| Revision as of 17:38, 25 December 2024 editDoctorWhoFan91 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers2,484 edits →Nonsensical review: a new review by the same editor← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:47, 3 January 2025 edit undoHistory6042 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,099 edits →Former GA: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| (61 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Old nomination == | |||
| I nominated ] in February and now it's the oldest nominee that hasn't been reviewed. I realize it's a pretty big article. Does anyone want to split up the review to make it easier to digest? When I started this process I didn't realize it would take so long. ] (]) 18:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am planning to start it on Sunday. The only reason I'm starting it on Sunday and not now (or 4 weeks ago) is that I don't have time to start until Sunday and it seemed unfair for me to "start" a review and not actually start it for a few weeks when someone might pick have picked it up in the interim. ] (]) 19:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks so much! ] (]) 19:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Splitting sections == | == Splitting sections == | ||
| Line 93: | Line 86: | ||
| :I think that'd be a good idea. One final category of "sort-of-politicians-but-not" could be activists, which I've seen a lot of in that category. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | :I think that'd be a good idea. One final category of "sort-of-politicians-but-not" could be activists, which I've seen a lot of in that category. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{re|Generalissima}} After going through the "other" category (again) I think an "activist, revolutionary, anarchist and suffragette" category would be appropriate. ] (]) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bit of a mouthful - I think "Activists and revolutionaries" encompasses all four <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Generalissima}} Works for me. ] (]) 15:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have created the "bureaucrats and administrators" category per this discussion. My next step is to go through the "other" category and move biographies to more appropriate categories. ] (]) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == A streamlining of the GAN review process? == | |||
| == New editor incorrectly starting GANRs == | |||
| I was looking at some old nominations today that were under review, to check if any could be eligible for the January backlog drive (there are two, and I have pinged the reviewers there)- and I saw many reviews that were abandoned: there had not been a single comments in these reviews for months in many cases. This, plus the above two topics of new reviewers incorrectly starting reviews (and many similar cases in this talk page's archive) was making me wonder if we could make some changes to the process. Some of the changes could include- reviews without comments for a long time could also be seen in the report sub-page (or somewhere more prominent), a change in the template to show on the talk page when a review was started (just like it shows when a nom occurred), some co-ordinators to give at least a cursory glance to reviews: bad reviews might still slip through, but they would very much reduce in quantity. We can't just rely on the nom and reviewer, as even 3rd parties might like to help make it reach GA by nom-ing or reviewing it, and the whole process to ask so on the talk page and wait (which in many cases also sometimes lead nowhere) turns many off. I know some of the changes would be hard to implement, especially bcs of the needed eyes and hands, but I think at least some changes could be made. ] (]) 07:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|Velthorian}} has opened three GAN reviews in the past 24 hours, and passed and failed one each without any actual review. Can those articles be put back in the queue (especially bcs the upcoming GAN backlog drive encourages the review of older GANs more), and someone help them understand the ] on how to review properly. I have asked them before on one of the review ] and {{u|Remsense}} has also msged them on their talk page. ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :There seem to be two issues here. I'm not quite yet sure how to tackle "substandard reviews", but here are my thoughts on abananded reviews. | |||
| :Given discussion has already been opened, I have reset ]. Of course, if Velthorian reopens that GAN it can be taken out of the queue again. ] has already been reset. ] has not started, so let's see, it can be G7ed. ] (]) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* I certainly agree that we need a better way to track apparently abananded reviews. Currently, ] shows where the reviewer is inactive for a certain number of days. (I don't know anything about bots but) I suspect it would be fairly easy to change this to number of days without an edit on review page, which will make it easier to track editors who have abandened reviews but are still active (which is a much bigger problem; and no point having both). ({{ping|Mike Christie}} who operates the bot which updates this page) | |||
| ::@] @], Thank you for bringing this up! My nomination for UNICEF has been active since March 2024, and has been in the "oldest unreviewed good article nominations" box for a number of weeks now. Is there any way that this article could not go through the whole queue again? I understand if that's not possible, its just really unfortunate because of how long the nom had waited. Cheers! ]] 14:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*Would it be possible to add a section for review's which haven't be edited for a certain number of days onto the ], again so we can track potentionally abananded reviews. ({{ping|Wugapodes}} who operates the bot which updates this page) Yes, we already have a section for reviews lasting over seven days. But some reviews will legitamtly last over seven days. And this section is also overpopulated with reviews that were temporily abandened. (i.e. the review is now actively ongoing). This makes it difficult to see the wood from the trees.:*I think we should be more aggresive with following up on reviews. I think that if a review has not been touched for (picking these time frames out of thin air) 14 days we provide a message on the review page, tagging the reviewer, with a message where we chase up the review and '''if they have not reaffirmed their commitment within 7 days the review will be considered abananded and reset inline with the recommendations at ]'''. If they reaffirm their commitment and don't follow through we will also just reset the nomination. If we hardcode that into the instructions it will also (hopefully) rectify part of the problem and enbolden nominaters who feel their review has stalled. | |||
| :::It has been reinserted in its old position in the "queue" (in effect, it never left the queue) ] (]) 14:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
: ] (]) 14:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::True, and I was thinking also a separate page to list the GANRs with these issues- like inactive noms or reviewers are listed on WP:GAN, but it needs to be searched, which while each, could be made more straightforward. ] (]) 20:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == New reviewer required == | |||
| == Nonsensical review == | |||
| Hello, could I kindly request a new reviewer for the article ]? The previous reviewer has been inactive for some time and was unable to complete the GA review. Many thanks in advance. ] (]) 05:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I believe {{yo|Infoadder95}}'s ] of ] to be nonsensical. Despite the review claiming otherwise, every single claim in the article is backed up. The review's Lack of Neutrality section accuses the article of containing several quotes that it simply doesn't have. Could someone else have a look?--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 22:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Unfortunately it looks like the reviewer had a bit more of the article to go. I have reset the nomination. If the reviewer returns they are welcome to reopen the old GAN. ] (]) 05:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::No worries. I hope someone else would start this nomination again. Many thanks! ] (]) 15:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think we can add ] to that list as well, as it seems to reference a bunch of things that aren't actually in the article. For example: | |||
| :* {{tq|Add more inline citations to the "Notable residents" and "Cultural significance" sections, as some claims lack direct sourcing.}} - ] doesn't have sections with either of these names, nor is any of the content lacking direct sourcing. | |||
| :* {{tq|- **Cultural Impact:** While the "Cultural significance" section touches on Tudor City's appearances in media, it could delve deeper into how it has influenced perceptions of urban living in New York City.}} - As mentioned above, this article doesn't have a "Cultural significance" section. It does, however, have a "Critical reception" section, which does include some commentary about that exact topic. | |||
| :* {{tq|However, certain phrases, such as "masterpiece of urban planning," could be perceived as promotional.}} - That phrase does not appear in the article. | |||
| :{{pb}}As such, can someone take a look at this as well? I suspect this may have been an LLM-generated review. – ] (]) 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would support banning from the entire GA process editors who use LLMs to generate their reviews. I agree that the claims of unsourced claims in the Swim School review are directly contradicted by a brief look at the article and its history, and the wording of the Tudor City review looks canned and generic. At the least, some explanation here by Infoadder95 would be warranted. Further scrutiny of Infoadder95's other edits beyond GA may also be a good idea. , for instance, looks like others I have seen involving the use of an LLM to copyedit paragraphs, in some cases making the wording more promotional. I note that Infoadder95 has a current GA nomination, for ]. —] (]) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am sorry if the article does seem like an LLM, but due to me not being to able to code in Wiki-text, and me not being able to use the visual editor in talk pages or when making reviews so I have to take the help of AI to turn my review into wikitext so it can be used in the article talk page. So some of the passages may seem like "Generic" and "AI generated", due to AI despite being given clear instructions to not alter the content. | |||
| :::If the majority opinion is against my review, I might be able to revise it, this is my first time reviewing nominees so I might make mistakes. If you have issues with specific portions of my review we can discuss it, or even ask for the consensus of other editors as well ask for a second review. | |||
| :::And to reply to the last part of your part of our message, I don't use LLMs for copyediting purposes or editing articles, if you suspect me of such, I am unable to do anything but wait patently. ] (]) 00:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with David. You have no business reviewing GAs if your ability is so lacking that you must rely on a text generator to do the work for you, especially when you're not even bothering to make sure that it hasn't hallucinated something. ♠]♠ ] 00:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Now that the use of LLM for the reviews has been admitted, we should at least cancel both reviews and restore the two articles to the queue with their original nomination dates. —] (]) 00:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for not suggesting exiling me in the barren land of banned accounts ] (]) 00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I thought I could take part in January Backlog drive but this experience has taught me otherwise, thank you for your patience fellow Wikipedians. ] (]) 00:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], despite these flawed reviews, I wanted to thank you for your honesty. Although editors shouldn't be using large language models for good article reviews (or really, for any kind of content review), hopefully this can be a learning experience so the same mistake isn't repeated in the future. ] (]) 03:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks ] (]) 12:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for your suggestion, I think refraining from reviews till I get a bit seasoned is the best option for me now, I might as well spend some time time learning wiki-text. | |||
| :::If you suspect that I lack the capability to review articles and write quality reviews, you are mistaken but if you think that I lack the ability to use wiki-text and edit the source, then you are absolutely right. ] (]) 00:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Infoadder95}}, please nominate both reviews above for ], to aid cleanup of the errors. Thanks. ] (]) 00:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok ] (]) 00:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have deleted them both. You tagged them G11 (the wrong tag), which could have caused a problem if someone else got to them first and didn't understand why they were tagged, but fortunately that didn't happen. —] (]) 01:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Inactive reviews == | |||
| {{ping|Infoadder95}} you just "reviewed" ] in the same manner? May I ask why when you said less than 24 hours ago that you "I think refraining from reviews till I get a bit seasoned is the best option for me now"? ] (]) 17:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I was checking inactive reviews due to the backlog drive coming up, and I saw the following: | |||
| == A streamlining of the GAN review process? == | |||
| *<s>]: I think the reviewer said they are fine with a second reviewer, but haven't marked it as such. Plus the nom has been inactive for 24 days.</s> | |||
| *:Relisted. | |||
| *]: The reviewer has been inactive for more than a month, but it does look almost finished, so maybe it should be marked as needing a second opinion? | |||
| *:Luckily this review seems substantially complete, unlike a couple of others from the same reviewer, and the reviewer seemed broadly positive on it. If there are no objections, this one might take a light lookover and pass. | |||
| *<s>]: Have had no review despite being open for more than 3 months</s> | |||
| *:Relisted. | |||
| *]: Also have had no review even after being open for three months | |||
| *:Reviewer has not edited since the ping three days ago, giving this one a bit more time. | |||
| *::Reviewer has returned. | |||
| *<s>]: The reviewer barely started and have been inactive for more than a month</s> | |||
| *:Relisted. | |||
| *]: Had no edits for a month, then had a week of reviewing, and then again has no edits for a month | |||
| *:A bit more of a confusing one, probably should be relisted, but I've dropped a note on the reviewer talkpage. | |||
| *::Reviewer has not replied despite editing again, relisted. | |||
| *<s>]: The reviewer had filled out a review template, but has said nothing, or failed it (as they marked in the template), maybe they are inexperienced</s> | |||
| *:Opened just this month, dropped a note on the user talkpage. | |||
| *::Reset. | |||
| *]: New reviewer did not review, just marked it GA on the talk page, and has not been editing for two weeks (after having not edited for 3.5 months) | |||
| *:This one is a bit weird, usually I'd wait longer given the review just opened, but, given the talkpage action, the lack of activity in general, and the upcoming drive, not opposed to relisting sooner. | |||
| *::Failed. | |||
| Can something be done about these- either marked as needing another reviewer, or reset, as seems best? ] (]) 07:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for checking all this. I've relisted three obvious cases in line with my understanding of our precedents, other comments above. ] (]) 08:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. There are even more GANRs similar to the above, but they were all started around less than a month ago, so I only mentioned the most egregious ones. Might do a similar check around the middle of next month. ] (]) 08:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reviewer came back for Andhra Pradesh, I'm going to try and second opinion Jonna Adlerteg. This is the second time Mating of yeast has been relisted, which is a bit of a shame. Otherwise the rest are handled. ] (]) 16:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Inactive nominations == | |||
| I was looking at some old nominations today that were under review, to check if any could be eligible for the January backlog drive (there are two, and I have pinged the reviewers there)- and I saw many reviews that were abandoned: there had not been a single comments in these reviews for months in many cases. This, plus the above two topics of new reviewers incorrectly starting reviews (and many similar cases in this talk page's archive) was making me wonder if we could make some changes to the process. Some of the changes could include- reviews without comments for a long time could also be seen in the report sub-page (or somewhere more prominent), a change in the template to show on the talk page when a review was started (just like it shows when a nom occurred), some co-ordinators to give at least a cursory glance to reviews: bad reviews might still slip through, but they would very much reduce in quantity. We can't just rely on the nom and reviewer, as even 3rd parties might like to help make it reach GA by nom-ing or reviewing it, and the whole process to ask so on the talk page and wait (which in many cases also sometimes lead nowhere) turns many off. I know some of the changes would be hard to implement, especially bcs of the needed eyes and hands, but I think at least some changes could be made. ] (]) 07:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi! It's great that the bot now mentions when there has been a while since a nominator has made an edit. I usually give a talk message to the user before picking up a review, but I don't think there is a requirement for this as of yet. | |||
| To streamline our nomination process and take out articles which won't ever have their reviews addressed, could we maybe get the bot to ping users after, say 30 days, of their last edit and confirm they still want the review. If they don't return to editing by 45 days (or whatever), then the nomination is pulled. | |||
| The resources of reviews are low enough to not have to address reviews of inactive nominators. An example of this happening manually can be found here: . '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 15:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Lee, are you thinking of the same approach as suggested ]? Or just for nominations where the review has not yet been started? ] (] - ] - ]) 15:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not yet started. Whilst I appreciate it's hard when doing a review for a non-active nominator, I'd like to avoid it before we get that far. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 15:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Inactive reviewer == | |||
| I have already asked for a review in ], and the reviewer previously has gone AWOL. See discussion. ] (]) 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Second opinion on review == | |||
| Can I get a second opinion on ] to confirm that nothing was missed? I ask because {{u|History6042}} has already had their reviewing scrutinized at ], and since then they have passed ], ], ], ], ], and now this one without taking the feedback on board. ] (]) 04:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :What was wrong with Serbia Against Violence (coalition), Charles Brenton Fisk, National Gathering (Serbia), and Branislav Djurdjev, no issues were brought up about those. ] '''(])''' 04:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, I might not be fully sure what a spot check is, the only thing I could find just said see if the sources are good and say what they are. Am I wrong? If so someone please explain to me what a source spot check is. ] '''(])''' 04:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If necessary I can go back and do one one Hilda Heine once I understand what a spot check is. ] '''(])''' 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I did that now. ] '''(])''' 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| In the context of the backlog drive this one could do with a little help to get over the line. It has been on the list since July 2024 and in review for a month now. Mea Culpa it used to have issues with overly close paraphrasing of sources but it should be sorted now. {{user|AirshipJungleman29}} is doing a source check. {{User|IntentionallyDense}} did check in at Christmas and there was some objective points raised that are now all resolved. What would be really great is if another editor or editors could have a look and give additional feedback/comments. ] (]) 09:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As I have said, the review is in progress. I am waiting to gain access to a couple of books. Of course, {{green|"Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article"}}, especially with regard to source-text integrity. ] (]) 10:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's good to hear. ] (]) 12:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :My impression was that Airship had this review handled. An article of this size is bound to take awhile. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 19:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Former GA == | ||
| Is there a list of all delisted GAs by when they were delisted? I want to see the newly delisted articles. ] '''(])''' 23:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Curtosy ping {{ping|CapeVerdeWave|12george1}} I stumbled upon ] while looking at older nominations for the January 2025 GAN backlog drive and found this review. There is no evidence that a review took place here and the review was all done within one edit. While I haven't done a thourough read through of the article in question so it may be fine but the review itself does not seem up to standards. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 16:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|IntentionallyDense}} So you think I should provide more detail to justify the GA? In what areas, if so? I thought the summary seemed sufficient. ] (]) 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Per ] {{tq|Read the whole article. Understand its sources. Based on the Good article criteria, determine whether the article should be quick failed. An in-depth review must be provided in all other cases. This must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers, and that no copyrighted material has been added to the article from the source.}} | |||
| ::The part that is missing in your review is the in depth part. Sometimes there is articles where nothing or very little has to be changed. In this case it is more helpful to say something along the lines of "This article passes criteria 1 because xyz, I know this because I checked xyz" (modify as needed ofc). This is especially important when it comes to the sources. For example I would usually write something along the lines of "this article uses reliable sources without plagerising content, I checked sources 2, 4, 8, 19, and 20 and found no issues". | |||
| ::However it is very rare for an article to have absolutely no issues. For example the article in question has some overlinking which while not technically in the GA criteria, can reduce readibility and make it look overly technical. For example, countries are linked which is generally not needed. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 17:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:47, 3 January 2025
| Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | FAQ | January backlog drive | Mentorship | Review circles | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN) and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.
 | See the Frequently asked questions (FAQ) |
 | To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, several other GA talk pages redirect here. |
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33 |
|
GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Nominations/Instructions: 1 Search archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Splitting sections
Historical figures: politicians
In Historical figures: politicians at WP:GA, I have spun out American figures into "Historical figures: politicians - United States". Considering that over half of the articles were American figures, this seemed to be the logical split. There were some Hawaiian and pre-American Revolution figures that I made judgement calls on where to place, so a second look is appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- George S. Armstrong and Irene Parlby seem to be Canadian, Mabel Philipson British, aside from that the rest seem reasonably placed. If the pre-US figures on the East coast are included, it doesn't seem misleading to include pre-US Hawaiian figures. Are there other Robert Whites we could promote? CMD (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I moved Armstrong, Parlby and Philipson to the general section. I included pre-US figures on the east coast if the majority of their biography concerns their governance of the colonies. Hawaii was its own civilization and if it wasn't a US state it would probably be considered part of Polynesia/Oceania. I moved Hawaiian figures to US politicians if a significant part of their governance took place when the US controlled the area. I am still open to moving some figures if consensus is otherwise. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing stopping anyone considering Hawaii part of Polynesia/Oceania now! Anyway, from a casual reader POV, I would expect them to expect Hawaiian figures in the United States subsection. Anachronism has its place in navigation, and history was what it was, and now is what it is. CMD (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I moved Armstrong, Parlby and Philipson to the general section. I included pre-US figures on the east coast if the majority of their biography concerns their governance of the colonies. Hawaii was its own civilization and if it wasn't a US state it would probably be considered part of Polynesia/Oceania. I moved Hawaiian figures to US politicians if a significant part of their governance took place when the US controlled the area. I am still open to moving some figures if consensus is otherwise. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Splitting "Historical figures: other"
I have spun out European figures from "Historical figures: other", which was about half of the listings in that category. I invite editors to take a look and fix any errors I have made. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you! I wanted to bring up the historical figures other category - I feel like the vast majority of entries are inproperly placed there. I scanned through and there were lots of political activists and officials that I feel are better placed somewhere else. Additionally, I think there's some which could be spun off into their own category - "Criminals and assassins" def. seems like it could be its own category of historical person, for instance. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to shift historical figures within that page (ie, not to another GA list) I encourage you to be bold, it's not the most curated structure. (Same for anything in Music.) CMD (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: Steve Irwin was someone who I think should be moved, though I do not know which section to put him in (his talk page has him listed in Sports and Rec, but I think he was mostly known for being a conservationist and entertainer). As for new history sections: I agree with CMD. I think criminals is a good idea as it makes the section smaller. I also agree with music, but that might be a discussion for a new section below. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to shift historical figures within that page (ie, not to another GA list) I encourage you to be bold, it's not the most curated structure. (Same for anything in Music.) CMD (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Historical figures: bureaucrats and administrators split?
After looking at the articles left over in Historical figures: other, another split might be bureaucrats and administrators. This could be defined as government officials who were never elected to their position (and are therefore not politicians). Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that'd be a good idea. One final category of "sort-of-politicians-but-not" could be activists, which I've seen a lot of in that category. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: After going through the "other" category (again) I think an "activist, revolutionary, anarchist and suffragette" category would be appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bit of a mouthful - I think "Activists and revolutionaries" encompasses all four Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: Works for me. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bit of a mouthful - I think "Activists and revolutionaries" encompasses all four Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have created the "bureaucrats and administrators" category per this discussion. My next step is to go through the "other" category and move biographies to more appropriate categories. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: After going through the "other" category (again) I think an "activist, revolutionary, anarchist and suffragette" category would be appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
A streamlining of the GAN review process?
I was looking at some old nominations today that were under review, to check if any could be eligible for the January backlog drive (there are two, and I have pinged the reviewers there)- and I saw many reviews that were abandoned: there had not been a single comments in these reviews for months in many cases. This, plus the above two topics of new reviewers incorrectly starting reviews (and many similar cases in this talk page's archive) was making me wonder if we could make some changes to the process. Some of the changes could include- reviews without comments for a long time could also be seen in the report sub-page (or somewhere more prominent), a change in the template to show on the talk page when a review was started (just like it shows when a nom occurred), some co-ordinators to give at least a cursory glance to reviews: bad reviews might still slip through, but they would very much reduce in quantity. We can't just rely on the nom and reviewer, as even 3rd parties might like to help make it reach GA by nom-ing or reviewing it, and the whole process to ask so on the talk page and wait (which in many cases also sometimes lead nowhere) turns many off. I know some of the changes would be hard to implement, especially bcs of the needed eyes and hands, but I think at least some changes could be made. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- There seem to be two issues here. I'm not quite yet sure how to tackle "substandard reviews", but here are my thoughts on abananded reviews.
- I certainly agree that we need a better way to track apparently abananded reviews. Currently, Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations shows where the reviewer is inactive for a certain number of days. (I don't know anything about bots but) I suspect it would be fairly easy to change this to number of days without an edit on review page, which will make it easier to track editors who have abandened reviews but are still active (which is a much bigger problem; and no point having both). (@Mike Christie: who operates the bot which updates this page)
- Would it be possible to add a section for review's which haven't be edited for a certain number of days onto the Good article nominations report page, again so we can track potentionally abananded reviews. (@Wugapodes: who operates the bot which updates this page) Yes, we already have a section for reviews lasting over seven days. But some reviews will legitamtly last over seven days. And this section is also overpopulated with reviews that were temporily abandened. (i.e. the review is now actively ongoing). This makes it difficult to see the wood from the trees.:*I think we should be more aggresive with following up on reviews. I think that if a review has not been touched for (picking these time frames out of thin air) 14 days we provide a message on the review page, tagging the reviewer, with a message where we chase up the review and if they have not reaffirmed their commitment within 7 days the review will be considered abananded and reset inline with the recommendations at WP:GAN/I#N4a. If they reaffirm their commitment and don't follow through we will also just reset the nomination. If we hardcode that into the instructions it will also (hopefully) rectify part of the problem and enbolden nominaters who feel their review has stalled.
- SSSB (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- True, and I was thinking also a separate page to list the GANRs with these issues- like inactive noms or reviewers are listed on WP:GAN, but it needs to be searched, which while each, could be made more straightforward. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
New reviewer required
Hello, could I kindly request a new reviewer for the article Halimah Yacob? The previous reviewer has been inactive for some time and was unable to complete the GA review. Many thanks in advance. Pangalau (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it looks like the reviewer had a bit more of the article to go. I have reset the nomination. If the reviewer returns they are welcome to reopen the old GAN. CMD (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. I hope someone else would start this nomination again. Many thanks! Pangalau (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Inactive reviews
I was checking inactive reviews due to the backlog drive coming up, and I saw the following:
Talk:Sleeping Beauty (1959 film)/GA3: I think the reviewer said they are fine with a second reviewer, but haven't marked it as such. Plus the nom has been inactive for 24 days.- Relisted.
- Talk:Jonna Adlerteg/GA1: The reviewer has been inactive for more than a month, but it does look almost finished, so maybe it should be marked as needing a second opinion?
- Luckily this review seems substantially complete, unlike a couple of others from the same reviewer, and the reviewer seemed broadly positive on it. If there are no objections, this one might take a light lookover and pass.
Talk:IMac (Apple silicon)/GA1: Have had no review despite being open for more than 3 months- Relisted.
- Talk:Andhra Pradesh/GA3: Also have had no review even after being open for three months
- Reviewer has not edited since the ping three days ago, giving this one a bit more time.
- Reviewer has returned.
- Reviewer has not edited since the ping three days ago, giving this one a bit more time.
Talk:Amos Yee/GA1: The reviewer barely started and have been inactive for more than a month- Relisted.
- Talk:Mating of yeast/GA2: Had no edits for a month, then had a week of reviewing, and then again has no edits for a month
- A bit more of a confusing one, probably should be relisted, but I've dropped a note on the reviewer talkpage.
- Reviewer has not replied despite editing again, relisted.
- A bit more of a confusing one, probably should be relisted, but I've dropped a note on the reviewer talkpage.
Talk:June/GA2: The reviewer had filled out a review template, but has said nothing, or failed it (as they marked in the template), maybe they are inexperienced- Opened just this month, dropped a note on the user talkpage.
- Reset.
- Opened just this month, dropped a note on the user talkpage.
- Talk:Yang Youlin/GA1: New reviewer did not review, just marked it GA on the talk page, and has not been editing for two weeks (after having not edited for 3.5 months)
- This one is a bit weird, usually I'd wait longer given the review just opened, but, given the talkpage action, the lack of activity in general, and the upcoming drive, not opposed to relisting sooner.
- Failed.
- This one is a bit weird, usually I'd wait longer given the review just opened, but, given the talkpage action, the lack of activity in general, and the upcoming drive, not opposed to relisting sooner.
Can something be done about these- either marked as needing another reviewer, or reset, as seems best? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking all this. I've relisted three obvious cases in line with my understanding of our precedents, other comments above. CMD (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. There are even more GANRs similar to the above, but they were all started around less than a month ago, so I only mentioned the most egregious ones. Might do a similar check around the middle of next month. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reviewer came back for Andhra Pradesh, I'm going to try and second opinion Jonna Adlerteg. This is the second time Mating of yeast has been relisted, which is a bit of a shame. Otherwise the rest are handled. CMD (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. There are even more GANRs similar to the above, but they were all started around less than a month ago, so I only mentioned the most egregious ones. Might do a similar check around the middle of next month. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Inactive nominations
Hi! It's great that the bot now mentions when there has been a while since a nominator has made an edit. I usually give a talk message to the user before picking up a review, but I don't think there is a requirement for this as of yet.
To streamline our nomination process and take out articles which won't ever have their reviews addressed, could we maybe get the bot to ping users after, say 30 days, of their last edit and confirm they still want the review. If they don't return to editing by 45 days (or whatever), then the nomination is pulled.
The resources of reviews are low enough to not have to address reviews of inactive nominators. An example of this happening manually can be found here: . Lee Vilenski 15:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Lee, are you thinking of the same approach as suggested here? Or just for nominations where the review has not yet been started? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not yet started. Whilst I appreciate it's hard when doing a review for a non-active nominator, I'd like to avoid it before we get that far. Lee Vilenski 15:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Inactive reviewer
I have already asked for a review in Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1, and the reviewer previously has gone AWOL. See discussion. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Second opinion on review
Can I get a second opinion on Talk:Hilda Heine/GA1 to confirm that nothing was missed? I ask because History6042 has already had their reviewing scrutinized at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30#Potential issue with review of Arithmetic (again), and since then they have passed Talk:Texas Centennial half dollar/GA1, Talk:Serbia Against Violence (coalition)/GA1, Talk:Charles Brenton Fisk/GA2, Talk:National Gathering (Serbia)/GA1, Talk:Branislav Djurdjev/GA1, and now this one without taking the feedback on board. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- What was wrong with Serbia Against Violence (coalition), Charles Brenton Fisk, National Gathering (Serbia), and Branislav Djurdjev, no issues were brought up about those. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, I might not be fully sure what a spot check is, the only thing I could find just said see if the sources are good and say what they are. Am I wrong? If so someone please explain to me what a source spot check is. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- If necessary I can go back and do one one Hilda Heine once I understand what a spot check is. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did that now. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Crusading_movement/GA5
In the context of the backlog drive this one could do with a little help to get over the line. It has been on the list since July 2024 and in review for a month now. Mea Culpa it used to have issues with overly close paraphrasing of sources but it should be sorted now. AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) is doing a source check. IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) did check in at Christmas and there was some objective points raised that are now all resolved. What would be really great is if another editor or editors could have a look and give additional feedback/comments. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I have said, the review is in progress. I am waiting to gain access to a couple of books. Of course, "Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article", especially with regard to source-text integrity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's good to hear. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- My impression was that Airship had this review handled. An article of this size is bound to take awhile. IntentionallyDense 19:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Former GA
Is there a list of all delisted GAs by when they were delisted? I want to see the newly delisted articles. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)