but it's really great to have an article become a GA that lots of folks read! I think this could be a positive not just for the drive, but for Wikipedia's overall quality. Advanced notice for such a drive could encourage editors to improve and nominate additional popular pages as well. A question would be though, are we still trying to have a backlog elimination drive or just a Good Article drive? Both types are valuable to the project. Grk1011 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Grk1011, the backlog elimination drive is the January one (this year, we held it in March). This one was of course still supposed to work towards clearing the backlog, but the main goal of it wasn't to eliminate the backlog completely so much as to bring in new reviewers and give them more of an onboarding process than normally exists. On that, I think it was really successful as a proof of concept. We got some really good new, conscientious reviewers, and we didn't have any major problems with new reviewers being disruptive or experienced reviewers getting frustrated when trying to help. A new reviewer even came in first place!
"Newbie reviewer" was for the purposes of the drive defined as someone who had not yet completed 5 GA reviews. "Experienced reviewer" was someone who had completed 10 or more. During the drive, we had 5 newbie reviewers "graduate" out of being newbies, and 2 reviewers became experienced reviewers. We had 11 newbie reviewers join and review at least one article. 28 articles were reviewed by newbies (manual count, might be off).
On promotion, yes, I set things up quite late (I was seriously underwater with non-wikipedia deadlines at the time). But given that we'd never done a backlog drive like this before, personally, I'm happy that we got this level of participation - enough to see what was working and what could be tweaked, but not so much that it was overwhelming. Actually, the list of newbie-reviewed articles waiting for an experienced reviewer was overwhelming near the beginning. We'll have to make sure for future newbie drives that experienced reviewers are ready to handle a bunch of assists right at the beginning.
For context on these drives, see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 31#Proposals to address the backlog and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 32#Proposal 1: Regular backlog drives. -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't exactly looking for more background, but rather asking if the previous drive was successful and documented as successful somewhere- I don't want you to feel like you need to answer folks individually about this! I was also suggesting the 'popular pages' theme for the next drive since that was the question asked in this thread, and whether we would like the focus to be backlog elimination or process engagement, as that could impact how it's set up. Grk1011 (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Each drive is listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives. We got through about twice as many extra reviews in the March 2024 one as we did this July, but, as you can see from those threads on the backlog, it didn't "feel" as successful as it should have.
The idea for the October backlog drive is that we address just a section of the backlog, and give ourselves a task we can actually finish - that is, the aim is to come up with a list (or lists) of GANs to target and get that list to zero. So, elimination, but just of a subset. For reference, there are a bit more than 500 GANs up right now. I haven't gone through and totalled all the previous drives, but my quick guess is that our previous free-for-all backlog drives got through something like 250-300 reviews each. -- asilvering (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Following up from this discussion, I've added links to Wikipedia:Good article review circles at the nomination instructions (diff) and the GAN tab header (diff). (Courtesy pings for Thebiguglyalien and coordinators GMH Melbourne and PCN02WPS.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition to the tab header; I don't think that's neccessary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Would you care to explain why? I think it's a useful place to attract more attention to it, which will hopefully help get it off the ground with the wider community. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
If the review circles are to get into the mainstream they certainly need to be treated as such, and publicised to the maximum extent possible. The tab would seem to be fully justified in this case, as GAN is close to broken and better mechanisms are needed; review circles may be such a mechanism, though it's probably too early to tell if they can scale up sufficiently. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay, that seems fair. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Review withdrawal

Latest comment: 3 months ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Hi all, I've been asked to withdraw from a review on Rai dynasty. I failed the article, which was reverted by the nominator. This has relisted the article, and I am still the reviewer. Is there a way for my review to be preserved while allowing the editor to relist? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If an article is failed it can be relisted with a new nomination. Your review is preserved on that review page, the new page will have a different title (in this case with "GA2"). CMD (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
TrangaBellam appears to have simultaneously decided that Rollinginhisgrave is incapable of reviewing "their" articles, but also to reopen Rollinginhisgrave's review. Aside from anything else, the nominator cannot revert a reviewer who has chosen to end a review, so I'll reinstate the original close shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Because, I wanted to preserve the comments. And, sure, I will send for a re-nom though I have no idea why an editor with less than 500 edits to mainspace is reviewing 22 GANs! TrangaBellam (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
At a quick glance there is an overfocus on GACR1 and not enough examination of other aspects, but that is not a cause for such incivility. CMD (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure, my apologies to them for the outburst. But it is ridiculous that someone who has barely edited any article is reviewing so many GARs simultaneously and ludicrously. If project regulars feel that's not a red flag, well, ... TrangaBellam (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
in fact it is not a red flag, and so long as they're doing a decent job at reviewing and willing to learn the ropes (as Rollinginhisgrave seems to be) then their edit count is of no consequence. you ought not to bite. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Rolling is currently reviewing one of my nominations and I have gotten a very good impression that they understand the GA criteria well. Their review comments so far have been particularly helpful in tightening up prose and neutralising potentially non-neutral points of view. I am more than happy with what they have done so far and am looking forward to the rest of the review. That they don't have a lot of edits in the main space (although almost 500 edits hardly makes them a newbie) doesn't concern me when I'm confident that they understand the ins and outs of what they are doing in this process. Not every reviewer needs to be a writer, they just need to be a good reader, which Rolling clearly is.
Reading over the article on the Rai dynasty, I completely understand why Rolling failed it. I think the article's prose is very confusing and uses a lot of words to say very little. There are also some clear problems with neutrality and broadness, so that's criteria 1, 3 and 4 this is failing to live up to. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Interesting; I will wait for your feedback. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless. If someone competent joins and takes the time to learn processes before editing, we should applaud this unless they give us a reason not to. And speaking to this specific issue, reviewers are expected to fail the review if the same issue exists throughout the article; listing every instance of a recurring problem is beyond the purview of a reviewer's job. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

How to track progress during backlog drives

Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

When we discussed problems with backlog drives, one of the things we talked about was that the progress tracker is vulnerable to new submissions - that is, editors submitting new GANs makes the progress appear to slide backwards, which is really demotivating for backlog drive participants, especially when, like in the January drive, we have so many new submissions that they actually cause the backlog to have a daily increase during the drive. So, during this most recent backlog drive, rather than tracking how many GANs are still outstanding, I tracked how many GANs were reviewed by drive participants. That way, we'd only ever see progress occurring, and we'd see just how much of it we were responsible for.

But there are two problems with that approach:

  1. I had to do this counting manually, which was kind of annoying; also, I didn't get to it precisely on time every day, which limits its effect (that's a me problem, though)
  2. It turns out a LOT of backlog-reduction is actually the work of people who are not participating in the backlog drive, so the numbers are sad and small.

For #2, it's true that this one was supposed to be a smaller-than-usual backlog drive, and the effect would be different in the big January 2025 drive. I'm not sure by how much. It's also possible that, during the big backlog drive, fewer reviews are conducted by people who aren't participating. For reference, the March backlog drive included 387 reviews - about double the number of the July drive. But I don't know how many reviews were done in March that weren't counted in the drive, since I'm not sure how to find out how many reviews were opened in total in March. A bigger effect, though, also means more trouble from a #1 perspective.

This isn't relevant for the upcoming October drive, since for that one we'll be generating a target list at the beginning, then working from that list. But for the January drive, I think we might be better off just counting the way we've always done it before. -- asilvering (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:FEB24 made use of categories that showed progress bars (and provided a convenient list of articles to target). If there were a way to automatically add the articles that we are interested in to a category and remove them if a review was started then that could help. ForksForks (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
If it would be useful I could probably add a query to the GAN query tool that would take two dates and return a list of all the reviews started in that date range, along with the current status of the review (passed, failed, on hold, under review, superseded (i.e. the review was deleted)). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd be curious to see how many reviews were opened in March 2024, so we could compare the number of backlog drive reviews to the number of total reviews. -- asilvering (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

By month this year:

Month # Reviews started
Jan 246
Feb 208
Mar 600
Apr 225
May 207
Jun 266
Jul 349

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so that's a bit more than 200 reviews that weren't part of the backlog drive in March, and a bit less than 200 reviews that weren't part of the backlog drive last month. We appear to do something like ~230 reviews a month, give or take, whether there's a backlog drive or not, and then the backlog drive is extra. The March drive started with 750 outstanding noms and ended with 555 outstanding noms. -- asilvering (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
asilvering, it should be pointed out that reviews starting during the March drive continued to be finished after the month ended, dropping the outstanding noms down to 506 at 01:00, 11 April 2024, before the numbers began climbing again. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 August 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the WP:GAN#Video games section, there is a mistake on line 16 for the Aperture Tag GAN. It says "statusonhold" instead of "status=on hold". KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the |status= parameter was used twice in the GA template on the article's talk page. I've removed the extra one, so hopefully it should be fixed shortly when the bot updates the page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

John Sterling (American football)

Latest comment: 3 months ago30 comments10 people in discussion

I'm new to reviewing GAN, and I believe I may have gotten myself a little in over my head with this one. You can see my current assessment of the article at Talk:John Sterling (American football)/GA1. I'm not sure what to do here because while the article does seem to pass the criteria based on what I have looked at, I'm unsure of the significance of this person. I'm a bit confused as to why this page of all American football players was chosen. I do know that GA don't need to have a particularly important subject and don't have length requirements, but I still find this very odd. If this article does pass, it will be probably the shortest GA on Wikipedia. I'm kind of rambling at this point, but I am looking for advice as to what steps I should be taking next, if I am missing anything here, and the opinions of more experienced GA reviewers. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging of @Gonzo fan2007:. I have also looked at a couple of these articles and would be happy to click the pass button on them. I guess what I am looking for some reassurance from you that the sources available have been exhausted. ForksForks (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
In the case of Sterling, it does seem like pretty much everything's exhausted. Division II college, picked up in the midst of a strike when let's be real he wouldn't have made the NFL otherwise, then once it was done and they got the main players back that was it. All I found was a game log that he had a few rushes and a fumble which might be worth adding? There are a few others where I think some expansion of the college football section would be possible though since that was a bigger deal than the NFL in the 30s, but that's not the case with Sterling. Wizardman 02:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath and ForksForks: Hi all. I just want to note that there are plenty of short GAs! Pretty much half of the "at the Olympics" GAs are really short. São Tomé and Príncipe at the 1996 Summer Olympics, as an example, is 280 readable words of prose. John Sterling (American football) is 346! Wizardman (long time no see!), I try to avoid random stats in these short bios. That said, happy to consider any notable additions to any of them. Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you for the examples as that does help me feel more confident in my decision making process. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Very short featured articles. CMD (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The intuition is that the characters Joe N.F.L. Unknown and Species insignificantissimus, both with 280-word articles, are really not worth a hill of beans, whereas a 10,000 word article on Napoleon or Nuclear physics feels worthy of a global encyclopedia. The valuation is probably right, but the rules say both types can be GAs: or rather, they are silent on the matter of real worth. Only thing: the minute bits of fluff are a jolly sight easier to write, and to get through GAN. Luckily, many editors see substantial topics, however defined, as worth the effort, or all GAs would be fluff. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Not just editors, reviewing longer and more substantial articles is harder too. CMD (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I look at a lot of fluff and question if it should be a GA. If others are doing the same, and the GA certification therefore means something different to reviewers than to readers or editors, is that a problem? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
If we think the criteria are too loose, we need to find a way to tighten them up. Trouble is, I suspect, that a testable definition of fluff is unwriteable. Do prove me wrong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I have some ideas for how to do it, but it's probably best to establish if there is a problem before getting into that discussion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that we can draw a line between the football article and a species stub -- and I think such a criteria would have a good chance of gaining consensus. Consider the case of species insignificantissimus -- these articles are often three sentences or less. We could reasonably draw a line that good articles need 1) at least one section heading that is not references/see also/external links (eg. it is not just a lead) 2) longer than 3 (or some other number) sentences. With the understanding that if an article is that short, the sources that WP:NEXIST claims to exist must be found before it can be brought here. ForksForks (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think three sentence GAs are a real problem right now that needs to be addressed. I have never seen a nomination this short, although I can't see up-to-date GAs by size. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
You can see them here. CMD (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Any short article can be a GA if it definitely passes GA criterion 3-).. Whether they need to be articles (do we really need a half dozen articles on São Tomé and Príncipe at the Olympics, instead of just one summary?) is a question for the notability processes, not GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
That's an alternative route, get the footballer deleted. The GAN question is whether GACR#3 is strong enough. Intuitively we all feel it isn't, but strengthening it isn't easy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
"cannot be defined as a stub" could be proposed to be added to GACR#3? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that would just push the problem back a level; people would debate whether an article was really a stub if it did include all the relevant information. I think deletion/merging is the best option, and am half inclined to propose deletion/merging of the various subarticles of São Tomé and Príncipe at the 2008 Summer Olympics as a test case. For sports players such as the one that started this thread, though, I think it's hard to think of a valid merge target. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Merging is a good option. Some ideas for defining "fluff" to address the sports players:
1) Survey reviewers here why they think the sports player is fluff, and then see what is in common in their responses. The definition is then simply an abstraction of consensus.
2) The standard at FA for disqualifying "fluff" is that the article is comprehensive and well-researched. As a lightweight FA, we can adopt the same disqualification by requiring that articles could be comprehensive and well researched.
3) Leave it up to reviewer discretion to an extent. FA has "comprehensive and well-researched", DYK has interesting. Category decisions could be established (i.e. small country at Olympics in X year) and applied to streamline discussions, or 2O could be used, and require consensus (to prevent being dragged into debate).
Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I think generally we can't decide on this page that we are gonna merge these articles. And I think you'll find that trying to merge stubs on this site is like pulling teeth. Better to leave them alone, cause even if you get for example a group of 10 stubs merged, there could be tens of thousands of articles you'd have to repeat the debate for, which is a timesink that could be spent improving articles with futures. ForksForks (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
That will require adjustment of WP:OLY, which currently assumes that all "country at [event]" articles are notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this is doable but we could just rely on some specific criteria for "too small" rather than the word stub to prevent debate. See my comment above. ForksForks (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
There's probably an increased number of the Olympic articles on the shorter side going through currently due to the combination of the ongoing Wikipedia:2024 Developing Countries WikiContest in addition to the world just having the actual Olympics. It's an article format with a set template and one that will be on people's minds. Many contest qualifying countries also are those sending very small contingents (although obviously not all). CMD (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there are high quality articles about a country's contingent at the Olympics - see Palestine at the 1996 Summer Olympics, which, unlike many of these examples, is far more text than table. If anything, a lot of these "X at the Olympics" feel more suitable as featured list nominations rather than GA.
As for football players, I think many of them could be merged into lists; many of this sports player stubs are simply listing some basic stats of a player and who they previously played for. For John Sterling above, couldn't we have something like "Replacement roster of the 1987 Green Bay Packers" which gives these short snippets of info? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I forgot to subscribe to this thread and never came back. I think regardless of where you may fall on this core issue, right now these types of articles qualify for GA under our current criteria. On the note about the Olympics articles, I have always had the same feeling about notability and whether small countries with almost no participatory athletes justify an article for every Olympics, or whether it would be better served by a large summary article. But as someone pointed out, that's a discussion for a different page. My main point in my original response was to reassure the reviewer that brevity does not nherently disqualify an article from achieving GA status. Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap, in response to your comment above regarding "value" and "fluff", I just want to note that although you have contributed impressively to core topics with broad appeal (Bat, Fish, and Tiger to name just a few), you have also contributed in niche areas that likely don't appeal to many people (Berry F. Berry, The Experienced English Housekeeper, Henry Scherren to name a few that don't appeal to me). Although I agree that Wikipedia would be best served by having higher quality general topics, deriding contributions because they don't fall in someone's preconceived idea of what holds value and what doesn't is counterproductive. Wikipedia's purpose is to capture all knowledge, even from those topics that many consider to have little value. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Careful, please. There is all the difference in the world between a specialist but well-cited article, and a small bit of fluff that cannot be written up at any substantial length because it has only the smallest number of reliable sources. As for talk of value, I said above that I think that will be hard to measure, which is almost the opposite of what you're implying about me. Actually you shouldn't be making imputations about other editors at any time. In this particular case, this is not a personal matter, even leaving WP:NPA to one side, so don't try to make it so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap my apologies if I misread your comments or misunderstood your tone. I have struck the above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007 Thank you for your clarification on the topic! I'm very pleased that I was able to pass your GAN as this is the first GAN I've been able to pass! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Citing predecessor/successor in infoboxes

Latest comment: 3 months ago15 comments6 people in discussion

For people who held any sort of position, the infobox often lists the predecessor and the successor. It seems that these aren't typically expected to have sources at GAN, and there are many GAs where they're not mentioned in the body. Is this something that's been discussed before? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah the joys of beyond-the-subject frames, boxes, and templates. All assume that materials are cited elsewhere. In the case of predecessors and successors, these are certainly beyond the scope of the article as they don't concern the subject who occupies the box in between. If we view such frame structures as navigation aids to the reader, they have the same status as navbars, viz., links to related articles with a fair amount of guidance as to what types of things they are – companies, books, scholars, sportspeople, whatever – but no citations right there in the structure. Hard to see how this can be avoided for navboxes; given that, we might as well not worry too much about pre-/post- navguides either, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
So, in essence, information in an infobox that lies beyond the scope of the article does not meet the same citation standard as information relating to the subject? i.e. a birth date in the infobox should be cited in the article but a successor in office need not be mentioned? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Seems more an issue of infoboxes expanding beyond MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, and our practices are not able to handle these cases because they are not meant to. CMD (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
It's hard to see why the article body would make a thing of successors, even if predecessors could just about get a somewhat-off-topic mention. Similar case for previous and next books in a series, the matter is above the level of the book itself. It does seem reasonable for boxes to provide such navigation. More problematic may be the rather overblown pre/post boxes for ceremonial offices which often appear at the ends of articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
If an entire article would not make a thing of something at some point, the infobox definitely shouldn't. Navigation should be left to the navigation boxes or the articles covering the level above mentioned. CMD (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
OK, so what would you do with all of these thingies at the ends of a thousand articles? Each article should certainly cite that Casimir Bloggs is a baronet, but it's not likely to say much if anything about Casimir's predecessors, still less his successors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
It may here be worth noting that a principle of requiring citations in articles' templates may very quickly create degenerate cases. For example, Template:Led Zeppelin has about a hundred links in it, but surely Good Times Bad Times doesn't need a citation in its own body text that Over the Hills and Far Away was released as a single. jp×g🗯️ 23:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
That's a navbox, it can't be cited even if we wanted it to be for the technical reasons. CMD (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Baronetage of the United Kingdom
Preceded by
Hieronymus Bloggs
 Baronet
Casimir Bloggs (of Little Snoring)
1961–present 		Incumbent
Navboxes that appear at the end of the article are AFAIK technically tricky, as references placed after the Reflist template don't work properly. I don't think we can source them outside of treating sources as an EL. CMD (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Mm, klunky. Well I don't see why nav info (pre/post) in the infobox should be treated differently just because its box is above the Reflist, the function is exactly the same. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
That sort of misses the underlying problem which is that infoboxes aren't navboxes and shouldn't be used for navigation. Nonetheless, as Nikkimaria has found below, they should be sourced if they contain information not in the article. CMD (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
So you'd try to rip all nav info out of infoboxes? A very blurry line: all wikilinks are nav, whether they're links to people's institutions, siblings, cities; there seems no good reason in a book article not to mention how it fits into its context in the same way, and so on. The alternative would only be yet more space-hogging sidebars, which are definitely navboxes: not an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd keep it to the items mentioned in the article, where possible. CMD (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
MOS:INFOBOXREF indicates: "If the material needs a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. But editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article." So if these claims aren't in the article body, they would need to be cited directly. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I will do your source review

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I've decided to commit to doing five or so source reviews to help people get reviews done who may not want to commit to a full review. It's my understanding that collaborating on reviews is permitted. All you need to do is:

  • Start the review.
  • Explain why criteria 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 are or are not fulfilled, or quickly fail the article.
  • Ping me here or on my talk page.

I will try to respond as quickly as I can with work on the verifiability criteria, including a spot check. You can also request that I review for criteria 1 (prose) instead of criteria 2 (verifiability). Best, ForksForks (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@ForksForks, I think it's better to do this the other way around: the editor doing the source check should be responsible for the promotion (or not) of the article, taking the advice of their collaborator. Checking that the sources verify the article content is really quite critically important. Since it's the editor who opens the review who "takes credit for it", so to speak, I personally wouldn't want to promote articles I didn't do a source check on. (Not to mention that I often find questions to raise or broadness/copyvio issues while doing the source check.) If you'd like to collaborate on reviews the other way around, that is, if you want to review an article but don't feel comfortable doing the checks for the other criteria, I'd be happy to help. -- asilvering (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I'll archive this post. ForksForks (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

RRR

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Requesting a noncontroversial removal of this drive-by nomination from WP:GAN#FILM by User:Thewikizoomer, a relatively new user who has not contributed to this article in any capacity, nor did they ask for the major contributor's consent in article's talk before nominating. It's actually one of nominator's three drive-bys (August 16), two of which have since been marked as quickfails: Talk:Baahubali: The Beginning/GA1, Talk:Baahubali 2: The Conclusion/GA1. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed, although not at a glance a bad candidate if someone went in to tidy it up. CMD (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: Reviewers should say why they think the previous reviewers concerns are addressed

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Sometimes articles are immediately renominated for GA when they are failed. And sometimes the next reviewer doesn't address the concerns raised, which is quite disheartening. This is bad if a) the concerns were legitimate and should have resulted in a failed review (especially around COPYVIO), or b) the concerns were illegitimate, and the initial reviewer is failing nominations based on misunderstanding of the criterion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A note to check is already included within WP:RGA, "You should also check to see if the article has been nominated previously and if there are any outstanding issues from the last review." Are you suggesting an amendment to ask reviewers to explicitly mention previous reviews? CMD (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I am. It's also implicit in GAFAIL 5, but not in a way that a review can be contested. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Max number of GAR to open?

Latest comment: 2 months ago9 comments7 people in discussion

I have been reviewing the articles listed at WP:SWEEPS2023, and also review articles as I complete WP:OTD sets. Currently, I have been sending five articles a week to WP:GAR and only post at GAR if an article talk page notice goes unanswered for at least a week. The five articles a week is a self-imposed limit, only based on my feelings about how many I could nominate before I got yelled at. I try to nominate articles on a variety of topics and geographic locations, to attract editors from different disciplines and interests.

My list of noticed GAs is currently 15 articles long. If I focused more attention on SWEEPS or the cleanup listing for GAs, the list could get longer real quick. However, I don't review as much because of the self-imposed limit. I would like to nominate more articles to GAR, but only if the community thinks the process can handle it. WP:FAR has a limit of one article a week per editor, and each editor can only have five open FARs at a time (unless they get an extension from the co-ords). Since the GA process is less intense, I think the limits should not be as strict.

What GAR nomination limits (if any) should be imposed/suggested to editors? Z1720 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there are currently any official limits. One point to consider is to ensure that the nominations have sufficient quality, meaning that there is actually a good case for nominating the article for GAR and that the nomination clearly explains the main problems of the article. Another point to consider is not to overwhelm individual authors or Wikiprojects with nominations so that they have enough time to address the problems. If there is a bunch of articles written by the same author or belonging to the same Wikiproject, it might be best to put them one after the other instead of all at once (there could be exceptions for cases where the problem is really serious and all suffer from the same problem). Another point would be limits to your own capacities to respond to the nominations in case other editors ask for clarification or challenge them.
As long as these (and possibly other) considerations are fulfilled, I don't think there is a problem in nominating more GARs. It might be best to slowly increase the number to see how it goes. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the comparison with FARs is necessarily all that meaningful -- firstly, GAs get far less scrutiny on nomination than FAs, and there are an awful lot more of them to begin with, so the sheer number of below-par GAs is much greater than that of similar FAs. Similarly, I think the reason for imposing a limit would be to prevent one editor from taking on too much, and opening a GAR doesn't really commit you to doing all that much to the article -- unlike an FAR, which is usually at least in theory an offer to help fix it, often a GAR is more about ascertaining if the article is reasonably possible to fix with the people and energies that we have to hand. With the caveats that Phlsph7 outlines above, I wouldn't be focusing too hard on the raw number of nominations -- if anything, I would be more interested in the number of GARs "targeted" at an individual user (that is, of GAs for which they are a nominator or major contributor), as that seems more likely to be a cause of upset or of other problems. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. GA is a very low ranking. A GA does not need to be comprehensive, nor kept up to date. Limiting the number of nominations per project would be a good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
That is point 4 of the GAR instructions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Hawkeye, I would argue that an article that isn't very well kept up to date would fail WP:GACR #3a in most cases, although I suspect you're probably talking about the Australian polo GARs, where there shouldn't be much expectation for recent information when the article subject has withdrawn into private life. Hog Farm Talk 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
A GA is of 'very low ranking': what is the point of this thread and project page then?? Billsmith60 (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I would say that it mostly is based on how many you can responsibly manage at one time and limiting how many are related to a limited subject matter or group of editors. For me, that's probably a max of two concurrent due to time constraints I have, but if you feel that you can responsibly manage more, have at it. You can also list the ones you have noticed at WP:GARGIVEN so that others can take them to GAR if you feel that you don't have the bandwidth for it. Hog Farm Talk 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Here what I've done: I've increased the number of nominations that I bring to GAR, but try to avoid overlapping topics. I've also increased the number of articles that I have noticed. At WP:GARGIVEN I've posted articles with notices posted over a week ago: I have to many to post them all and some of them will be at GAR in a couple days (I wait a week for a response to the notice before posting to GAR) so I don't want to spend time to have it on a list for a few days. Help reviewing the oldest nominations would be appreciated: some topics like Math and Agriculture do not have any notices from me, so those looking to diversify the reviews may want to start there. Additional feedback is welcome. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Review needs looking at

Latest comment: 2 months ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I'm not sure what should be done with Talk:2024 Wayanad landslides/GA1. Besides the fact that it's very surface level, there's an unusual close about disruption. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be a new user who was adding info about the landslides, presumably they came across the GAN tag during this. What's odd is the nominator is also a new account that has also only edited about these landslides (and has done so across a myriad of language wikis). The close tag was not added by the reviewer, but by the nominator, and they've also added the exact same template to every section of Talk:2024 Wayanad landslides. Given it's still a somewhat current event and the article is getting tens of edits every day, the GAN should probably should have been a quickfail on stability grounds. However, looking through it I also haven't convinced myself of any particular action to take. CMD (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The reviewer (TamilRoman) did not check the sources at all, as required by WP:GAN/I#R3. If they had, they probably would have noted some rather obvious close paraphrasing. I would suggest either an immediate GAR, or a reopening of the review using WP:GAN/I#N4a. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, an immediate GAR is definitely the way to go. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I have opened one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The article itself is pretty far from GA quality. Things like the "International" section (a long prose list of reactions, with country flags in prose???) shouldn't have been overlooked during the review. The two "gallery" sections are also discouraged. On a more general note, the sourcing and writing are also subpar in many places, with repeated grammar errors making it obvious the reviewer didn't read the article very closely. A careful reassessment is definitely needed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I've blocked the nominator and reviewer, both as sockpuppets of Makks2010 based on behavioral evidence. DanCherek (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I considered this possibility but the writing styles seemed distinct. Perhaps one was mostly AI and/or plagiarism. Any thoughts on whether the GAR page is worth keeping around? If it is, I think the GAN serves as context. If not, both can go. CMD (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I think both could be deleted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Number of reviews and GAs

Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I just nominated 1, in my signature it says I have 0 reviews, 0 GAs. I seem to recall I might have reviewed an article a long time ago (over a decade). But I also have Talk:Glass/GA3 and previously participated in a GA review (but perhaps doesn't count). Is there a reason the stats are incorrect? Polyamorph (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The nomination of Glass/GA3 is fixed in the database; it should reflect the update on the GAN page the next time the page is updated. Not sure why the bot got that wrong first time but I told it to take another look and it got it right this time. For reviewing, the person who opens the review is the one who gets credit as the reviewer -- there's no facility for crediting coreviewers or those who take over from reviewers who abandon a review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Great,thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I also have the same problem, as the bot states that I have 3 GAs and 22 reviews, when I have 7 GAs and 30-something reviews. Maybe it's because I changed my name earlier this year. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 03:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The bot page has instructions for name changes. If you'd like to be credited with the stats from your old name, just let me know the old name and I'll connect them to your new name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes please; my old name is "20 upper". Wolverine XI (talk to me) 04:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Done; the GAN page should show the revised statistics the next time the page is updated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion as nominator

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

A new-ish editor who hasn't even been around for two weeks, opened and reviewed a Good Article Nomination of mine today. Talk:Rogue (Doctor Who)/GA1 is the specific review page. I found a number of problems with their review, requesting adjustments on things, that if changed, would go against Wikipedia policy and the Good Article criteria, which leads to believe they're not quite ready to be taking on GA reviews right now. I was wondering if someone would mind glancing over it really quick and letting me know their thoughts, or what the next steps would be if others agree with me? TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I had a glance, it's a bit hard to track reference numbers without a fixed oldid, but generally it seems the questions surround source reliability/use. It's possible others will have thoughts on these, but the next step given your reply is to wait for the reviewer to respond. There's no indication this can't be resolved with further collaborative discussion. CMD (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
There's no indication this can't be resolved with further collaborative discussion. Unfortunately, the reviewer resolved the issues by fixing the article themselves and closing the review. Not only did they do this before the nominator above had the chance to see and comment on the changes, they did so before the co-nominator had been able to get involved at all. See the following diffs for the edits: [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]; and the closing of the review here: [7]. I'm not sure what is best to do next; I don't think the article is in bad shape, but I also don't think it passed fairly. Looking at the discussion a couple of sections above, it possibly needs an immediate GAR from an uninvolved editor? JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
There's no indication this can't be resolved with further collaborative discussion. I should have tried to do that instead of using point 4 of this to be bold and make that many changes, I realise that now. The co-nominator did make a change, just to be technically clear. I would say it follows the criteria for Good articles and therefore passed fairly despite what I have done. But I'll be fine with the immediate GAR from an uninvolved editor, if that's deemed to be the necessary and right thing. - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

October GAN backlog drive page up

Latest comment: 2 months ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Participants can now sign up for the next backlog drive at Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2024. To quote from the drive page:

The aim for this month is to completely eliminate the backlog in the first list: we want all nominations submitted before 1 October 2024 by editors who are relatively new to GA to be out of the queue by 31 October. If you're an editor with fewer than 10 GAs, get those nominations in before October begins! As a stretch goal, we're also going to try to eliminate the backlog of GANs by all nominators who have reviewed more articles than they've nominated.

If you've got a reviews-to-GAs ratio that's close to even, now's your chance to take on a few extra reviews to make sure your nominations make it into this drive. -- asilvering (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

As always, volunteer co-ordinators gratefully welcomed. @Vaticidalprophet? @Ganesha811? @Vacant0? Anyone else? -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I should be able to help out, count me in as a coordinator. Isn't it a bit early for signups, though? It's not even September yet. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
No harm in folks signing up early. Mostly, I wanted to get the page up and the theme settled far enough in advance that interested editors whose GANs would qualify have a chance to submit articles in time for the drive. And (I hate to break it to you, but) September is barely more than a week away. -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help again. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Great! -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I know it's still late August, but considering that new users in the GA process will have to submit articles before the backlog drive starts, when do you think it would be appropriate to start promoting the GAN backlog drive and send out messages to possible participants? Also, when should we start filling in the list of articles? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

(Bringing your comment back here and redirecting the drive talk page so others can weigh in if so inclined.) I'll fill in an "example list" soonish to test out some formatting possibilities, but there's no point in making the actual full list until immediately before the drive. As for promoting the drive to people nominating articles to GAN, I wasn't planning on doing that much at all. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

recently listed good articles broken?

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The recently listed good articles section on the main page doesn't seem to be getting updated as no new GAs have been placed there for a couple days now. Is there a bug or something? Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Unexperienced reviwer looking for some input from more experienced reviwers.

Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I'm relatively new to reviewing GAN and want to make sure that I'm giving articles the best chance possible. I just finished up a review for Dilaw (song) that was nominated by @Royiswariii. You can see my review at Talk:Dilaw (song)/GA1. There are a couple things I am unsure of in my review. First of all, the article uses Facebook posts and comments as sources. I understand that sometimes there aren't many reliable sources on a topic, but this just feels increadibly unreliable to me. I am also unsure if the "Background" (Dilaw (song)#Background) is appropriately on topic; however, this just may be my lack of knowledge on how articles about songs are written. Lastly, the article does seem to be written from the POV of a fan. This is in no way to criticize the writer here; however, I am not confident in my assessment of the tone and would appreciate others input on the topic. I do feel that this article is a fair bit away from meeting GA criteria; however, my lack of experience with reviewing is leading me to question that conclusion.

Any input is appreciated. Feel free to also edit or add things to my review. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Facebook references, WP:USERGENERATED would appear to apply here: Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are [...] Facebook. Therefore it would appear to fail on criteria 2, as the sources are not reliable. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out to me! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Are the Facebook posts from an account confirmed to be owned by the musician, studio, etc? If so, they can be reliable under limited circumstances per WP:ABOUTSELF, although secondary sources are virtually always better. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Some of them are from the musician however the article also cites comments from the facebook posts. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
This kind of thing is fine: On April 29, 2024, he further teased the song with a video captioned, "happy crush lang daw pero grabe kiligin???" (They say it's just a happy crush, but why do they feel so giddy???). It's simply a statement that the song was teased, what was said about it, and the date: the facebook link is a fine source for that, from the purpose of verifiability. But that whole section is sourced to social media posts - that is to say, it's WP:OR. There's worse OR out there - this is at least basic and verifiable - but for a GA we want to know what secondary sources said about the topic. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for further clarifying things. The part that was sourced by a facebook comment was "A social media user speculated that Maki would release a new single titled "Dilaw", noting that he had recently performed it in Concepcion, Tarlac." I do agree that there is worse OR out there but my standards are slightly higher since it's a GAN. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

British Birds Rarities Committee appears to be miscategorized

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's listed under "Biologists", which doesn't sound right, and I'm not sure how to fix this. Rusalkii (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What would be a better placement? CMD (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Splitting off Brooklyn from Architecture – Buildings of the United States

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There's 35-40ish Brooklyn architecture GAs, how do people feel about me boldly splitting them off into their own little subdivision? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Architecture – Buildings of the United States
Well, it's no Manhattan, but 35-40ish is a decent number. CMD (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
And it's not as if Epic's going to stop writing them ;) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos I split off the UK Buildings, I'd say to be bold with the subcategories. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate them being raised here, we currently have subcategories so small they can be reduced to 0 by GARs. CMD (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Buggy GA?

Latest comment: 2 months ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Despite getting passed earlier, Bazaruto Island isn't showing the GA badge, and the bot keeps adding a "Bazaruto Island/GA2" template. I'm confused. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The GAN template was not replaced properly so the bot thought it was still a nomination. This seems to have fixed it, but I edited it a bit further. Probably not an issue that needs fixing, but courtesy ping Mike Christie in case the behaviour is odd. CMD (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I was too optimistic. Given it is still listed at GAN, I've created Talk:Bazaruto Island/GA2 in the meantime, it should be deleted when this is solved. CMD (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
huh CMD (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Now it's a good good article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Looking at it now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
The problem was caused by the GAR for Flag of Ecuador. To report GARs on the GAN page the bot looks back at the history of all GAs, back to 2006, which I extracted in order to be able to do historical reporting. It turns out that for about 150 of those historical records the nominator's username was not correctly extracted, so when the bot tried to build the GAR entry it couldn't find the user. I've fixed the database for that GAR; the bot should run again shortly and I *think* it will be fine this time round. I'll fix the other bad records and that should prevent a recurrence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I, what?? CMD (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Um, sorry? What's the question? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
More an expression of surprise that the GAR for the Flag of Ecuador article was causing weird bugs with the GAN for the Bazaruto Island article. CMD (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it was two independent bugs. The database had the nominator for the flag article as "Zscout370 [[..." instead of just "Zscout370", and when the bot tried to pull up the user information for user "Zscout370 [[..." it caused a crash. The GARs are processed late in the bot run, so the Bazaruto Island issue which you fixed was visible because the bot had not yet crashed. I haven't looked to see what happened there -- it's harder to trace if the bug is not still happening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Looks like the fix worked. CMD (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Grande Ronde River

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have offered to take over the review of Grande Ronde River. The article nominator, Shannon1, and the previous reviewer, Generalissima, have both said that they are happy for me to do this. Could I ask for some advice on the best way to proceed please? Should I request a G6 deletion of Talk:Grande Ronde River/GA1 or should I simply create Talk:Grande Ronde River/GA2? If a G6 deletion is the best way forward, where should I request this?
Thanks, Mertbiol (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

As there's been no meaningful exchanges at the GA page, I'll G6 and reset the talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks AirshipJungleman29! ~~ Mertbiol (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

TyphoonAmpil

Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

TyphoonAmpil is currently having his first review, which is not a problem, he's already pretty experienced! But since he got a bit wrong in this review, saying i fix Errors Tomorrow, I just want to ask for an experienced reviewer to help this newcomer to review this article. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The article needs copy-editing before it passes GA 1a. Owing to its short length, this shouldn't be a major issue and could probably be resolved in timely fashion within the review. Looking only at the section mentioned by TyphoonAmpil, I found the following examples. The Guangdong Provincial Meteorological Bureau hoisted a level three emergency response plan, while the Fujian counterpart hoisted level four. Hoist as a verb means to lift an object particularly by ropes and/or pulleys. This is near certainly not the correct verb to use. In ... the residents were also warned for proposed showers and downpours a more natural wording would be either 'of expected' or 'about expected'. A more subtle example is [a] more severe amount .... There is nothing severe or intense about a numerical figure. I would avoid the phrasing entirely for tone, but if retained it should be made clear that the airport experienced severe/intense rain rather than the figure being severe/intense. I also suspect that 'Severe Tropic Storm Lionrock' should be re-titled 'Severe tropical storm Lionrock' following WP:LOWERCASE as the term 'tropical storm' is not a proper noun and doesn't appear to be forming a proper noun when joined to Lionrock – particularly gauging from the lack of capitalization of the term in the Chinese government sources cited. With regard to TyphoonAmpil, whilst I appreciate the productive intent of the editor, I'm afraid that instructions such as Not say letters own find Typo click edit indicate a command of English too limited to properly assess criterion 1a. One last thing, with regard I don't think you should fix the errors; you should spot the errors instead so I can fix it, that how GA reviewing works. Minor issues or errors can be fixed by the reviewer, as specified in the reviewing instructions: [i]n the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
(Replying from my alt) Going to fix the issues, do you mind being the co-reviewer? Jettward (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I can co-review it for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
HurricaneEdgar was also picked as a co-reviewer, making three reviewers for the single GA nom. Jettward (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Fixed the issues. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
FYI, I G6ed that review and Liz has speedily deleted it because the comments made by TyphoonAmpil were incomprehensible. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Money in the Bank (2018)/GA1

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I unintentionally seem to have started reviewing the article I nominated to make a GA myself (I just noticed its because I wrote below the reviewer's comments). Can anyone help undo this please? Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated it for speedy deletion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Older GARs needing comments

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Posting here to encourage participation in reassessments from more people than the regulars at the GAR page. These are older discussions where improvement is not ongoing and which could use more participation.

Any comments on the above would be useful. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Bot crashing

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

ChristieBot is crashing, I think because of this edit, but I am about to go to work and won't be able to look at it till this evening. If someone can figure out what was intended and fix it that would be great, otherwise I'll fix it this evening if I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

A review did not even take place. I've reverted their edits on Born in the U.S.A.. Someone should also have a look at Insomniac (Green Day album) (the nominator was also the "reviewer", see Talk:Insomniac (Green Day album)/GA1). That GA review should be deleted asap. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ernie Pike

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

After compelling evidence to close Ernie Pike as fail, I don't know what to do. Since reviewing, I have found multiple issues, and I don't know if I have to close this as a fail. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

based off a quick look at the article it seems like there are several unsourced portions which means that it would qualify as a quick fail.
however in the future if you are on the fence about failing something vs putting it on hold so improvements can be made i usually look at the nominators activity and history. if the nominator is very active, replies to your reviews and such then i’d lean more towards putting an article on hold. but if a nominator isn’t super active, has a history of not being receptive to criticism etc. then i’d lean more towards fail. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't know where people get the idea that only passing reviews is worthwhile from. A successful review is a complete review—pass or fail, both help to improve the encyclopedia. It is not necessary to seek "community consensus" to do a basic element of the GA process. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists § FLs for television seasons

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists § FLs for television seasons. The discussion regards whether season articles should go through the GA/FAC or FLC process. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

GA categories

Latest comment: 2 months ago53 comments13 people in discussion

While going through the list of good articles, I noticed that there were some categories that are quite large. As more articles get promoted, some of these categories might benefit by being split up. This will help readers navigate these pages to find good articles.

Listed below are my suggestions for splitting some categories. The goal was for each categories to have under 300 articles, an arbitrary number I picked because most categories at WP:FA are below that number. I chose not to split some categories (Warships of Germany, American football people) because I could not think of a place to split them that would make sense with the other categories in their grouping. Each suggested category is listed in separate brackets.

In addition, there are some television series that have their own categories, even with only one entry, while multiple episodes of a series will be listed in Other episodes and specials. How many episodes should be the minimum for a category in this section?

Would editors be OK with initiating these splits? Should these names be used, or other ones? Should 300 be the target number in each category, or should another maximum number be used? Are the suggested divisions the best places to split these categories? Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

imo, European history being separated into "British Isles" and "Continental Europe" will probably be easier than Eastern/Western. The borders of what is east and west are arguable. Whether something is in the British Isles or not is more clear-cut. -- asilvering (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Id probably change the split to Association football teams, events, and concepts: (Association football teams and stadiums) (Association football seasons, events, matches, and concepts)
The main reason is that there is quite a bit of overlap between the seasons and events. These tend to be about the matches that the teams have had. Teams and stadium articles are much more higher level concepts and would fit neatly into one section. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 05:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
We've had some discussion on how to split historical/royal biographies and events before, but haven't found something that's convenient. Proposed split of Midwestern United States sounds practical and within current practice. For the proposed split of political figures, continental divisions get weird around the edges and they're not political, so I'm wondering if pulling out one or two countries would be better (also open to say, political groupings like the EU). For Media and Music, those do some broad categories that could be split, assuming there are no very half-half director actors or similar. Lee Vilenski's split on Association football seems sound, might have to take a closer look at stadiums. On the broad question of numbers, I generally look at it with an eye for somewhere between 20/25 (where it forms a clear paragraph-length chunk that shows it is a topic with clear work) and around 200 (where, depending on the length of individual entries, the block starts to get longer than laptop screen lengths). CMD (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd support the Historical figures and Political figures splits and would prefer both of them to be grouped by location (NA, Eu, Other). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Agree with both Vacant0 and CMD that "EU" is a better term than "Europe". Again, seems more clear cut. Unless someone can come up with some hypothetical edge cases that seem messier that way? -- asilvering (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on which is better, but "EU political figures" is potentially a much narrower scope than "European political figures": for example, the former would arguably only include British political figures who were active between 1973 and 2020, whereas the latter would presumably include any British political figures ever. I can think of edge-cases for both options (are Turkish and/or Russian politicians European political figures vs. is someone like Mary Docherty, who retired from active politics before Britain joined the EU, but lived for nearly 30 years after, an EU political figure? What about someone like Anthony Eden, who was still in the House of Lords until he died in 1977, but was essentially politically irrelevant after he resigned as prime minister in 1957?) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto-public, I thought of Eden's case (not him specifically, but that kind of person), but isn't he supposed to be in "Historical figures - politicians" anyway? -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
There's certainly a grey area as to where the line is drawn between "Political figures" and "Historical figures: politicians", but for what it's worth I see a few nineteenth century figures in the former category (e.g. James Dillon Armstrong) – and at least one eighteenth-century figure, John Mathews (American pioneer). Of course, it may be the case that they ought to be recategorised entirely. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
On reflection, I'm not sure my concern about EU being more clear-cut is relevant anyway, since GAN doesn't really end up having acrimonious disputes about which categories ought to exist and what ought to be in them, at least not as far as I've seen. I do still prefer "British Isles" vs "Continental Europe" over Eastern/Western Europe, though. -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
The line per the existing hidden notes is BLP, living people go into Political figures, dead people go into Historical figures. CMD (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I might go through the list and make sure people are in the correct spots. If the split happens, I can do this at the same time. Z1720 (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
(ec) The EU doesn't include Switzerland, Norway, the UK, and some Balkan and eastern European countries, though that list will probably change over the next few years. I think geographical categories make more sense than political ones, as they are more stable. No strong opinion on UK/Ireland vs. continental Europe or Western vs. Eastern Europe, but I suspect the former is going to be easier to manage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
My bad, I did not mean the European Union, but instead Europe as a whole. This would mean including countries from this list: List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Some countries on that list also appear on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. CMD (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Precisely the confusion I intended to avoid by suggesting "EU" instead. But if we simply accept that placing a relevant article in either category is fine, I think we can just choose not to have the problem in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
"British Isles" will of course get us into other problems :) CMD (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
If someone created an article on something Turkey (nation) related and it's placed in either Europe or Asia, the article will be reviewed swiftly either way. On the other hand, as someone *not* interested in English/Irish/Isle related articles, I would be happy to more easily find the other articles. The goal of these categories shouldn’t be to find perfect ontologies but to make sure more niche content doesn’t get drowned among the most popular candidates. I frequently check Business Economics, and Society related categories since my topics of interest frequently fit both. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree that "British Isles" by itself is a problematic name, especially to the Irish community. Some options could be "British Isles: England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland" or "England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland". EU is not a great idea because the countries in the EU are constantly changing, while the borders of Europe are pretty static. Also, EU politicians in the news are often still identified from the country they are from, and involved in that country's politics before, during and after being part of the EU. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
A geographical option is "Great Britain and Ireland"; "United Kingdom and Eire" could work as well, with "Continental Europe" probably the simplest option for the rest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
If using Èire, make sure to write it as I have. Also, I recommend not using the term 'British Isles': Great Britain and Ireland will offend no one Billsmith60 (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh indeed. I have no particular love for "British Isles" as the name of the category; my intent was simply to suggest that the continental divide is probably an easier and more relevant one to use than eastern/western. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely! Billsmith60 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
That's one way to describe the Manx. CMD (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Éire – duhh! Billsmith60 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
the borders of Europe are pretty static is definitely not true. The concept of Europe has historically crept east, as it continues to do today. CMD (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'd be in favor of dividing up the general rail transport category (213 articles). I think we could add categories for rail accidents and incidents plus rapid transit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up

After reading the above, I think there are some areas of consensus and some areas where additional comments might be helpful. I have split the discussions into level 3 headings for organisation purposes. Comments on all the discussions would be appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I have completed the split for the music articles. There will probably need to be another discussion to split the biographies, but I think that should be initiated once the concerns below have been resolved and acted upon. Z1720 (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Road infrastructure and music performers

There was no objection to splitting "Road infrastructure: Midwestern United States" and "Performers, groups, composers, and other music-related people" in the way proposed above. I think this split can happen, and any help would be appreciated to make this split. If someone objects to splitting the above as described, please post below. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Target number in each category

In the above, I proposed splits for categories over 300 articles. Another editor suggested 200. What is the ideal number in each category? Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with considering splits at 200, if there is a logical division available, but perhaps we could make 300 the hard line. (Maybe the bot could be made to auto-post here to remind us to split?) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
+1 ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
While the higher the number of articles the more a split becomes a good idea, I think we should consider as low as 200 if there are logical categories we can create. That would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Historical figures: other

Based on my reading of the discussion above, I think editors are more favourable to splitting "Historical figures: other" by geographic location, not time period. Is this accurate? Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my read is that we were only talking about geographical splits of "European history" not "historical figures". Given the disparities in coverage of global figures, going by date is probably easier to manage without further splits. Whether that's the most important criterion, I don't know that I have any opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Europe and EU

For various categories, there was discussion on how Europe should be defined for the interest of categories. What countries should be included in a "Europe" category? Should a list of EU countries be used instead? For categories where the British Isles are separated from other European nations, what should the other European countries be referred to: Continental Europe, Mainland Europe, or something else? Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

On splitting Europe, there isn't a need to label the rest of Europe something else. We can put the British Isles (and other future splits) as a subheader of the Europe header. CMD (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
agreed^ ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: If a sub-heading was used under European history, the font would not be smaller than the headings we currently use, as the GA headings are already the smallest allowed. Also, I think it would be the only categories in GA with sub-categories. I would prefer "European history: United Kingdom and Ireland" and "European history: other" over using subheadings for European history. Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Plenty of GA categories with sub-categories, off the top of my head the biggest offender is Biology. Using an explicit "other" category can work, although it does slightly complicate the simple hierarchical structure that can aid machine analysis. CMD (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Actors, directors, models, performers, and celebrities

Some biographies have overlap between the proposed split to "Actors, models, performers, and celebrities" and "Directors". Should this split continue like this, or should this be split another way (or not split at all)? Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

What's "actors, models, performers, directors" and "other celebrities" look like? Useful, or? -- asilvering (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: After skimming through the list, I think an "other celebrities" category would be quite small. I think the least amount of overlap is to split off director from the others above, and then place biographies in the category that the person is most known for. If there is doubt, we can discuss it here. Z1720 (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Stadiums

Consensus seemed to be to put stadiums into "Association football events, matches, and concepts". There are still some stadiums listed in "Stadiums, public parks, and amusements". Should the status quo remain, where articles are listed in two different places, or should the stadiums be listed together? If listed together, where should they be listed? Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

regardless of which category they're put in (i'd probably prefer putting them in with parks &c. but if there was consensus for putting them in with football articles then so be it), it should be consistent and they should all be together. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Agree, I think it's weird to put them in with sports and not public places, but I don't edit this kind of article so feel free to disregard my opinion on this. -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Either way, once grouped a redirect can be put in place like at Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Architecture – Forts and fortifications. CMD (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

British Isles, Great Britain, Ireland, Èire

It seems like editors did not want to split along Eastern/Western Europe and instead split out the countries of Britain, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, and smaller surrounding islands into their own category. What name should this category use? Some suggestions included: "Great Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Èire". Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland is probably the most neutral (as opposed to "British Isles") and more COMMONNAME-y than "United Kingdom and Éire". ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree that 'Great Britain and Ireland' is the most neutral Billsmith60 (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Seeking second opinions on a review I'm doing.

Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I started a review for the page Louis Edward Curdes a couple weeks ago and I honestly just need a fresh set of eyes here. So far my review has been a lot of back and forth between me and the nominator. My biggest concern here is that some of the citations aren't placed by the information they support which makes source reviweing very hard. I've done most of the source review, and just started on the prose review. I've found a lot of issues with prose as well but I'm not sure if that is just me being overly nitpicky. I'm also a little bit unsure of how to feel about the amount of technical information there is in the article. I don't know if this is the standard amount of technical info in a military article or if it needs to be toned down a bit here.

Page: Louis Edward Curdes

My review thusfar: Talk:Louis Edward Curdes/GA1

Nominator: User:98.97.46.82, currently seems to be using the account User:98.97.34.56. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with the review, the nominator seems responsive to your questions and suggestions. If the sources are out of place you could mention that, it is easy enough to duplicate them if needed. If you're feeling overly nitpicky, you can make minor spelling/grammar changes yourself, perhaps alert the IP of this if you do so. On technical information, it is best if the article is as accessible as possible, but it is not a problem for the GACR if some parts remain technical so long as it is relevant, and it's not that long an article. Perhaps look to make sure the lead is not technical. CMD (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that we allow GA nominations from unregistered users. How can their contributions be measured to ensure they're not 'drive by? Billsmith60 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I looked into this and apperantly unregistered users can nominate articles for GAs. I also was not aware that drive by noms were a thing/aren't allowed until after I started my review. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Creating a GAN is all talkpage editing, so there isn't a technical mechanism to prevent IP nominations. As for the specific article, it was mostly written by an IP, so it might be the same individual. CMD (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I have in fact witnessed IPs not only nominate articles, but get them through the process successfully. It's very rare but I see no reason we should forbid it so long as we allow IP editing. IPs may change frequently but for most people they will consistently locate to the same area which makes it at least somewhat feasible to determine authorship. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Passed without comment

Latest comment: 2 months ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I just noticed that Talk:Tolkien's Round World dilemma/GA1 had been opened for review and passed very quickly, which is unusual given that source checking is required these days and it takes time to read an entire article and check it for all the GA criteria. Closed Limelike Curves opened the review at 17:15, and passed the article at 17:33, leaving not a single comment as to what was checked and what was found. If we accept a simple "passed" without any commentary, especially in a quick pass after less than a third of an hour to read and digest and check a substantial article, GAN has a problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

They have not shown anywhere whether the article actually meets the six GA criteria. If the reviewer does not respond, the article should be delisted and put up for a review again. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I think we should give them a chance to respond, it doesn't have to be immediately delisted. The 40/50 people who view the page a day probably aren't going to have their experience changed much, and the article is certainly good given the nominator is Chiswick Chap. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I've said that it should be delisted if they do not respond. The reviewer clearly responded now, so it should not be delisted. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Yup, I did that by accident, very sorry! Any way I can undo it? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Closed Limelike Curves: I've rollbacked everything, so you should be able to continue your review now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Now passed again with an empty review form with a whole 191 characters of brief questions for the nominator (including the comment delimeters) left as hidden comments in Special:Diff/1246448963. No evidence of source review. Is that supposed to be considered adequate? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
...and unclosed and restored to a blank newly-started review page again with the edit summary "Fixing formatting problem". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Yep, I was trying to fix this problem:
Warning: nomination is malformed -- Status indicates review has started but there is no review page
It should be fixed now, I think, but I'm not 100% sure. I thought it might have been related to a mistake I'd made on the talk page, so I tried blanking it and then restoring the content correctly. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
So where is the required source analysis? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Elijah Hewson/GA1

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yesterday, @Royiswariii: passed my Elijah Hewson article. Purely as a matter of principle, given that he passed it with next to no comments and that he is (by his own admission) a new reviewer, I think someone more experienced should give this a once over just to be on the safe side.--Launchballer 01:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about a new GA review circles coordinator

Latest comment: 1 month ago33 comments12 people in discussion

I was going to post this here on @PCN02WPS's talk page at first, but having read through it, I think it should be posted somewhere with greater visibility. I may be pinging @GMH Melbourne too many times today now, but I'll do so as a courtesy since GARC is also something you've primarily organized.

Hi there, I don't want to come off as discourteous, but I have concerns that make me believe @TheNuggeteer should step down from being a coordinator for the time being (at least until he is able to demonstrate better understanding of the GAN process). I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest he needs additional experience with Wikipedia and the GAN process to become a coordinator for GARC.

Many of his recent GANs have had significant concerns brought up by editors:

In addition to his GA reviews:

As coordinator, his circles have also had significantly less scrutiny than the ones organized by other coordinators. To provide one example of contrast, one coordinator previously left a message on @IntentionallyDense's talk page advising him that he would need additional experience reviewing articles before participating in the GARC process. However, TheNuggeteer's GA review circles have included editors with dramatically less experience, which you can see here (such as one editor with 153 edits). Most recently, a circle had to be re-organized after he failed to follow step four of the coordinator instructions.

To TheNuggeteer, I want to say I really hope you don't take this badly; I'm only saying that I believe you need to learn more about the GAN/article-writing process first before taking on a role like this. I also think for the benefit of GARC, proposed coordinators should have greater scrutiny (with clear minimum requirements) in the future, before being added. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Freedom4U Hmm, seems like a good option, since I could actually use more time to make more GA's.
But anyway, I don't feel like those quickfailed noms are recent (for me), and after, I have eight other successful reviews and 2 GAs, so I probably don't know. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Your more recent nominations don't inspire much confidence in me either. Your nomination of Typhoon Chanthu (2010) five days ago had to be reverted as a drive-by nomination and after your nomination at Talk:.tv/GA1 failed, you immediately nominated it again without making changes. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
This may not be the best place to put this but since I was tagged here and it’s somewhat related to the topic I think it may be a good idea to put some restrictions in place at GARC to avoid newer editors from getting overwhelmed. When I first applied to be apart of the GARC I had only done 3 GARs and I’m really glad the coordinator suggested I got more experience first as I did need it. My proposal would be requiring people who are entering the GARC to have reviewed at least 5 GAs beforehand. 5 is kind of a random number so if anyone has other suggestions please let me know but I do feel implementing some form of restrictions may help with the future of GARCs. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Although it's not common, there are people who don't write much content but still have a good grasp of how to evaluate the GA criteria and review an article. I would have no issue with someone putting their first ever GAN up at GARC if they're already proven themselves a capable reviewer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn’t have an issue with this either however I do think they should demonstrate they know how to do a review which I don’t know how else that could be demonstrated unless they’ve done a review in the past. We could also say either reviewed or nominated 5 GAs that way people who haven’t done a review but have nominated enough GAs to show they understand could participate. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that. I think any combination of five successful GANs and GA reviews (that were not quickfails; e.g. 2 successful nominations and 3 well-done reviews) is a reasonable standard to participate, so long as there aren't any other pressing issues. Imo coordinators should also scrutinize at least one of these to make sure they're good, but I also don't want to force volunteers to do more work if it's just going to create a backlog (it looks to me that both coordinators aren't as active as they used to be). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I would also be happy with this however I do agree that coordinators having to look over others reviews may add to the workload. I think it’s fair to just look over the users talk page to see if any concerns have been brought up. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@IntentionallyDense: I really like this idea. I will add requirements for users wanting to participate and see how it goes. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't like saying this, but I don't think the editor should be reviewing GAs, and I have doubts about at least one of their articles that were promoted to GA. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I think I have to agree. I have seen a marked improvement in their quality of reviews, but I did spend some time co-reviewing a few articles [1], [2] after I saw them comment I think that after "a personal friend of Klein", the comma should be a dot instead, and the next word will be capitalized. on this text:
Directed by Véras Fawaz, a personal friend of Klein, the music video for "Europapa" was premiered live on De Avondshow met Arjen Lubach at 16:45 CET, followed by a release on the Eurovision Song Contest channel on YouTube ten minutes later.
I like TheNuggeteer, and honestly think they've done good work with GACR, but I don't think they're able to evaluate 1a of the Good article criteria just yet. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I would like to comment on TheNuggeteer's reviews later, but in the meantime, would I be able to take over the coordinator position? I don't think I'm an exceptional reviewer by any means and don't have any GAs, but I have done a fair amount of reviews.
In terms of my approach to GARC, I think to make them work at increasing the number of reviews, they should be frequent. I don't think newer reviewers should be excluded, as long as they are mentored in some way, i e. with a second pair of eyes looking over the review, which helps them with understanding what they should be looking for in a review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@Rollinginhisgrave Of course! Just as the others accept, I honestly don't want to be a coord anymore (hope the other coords don't take it badly). You have multitudes of experience reviewing GAN's, so you seem like a good candidate. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I think requiring experience in GARC is for the best. WP:Good article mentorship is a good program for mentoring new users. I think the process currently compromises on review quality, which is something that this project was setup to try and avoid. Adding requirements should hopefully solve this. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the process currently compromises on review quality. Still, we need more people reviewing, and this is a good incentive to try a first review. If they've got a mentor who will ensure a standard of quality, as an exception to the requirements, then I don't see why they should be excluded. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I think that is fair, I have added this note on the page. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
TheNuggeteer, you are also simultaneously reviewing five different GANs right now, four of which you have not finished. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Bumping this, which still needs to be addressed. It's been said above that TheNuggeteer probably needs to hold off on reviewing for a while and take GAN more slowly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I can leave comments on these to finish these reviews, except Talk:Tumor necrosis factor/GA1 which should probably be deleted. I don't think they have picked up any reviews since this was brought up here so I'm unsure if there remains an issue of needing to slow down. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I’m willing to review the TNF article as it’s in my scope of interest. What’s the protocol for taking over a review? IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
TheNuggeteer has begun another review at Talk:1991 Hindu Kush earthquake/GA1, despite still having three unfinished reviews from the last few weeks. Between this, their noms, and their previous reviews, I don't believe this user is ready to participate in the GAN process quite yet. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
IntentionallyDense, if you would like to get credit for the review, you can follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4a. If you don't care so much about that, you can just comment that you'll be taking over per this conversation, and add comments from there.
TheNuggeteer, could you address Thebiguglyalien's comment above before continuing to nominate or review articles? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure, already finished Harold. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't address the concerns TheNuggeteer. I can see you have just nominated List of Olympic medalists for the Philippines for Featured List. I am not very familiar with FL, but looking at it, I think the same issues we have been discussing here will prevent it from passing. Please gain some more experience with Wikipedia and improve your writing skills before you review or nominate articles at FAC/FLC/GAN. I can see you are active in WikiProject Tropical cyclones, maybe try to get someone to work there on articles and then co-nominate them when you both think they're ready? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
i have to second this - please don't rush into things, and please listen to other editors' feedback. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
@Rollinginhisgrave: There's really no helping this person; they may have worn the juice :P Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
that's unnecessary. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 16:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Please strike your personal attack. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 20:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Way out of line. Surely there are better ways to motivate them to contribute more positively. This is clearly an enthusiastic editor doing their best to improve Wikipedia, and these comments just turn editors away. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 00:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I already work with Hurricanehink to hopefully make Tropical Storm Kai-tak an FA. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Editors in this discussion may want to take a look at TheNuggeteer's review of "Cherry on Top" (Bini song) to double-check the validity of its outcome. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Hmm that is a tricky one. I personally don't think I would have failed that article so quickly. They did bring up some good points but didn't really tie them to the GA criteria. I think it would be benificial for @TheNuggeteer to ask for a second opinion before passing or failing reviews as of right now but I'm not sure if that would be the best step moving forward. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Since this one's a fail, I'm less concerned about it (the nominee can just renominate it if they disagree.) But @TheNuggeteer, why are you starting more GA reviews? Several editors have pointed out issues with your reviews and asked you to slow down. I know that I explicitly suggested that you stop, and got no response. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Copyediting by reviewers

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It would help if we were to clarify how much copyediting can/should be done by the reviewer instead of the nominator. Issues like "there's a comma missing in this sentence" or "this word is spelled incorrectly" take longer to type out in the review than they do just to fix while reviewing, and reviewers should be encouraged to make minor edits to the article. But the line gets blurrier when it involves fixing more complex grammar errors in a way that might involve rearranging a sentence. Do we have a standard for this? Should we add a sentence to WP:GAN/I#R3 clarifying this? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a standard written down anywhere. Personally, I wouldn't rearrange a sentence for stylistic reasons, but if it's objectively ungrammatical I don't see any reason why a reviewer shouldn't make the fix themselves if that is easier for them, even if fairly major rearrangement is required. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
imo it's probably best to leave this up to the reviewer and nominator, beyond if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself, which we already have. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
+1 ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a requirement for GAs to be reassessed every so often?

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Given that I just stumbled on an article that has been listed as a GA for just over 17 years (specifically Era Vulgaris, originally listed as a GA in September 2007), it seems that the answer to my question is "no". In that case, I think we definitely should require articles previously rated as GA (and for that matter FA) quality to be reassessed periodically to determine if they still meet the criteria and, if not, to remove their GA status. As I have not been very involved in any aspect of the GA nomination process for many years, I wanted to post this suggestion here so that others who know much more about this process can share their thoughts. IntoThinAir (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

There are 40,000 articles currently marked as Good Articles. Automatically reassessing even a small portion of them would overwhelm the already under-populated GAR process. There is an open project to review a subset of older articles with issues - see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023, but it too has minimal participation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
@IntoThinAir: I have been reviewing GAs to ensure that they meet the good article criteria for a couple of weeks and nominating some of the articles with the greatest concerns to WP:GAR. While it is more likely that an older article will need a significant amount of work, it is not always guaranteed and I think the community would feel overwhelmed if we mass-GAR'ed all articles promoted before a certain year. My process is to quickly review articles in a category, and post a message on the article's talk page if I am concerned that an article does not meet the GA criteria. If no one responds in about a week, I will post the article at WP:GAR. I also use this tool to mass-review good articles for uncited paragraphs and orange banners, which helps me select which articles I review. I also try to nominate articles from various categories so as not to overwhelm a group of editors. For example, I will nominate music article a week, then wait a week to nominate the next music article to GAR. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me here or post on my talk page, as any help to review GAs is appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
For Featured Articles, there's the similar WP:URFA/2020, which does aim to at least get eyes on every FA which hasn't been reviewed for a long time. Of course, there are a lot fewer FAs (6,500 vs 40,000 GAs) and they're generally in rather better shape than very old GAs can be. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Over the past two years I've taken a look at a number of the older rail transport GAs and brought a number of deficient ones to reassessment. But I only bring a few at a time at most to avoid overwhelming the process. I wonder if individual editors targeting certain categories of older GAs (particularly on topics they are familiar with) might help with reviewing older GAs. It would also be useful to see which older nominations still have active nominators. While the nominator being inactive doesn't guarantee an article is deficient, and conversely an active nominator might not have maintained their promoted GANs, it gives us some basis to gauge if attention might be needed. I can't speak for all nominators, but I make a concerted effort to make sure all my successful nominations are maintained to at least GA standard if not higher. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

1a and 3a in Reception sections with isolated reviewers

Latest comment: 1 month ago15 comments8 people in discussion

In some GANs (looking at books, in particular), the Reception sections are written with dedicated paragraphs summarizing each reviewer in isolation, often with heavy quoting, and little to no attempt to connect themes with other reviews. Sometimes this is by necessity, say, if there are only three reviewers and there is little connection to the other reviews. But most often there are plenty of reviews and opportunities to engage with the guidance in Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, weaving reviewers together for a general audience to understand the holistic reception. The latter, to me, is the minimum quality bar for the "well-written" (1a) and "breadth" (3a) GA criteria. In my experience, this also reduces heavy quoting, which pushes the boundaries of fair use paraphrase, even when attributed. It also requires more effort.

For some examples of the variance, see The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey#Critical reception or A History of English Food#Reception for separate paragraphs per reviewer, and Sappho: A New Translation#Reception or How the Red Sun Rose#Reception for combined paragraphs across reviewers.

What is our general working expectation for GANs? Is it sufficient for GAN breadth and writing quality to plop summaries of each review without connection, or are editors expected to connect the reviews for a general audience when available? czar 02:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this needs more attention, and I consider an unorganized assortment of opinions and quotes to fail the GA criteria. The majority of the time when reviewing an article about some piece of media, I have to ask the nominator to fix the reception section because it's a list of quotes. In this case, I usually consider it a criterion 2 failure in relation to copyright and failing to properly paraphrase the source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I certainly don't like quote-plopping, but I see enough people saying things like "any suitably sourced and reasonably complete article can be a GA" that I wonder if requiring "weaving" is overly ambitious for GA. -- asilvering (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree that quotes should be used sparingly in reception sections and overuse of quotes in a reception section should be considered both an issue of copyright and poor prose. Even if there are few quotes, reception sections should also be somewhat organized or they risk not being clear (e.g. by academic/non-academic reviewers, by views on certain aspects of the book, or by positive/negative reviewers) ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 12:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The best way to summarize the critical reception will vary from case to case. There are several dimensions to this. The number of reviews, the length of each individual review, the relative prominence of each reviewer in the relevant field, the type of work (e.g. fiction versus non-fiction), and whether the reviewers broadly agree, disagree, or cover separate ground altogether are all factors that determine this. When there is a fairly large number of relatively lengthy reviews that all largely agree on the main points, summarizing by theme is likely to be the best approach. Conversely, a low number of relatively brief reviews that focus on different aspects may be better summarized separately in the body (though the much briefer summary in the WP:LEAD might still be best presented thematically). I have used both approaches in different articles based on what seemed the most fitting to me in each case. We must remember that summarizing different reviewers' viewpoints collectively can also result in WP:Improper editorial synthesis by making stronger or broader claims than is justified by the overall contents of all relevant sources. For this reason, I favour a comparatively conservative approach to doing so. This is an area where our different WP:Policies and guidelines exist to some extent in tension with each other and we have to exercise judgment in finding an appropriate compromise approach that does not go too far in one direction or the other. Reasonable people can disagree about the best course of action in any particular case. TompaDompa (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
In the case of too-few-reviews, I don't think summarizing each review in depth offers any actual illumination for the reader. In an example with three reviews, summarized in depth and relying on quotes, it reads like book back cover blurbs (advertisements) or a review aggregator. I wouldn't say that's any greater breadth of prose or good writing than a single sentence for each. I haven't seen an example (including my own older GAs on books) in which a paragraph for each reviewer is a helpful review approach. czar 16:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Summarizing a review that the reader is not able to access is helpful. It may not be the optimal approach, but it provides information they did not have and could not get on their own. There are of course better and worse ways of summarizing individual reviews, where a high reliance on verbatim quotes tends towards the worse and writing about the overarching ideas in one's own words tends towards the better. The underlying problem is that we rarely have WP:Secondary sources about what the reviews say, but have to rely on the reviews as WP:Primary sources on themselves. TompaDompa (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
@TompaDompa, your linked guidance on primary sources says we should only use them sparingly, to fill in details not provided by secondary sources. We should be limiting the reviews as sources on themselves and instead only using what little is needed to elucidate the larger theme. When there are only three reviews, this would mean extremely short reception sections, i.e., proportionate to the coverage and not a dedicated paragraph for each review. That seems to be the best compromise when citing a source as primary to itself. czar 21:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that follows. A book review is a secondary source on the book and a primary source on the reviewer's opinion. In a hypothetical case where all the secondary coverage we have is from reviews (which is not uncommon) and the greater part of each review consists of the reviewer's subjective assessment of the book (also not uncommon), do we then discard the majority of the content that the sources choose to focus on? That seems a rather peculiar approach to WP:Due weight to me. I personally think the opinions of reviewers are in many cases—for non-fiction in particular—the most important part of the article. Minimizing this aspect on the basis that reviews are primary sources on the reviewers' opinions would be throwing out the baby with the bath water, methinks. On the other hand, I am very concerned about the risk of WP:Improper editorial synthesis by collating and summarizing different reviewers' opinions collectively too liberally, creatively, or subjectively. I would also note that the weight question is really a separate issue to how the section is structured, as it does not distinguish between

Reviewer 1 identified A as a positive and B as a negative.
Reviewer 2 identified X as a positive and Y as a negative.

on the one hand and

Among the positives, A was noted by Reviewer 1 and X by Reviewer 2.
Among the negatives, B was noted by Reviewer 1 and Y by Reviewer 2.

on the other. TompaDompa (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

To bring this back to the core issue, my question is whether (a) A History of English Food#Reception and (b) The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey#Critical reception, i.e., GAs with heavy quoting and dedicated paragraphs for each reviewer, sufficiently meet the 1a (well-written) and 3a (breadth) GA criteria. This would help me calibrate how to handle the Reception sections of current book GANs. czar 00:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

To the extent that there is a problem, it is with excessive quoting rather than with the structure as such. I have to admit that I do not understand how either could be a problem with WP:GACR 3a (it addresses the main aspects of the topic) specifically, however. When it comes to these specific reception sections, I find A History of English Food#Reception to go too far in using verbatim quotes, while The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey#Critical reception is (to me) within acceptable bounds. TompaDompa (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I would personally argue that no, GANs with extensive quoting and dedicated paragraphs to individual reviewers in the reception section would not pass the GA criteria. In my opinion, this kind of reception section violate 1a by making the general reception of the work as a whole unclear, 2d through extensive quotation, 3b for going into excessive detail in the reviewers, and 4 by placing undue emphasis on individual reviewers rather than the broad consensus. Lazman321 (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
While I agree that the reception section of A History of English Food does not meet the GA criteria, I disagree with your points about criteria 3b and 4. Your point about 3b doesn't make sense because the same reception section would be wholly acceptable if it were not directly quoted, but paraphrased in the editor's own words; quotes in themselves are not examples of excessive detail unless they would be considered excessive even when paraphrased.
For example, this excerpt:
The reviewer noted that she had seen badger hams on the bar in the West Country pubs of her childhood, and that a tripe seller in Dewsbury market sold "nine different varieties of tripe, including penis and udder (which is remarkably like pease pudding)."
would certainly be excessive. While, this excerpt:
Shilling finds this "an impressive tour" from a well-stocked mind, her approach being "a firmly chronological line across the landscape of culinary history, pausing at intervals to examine objects of interest." She agrees that the book is "opinionated and wildly idiosyncratic", in the tradition of W.N.W. Fowler's "gin-soaked" Countryman's Cooking and Rupert Croft-Cooke's English Cooking: A New Approach. The book gives, Shilling asserts, a "glorious sense of the continuity of English cuisine from the Middle Ages to the present", making it an "engaging, funny and admirably entertaining history."
would not be an example of excessive detail, but should be paraphrased to not use excessive direct quotations. I honestly don't understand your point about criterion four, I'm sure case-by-case decisions can be made about what constitutes "undue emphasis" in a given article, but three or more sentences from a single review is hardly "undue" if a review is one of few reviews and provides detailed critical commentary or analysis of a book. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with TompaDompa that there is very little in the way of "integrating" the opinions of different reviewers that can be done without straying across the WP:SYNTH line. If three reviewers say a book is informative then, clearly, we can say "Some reviewers agreed it was informative", but for any more individualistic or perceptive comments, we need to deal with reviewers one at a time. Happily, the rules do not say we are forbidden to describe what individual reviewers said. A fifteen-word quote is not obviously excessive under the rules; and if readers are to be given an idea of the tone and substance of a review article, which I would have thought was what a well-written summary of reviews should be about, then a few short excerpts are certainly justified as fair use. If we were to narrow down our interpretation of the rules to say nothing more than some bland mumble about reviews being broadly favourable with some more mixed attitudes (left unspecified), then review sections will indeed be short: and extremely uninformative to boot. There's also the matter of making the reviews seem insubstantial; if the review section is one short paragraph, passing editors may conclude the reviewed book is not notable as nobody had anything substantial to say about it... As for any considerations of undue weight, as long as each reviewer, of whatever opinion, is given about the same amount of coverage, and the review section is not unduly long, that should not be a problem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Postmortem: As the GA reviewer of A History of English Food, I appreciate this discussion. I am becoming more cognizant of this issue over time, both in these reviews and in my own writing. I see we are primarily discussing book reviews, but I would appreciate if we could also discuss film reviews. I recently reviewed Time_(2021_film)#Critical_response for DYK, and I noticed the nominator made an exceptional effort to avoid quoting in favor of excessive, but possibly poor paraphrasing, a reverse of the current scenario under discussion in this thread. This also poses a similar problem! Although I covered some of the issues in my DYK review, looking at the current version, I can see potential issues with the lack of quotes, and the reliance on similar wording from the quoted material. While this might be good for DYK at the moment, I think a keen GA reviewer could find issues with the paraphrasing in the reception section as relying too much on the source material. Putting that aside for the moment, this is a problem I've tried to avoid in my own writing, for example in Bad_Faith_(film)#Reception, where I tried to strike a balance between direct quotes and paraphrasing, but where I felt I missed the mark. I would appreciate extra eyes and instructions. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion(s) wanted

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'm currently reviewing tumor necrosis factor which was nominated by @AdeptLearner123, you can see my review so far at Talk:Tumor necrosis factor/GA1. So far I've done a source check and image review but I'm a little stuck with the prose review part. I feel like the article may be a bit too technical but I would appreciate some extra opinions on the topic. I'm also not sure if it is over technical to the point of not qaulifying for GAC or if it's fixable. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think the lead ought to be somewhat more accessible, but I'm not sure if the body needs to be. I'd want to know when students normally learn about the concept before saying anything about the body, since I don't think there's much point in writing something to a high school level if the concept isn't taught until graduate school. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I think that seems fair. My main concerns were with the lead as that’s what most people read. I did ask that they spell out some of the abbreviations they used just cause there is a lot in some of the sections. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
At a very quick run through, while there are a lot of short paragraphs that perhaps could be looked at, the prose itself is technical but not badly written. Looking at WP:ONEDOWN, I feel it would be a very ambitious high school that would be teaching this; the study of individual proteins can be PhD-level research. I added a couple of wikilinks, which I do suggest for any particularly technical terms. Get the lead as accessible as possible, perhaps clear up parts of the body you feel wouldn't be comprehensible to a late-year undergraduate student, but overall I don't really know how else you'd write a protein article. CMD (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. I’m currently working with the nominator to make the lead more accessible but I’m mostly leaving the body as is (aside from anything I find during my third read through). IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_32&oldid=1250121089"