Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:28, 18 June 2008 editGosgood (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,456 edits →User talk:Kaypoh ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:21, 27 December 2024 edit undoChipmunkdavis (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,434 edits →New reviewer required: ResetTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Tab header}}{{Vpad\|0.25em}}
	{{caution\|This talk page should be used for discussions relating to the nominating and reviewing of ]. Please direct any comments regarding the improvement of the GA program as a whole to ]. Thank you.
			]
	}}
			{{shortcut\|WT:GAN}}
	{{messagebox\|text=<span style="font-size: 88%">
			This is the '''discussion''' page for ] (GAN) and the ] 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.
	This page, a part of the ] talk page collection, is archived by ]. If your discussion was mistakenly archived, feel free to go retrieve it.<br/>
			{{tmbox
	Current archive location: ''']'''.
			\| type = notice
	</span>}}
			\| image = ]
	{{archive box\|
			\| text = See the ]}}
	* ]
			{{central\|text=several other GA talk pages redirect here.}}
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|maxarchivesize = 500K
			\|counter = 33
	\|algo = old(7d)		\|algo = old(7d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive 9		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{archives\|bot=MiszaBot II\|age=7 \|auto=short \|search=no
	{{shortcut\|WT:GAN\|WT:GAC}}
			\|
			GA: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]

			Criteria: ], ], ], ]
	== GAN Reviewer of the "Week" for 4/28/2008 through 5/10/2008 ==

			Reassessment: ], ], ], ], ], ]
	Ok, so it's actually about two weeks, but anyway, here's the stats: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen {{user\|Dihydrogen Monoxide}} as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for 4/28/2008 through 5/10/2008. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:

			GA help: ], ]
	# {{user\|Dihydrogen Monoxide}}
	# {{user\|GaryColemanFan}}
	# {{user\|Eustress}}
	# {{user\|Nikki311}}
	# {{user\|Redmarkviolinist}}

			Nominations/Instructions: ]
	Additionally, it's also worth noting that, during the same period, the top two nominators were:

			{{hidden\|Search archives\|
	# {{user\|Mitchazenia}}
			{{#tag:inputbox\|
	# {{user\|Imzadi1979}}
			bgcolor=transparent
			type=fulltext
			prefix={{FULLPAGENAME}}
			break=yes
			width=22
			searchbuttonlabel=Search GAN archives}}

			{{vpad\|1.5em}}
	== GA Newsletter: June 2008 ==
			{{#tag:inputbox\|
			bgcolor=transparent
			type=fulltext
			prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Good articles
			break=yes
			width=22
			searchbuttonlabel=Search GA archives}}

			{{vpad\|1.5em}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/June 2008}}
			{{#tag:inputbox\|
			bgcolor=transparent
			type=fulltext
			prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Good article criteria
			break=yes
			width=22
			searchbuttonlabel=Search criteria archives}}

			{{vpad\|1.5em}}
	== New system ==
			{{#tag:inputbox\|

			bgcolor=transparent
	I once reviewed many articles. Now, due to the new system, and other changes to the GA process that I either do not understand or do not find to be conducive to performing the thorough reviews I was known for, I haven't reviewed for more than a month. One of the effects predicted by some when discussing a reform of GA has come about...you've driven away active reviewers. Good job. And best of luck bringing willing reviewers in to your equally bureaucratic new review system. It doesn't look like the backlog is any better from where I'm sitting. ]] 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
			type=fulltext
	:It would help if you could show us what you are getting confused with. I was not intimately involved with the new system, but I didn't have a problem adjusting to the new way. What is the problem? ] (] • ]) 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
			prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Good article reassessment
	::This subpage system stinks. It's confusing to people nominating, who are used to having it directly on the talk page, and I find it cumbersome. I think the creators of this, who saw ''adding'' another special step and type of page just to do a GA review was a decreasing of complexity and bureaucracy, are out of their mind. Neither does it increase transparency. All it does is make it easier to archive old and inactive reviews. I was extremely familiar with the old system, and other than the complex templating, it was a natural system of reviewing. This is the exact opposite: it creates some special new reviewing space, rather than using a space already set up for discussion about articles, the talk page. ]] 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
			break=yes
	::: As always, I find myself agreeing with VanTucky that there is still too much bureaucracy at GA. In particular, I agree with his first message that GA is overly bureaucratic, and that the introduction of the subpage system does ''absolutely nothing'' to address this. I hope that this issue is being discussed by those editors in the reform working group (of which I am not currently a member).
			width=22
	::: However, the subpage system was ''never intended'' to reduce bureaucracy, nor was it pushed by me to that end. It was introduced to enhance accountability: the ideal is that every GA action has a permanent link to a review which justifies that action. You don't need to work at GAR for very long to realise how often this ideal is not achieved.
			searchbuttonlabel=Search reassessment archives}}
	::: There was overwhelming pressure to implement a subpage system, and all feedback so far, apart from this thread, has been positive. New reviewers continue to join GA all the time. Since they are not wedded to the old system, they don't need to adapt: they take it as they find it. Reviews are transcluded onto the article talk page, so the talk page is still the place for review discussion.
			}}
	::: The subpage system was introduced 2 weeks, not a month ago, so in the spirit of VanTucky's first message, I wish him good luck with his contributions elsewhere, and thank him for his past help at GAN. '']'' 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
			}}
	:::: I joined this fine company only yesterday when I performed by first review. It was a little scary I must admit, but the process of how to perform the formalities was very clearly explained on this page, and I had no problem understanding it and complying to it. I do not know how it was before, and cannot compare, but for me the subpage system was natural; just like XfD, peer reviews and other processes have them, I was actually expecting to find it here to. <font face="serif">] <sup>]</sup></font> 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

	:::(ec) There is an apparent confusion in what you appear to be saying between bureaucracy, complexity and accountability IMO. The idea of the review subpage – which I believe to be a good one – was to increase accountability. The price paid was a very small increase in complexity, but no increase in bureaucracy. A price worth paying? I think so.

	:::I continue to oppose a shift towards multi-reviewer systems, on the other hand, because they would indeed add to the bureaucracy, but for what benefit? To satisfy those editors who will always consider GA to be an inferior version of FA until they manage inevitably and imperceptibly to merge with GA with FA? That's a lose-lose situation for everyone. --] (]) 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::I just did my first review under the new system (and my eighth GA review overall). I found it to be about as easy as the old system with the advantage that the review is now a permanent link (something I am highly in favor of). What is confusing is all the work after the review - I passed ] and had to make comments on the GA subpage, on the nominator's talk page, change the GA template at the top of the article talk page, remove the nom from GAN, and update the GA list. Reviewers do not have to do this much "paperwork" at FAC or PR or FLC. I found it easier to fix a cut and paste page move today (an admin task I have done about as often as GA reviews). Just my thoughts, ] ''']''' 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::That's of course at least partly due to the fact that FA and FL have nominated directors who carry out all of the closing paperwork. I'd be very much against the idea of a GA director. I do agree though that closing is a real PITA, with too many steps. --] (]) 23:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Just as a note, all the things you have to do to close it was not introduced by the subpage idea; it was always a part of it (or recently, anyway).

	::::::However, the easiness of the FA process is that there is a ] that does automatic archiving of FAs once they're done, adds it to the ArticleHistory, and generally makes things a lot easier. It'd be nice if someone could come up with a bot like that for the GA process (actually, I was thinking of doing that, if I can gain the technical knowledge). ] (] • ]) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I think that's a good idea, and something we may well want to address soon, once we have a system in place we're all happy with (per the ] Gguy referred to above).
	:::::::@VanTucky: I personally will be very sorry to see such a high-quality reviewer leave the project, but you must do what you feel is best, and I too wish you all the best. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

	This is probably on a complete tangent, but one probably appropriate to put under this heading. I've created a review for ] but the review isn't transcluded on the Talk page. I think it was originally but has now disappeared. Anyone know why? ] (]) 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
	:Scrap that. I've sorted it. But do reviewers really need to add an extra line to the talk page? Shouldn't the process do it automatically? ] (]) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
	:: Unfortunately yes, as there is no bot operating here, only templates, and I can't see a way to do that using templates. '']'' 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::Oh. I've only done two reviews under the new system. But can't remember having to add that extra line in the first time. ] (]) 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::I forgot my main point. D'oh. Shouldn't the review process say to put the template line on the talk page to tranclude the review? ] (]) 17:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::It does, doesn't it? '']'' 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Indeed it does. I'll go hang my head in shame. ] (]) 17:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: No worries :-) Actually, if you or anyone else can find ways to clarify (concisely) the instructions either here (at ]) or at ], please do. This is a wiki after all :-) '']'' 17:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

	== Review page headers ==

	I'm sure I saw this question elsewhere, but naturally I can't find it now ;) Is there any reason why the review page starts with a level two rather than a level three header? It seems to me L3 is more suitable for displaying things when the review is transcluded to the talk page... what were the thoughts on this? ]<sup>]</sup> 19:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
	: GA Reviews have traditionally appeared and should still appear in a separate section on the talk page, not a subsection of an existing section. Placing the level 2 header on the subpage guarantees this. If it were a level 3 header, the reviewer would have to add a level 2 header before the transclusion. leading to a set-up as follows:
	:<nowiki>==GA Review==</nowiki> (edit link goes to article talk page revealing only a template, not the review)
	:<nowiki>===GA Review===</nowiki> (edit link goes to review subpage)
	:This is redundant and confusing, and there is no guarantee that it will be done consistently.
	:Finally, using a level 2 header makes level 3 available to break up the review into comments, responses, updates, second opinions etc. At peer review one of the most common mistakes is users adding level 3 headers to peer reviews, thus messing up the peer review page and the archives: editors are not used to levels 4 and 5. Sadly, peer review has to use level 3, because level 2 is needed for the main sections of the peer review page.
	:Is there actually any reason why level 3 is more suitable than level 2 for GA? I struggle to think of one :-) '']'' 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

	::None whatsoever, and I apologise for wasting your time with a stupid question. I was transcluding the review into a 'new section' instead of just sticking it at the bottom of the page, which of course meant two L2 headers followed each other. I came back here to strike my comment when I realised I was just being dense, but unfortunately not soon enough :P ]<sup>]</sup> 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

	::: Yes, this is a "feature" (drawback) of the system, and you're not being dense (and surely are not alone) in making this mistake. Also I'm finding some reviewers are using L2 headers to break up the review, which is unfortunate, but can probably be discouraged by tweaking the documentation. '']'' 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

	::::I'm sure you're right, and it's only a minor niggle. I'm so used to conducting reviews in a new talk-page section, it was just force of habit - I didn't even stop to think. I have to say, though, that I'm finding the new system really excellent, and having a permanent review link to a separate subpage is such a huge improvement I can't think why we do this ages ago ;) ]<sup>]</sup> 22:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
	*I think the instructions on the page you see when you start a review (GAN/header, I think is the template) could be a bit more clear on what to add to the talk page. Perhaps the use of some selective bolding, at least... it's a bit confusing for now (or I thought so when I first started using subpages). '']'' <sub>(])</sub> 01:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

	== ] was removed from the nomination in an out-of-process manner. ==

	If the Good Article nomination and evaluation process is to be taken at all seriously in the larger community, then, as a first step, it should conduct its affairs in a consistent, orderly way; in the absence of such then one cannot conclude anything about this project other than that if fills up talk pages in a rather noisy way, for an irregularly conducted process cannot be evaluated by any metric whatsoever and it becomes unclear if the program is capable of distinguishing good articles from the run of the mill.

	] ] () because it is list-like, rather than prose like, in much of its composition.
	# However, I see no ] permitting a ] of a list-like article.
	# Furthermore, in relation to ''published'' quick-fail criteria, ]: appears to pass. It is not:
	## '''completely lacking in reliable sources.''' A bit of measured reflection leads me to question the use of one reference, but that is a ''measured reflection.'' A quick glance of the article finds many citations in play from a number of references
	## '''treat it's topic in a non-neutral way.''' Again, measured reflection may lead some editors to conclude that it deals with the topic in a sympathetic way, but that is not immediately obvious to this editor; it is a conclusion that follows only after some contemplation
	## '''have any cleanup banners'''
	## '''have an ongoing edit war,''' or
	## '''cover a rapidly unfolding event with a definite terminating condition in the offing'''.
	#I'm aware that the article has a rather large, embedded list. Indeed, I've opined that it make the article read rather like a telephone directory. I'm also aware that the good article criteria has a ] lists, portals and images from nomination. However:
	##the exclusionary language has not actually been incorporated into the quick fail criteria. Perhaps it should be, but that is another discussion for another place. In any event, it is not the business of reviewers to add quick fail criteria on the fly. That is a matter of deliberation and consensus.
	##for sake of argument, even if there were a sixth quick-fail criterion barring list-like composition, I would argue that the article could not be quickly failed on that point. It does start off with a decent bit of prose that is sufficiently developed to consider the article a prose piece, at least in part. Since this can be argued, and since I'm obliged to assume good faith regarding the nominators, I can only conclude that the nominators had read the exclusionary language but concluded that their article was more prose- than list-like.
	#Finally, small points perhaps, but necessary to note: ] did not sign his action statement on the talk page, nor did he perform any action with the {{tl\|GAN}} template, leaving the talk page out of sync with the ]. One gets the impression that the editor was working in haste and was growing a tad careless.

	Since:
	#the article has been nominated in good faith, and
	#appears not to violate any of the five ''published'' quick-fail criteria
	the only fair and equitable step to take is to reinstate the nomination and subject it to a standard nomination evaluation. Sadly, professional matters will draw me from Misplaced Pages for the balance of the day, but, in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary I plan to reinstate the article to the nomination list, and possibly even review the article, though such effort will in the wee (]) hours of tomorrow morning at the earliest. I or another reviewer may conclude ''in the context of a nomination evaluation'' that the article is too list-like in its composition, failing 1(b); it is out of process to simply pull the article from the nomination list, denying review, as if there was a quick-fail criterion barring such articles.

	I confess sadness at subjecting Noble Story to this sharp rebuke. Noble Story has been rightfully commended for the number and quality of his or her reviews and I admire the bits that I've seen of them. If this had been the work of a new or inexperienced reviewer I would have contained my remarks to the reviewer's talk page. Alas, this is one of our good practitioners, one that I admire, and one that I hold to higher standards. I hope that Noble Story continues to review with the care and thoroughness that he or she has demonstrated in the past. For the present case, I trust that the ] has led Noble Story to a temporary lapse — a good faith effort to quicky remove 'obvious fails' from the nomination list. Be that as it may, I hope that I've made abundantly clear that even so-called 'obvious fails' have a right to be evaluated in accordance with ''the published process'' and ''only'' through the published process. I need not remind editors who have observed the various and sundry debates concerning the Good Article marque that there are those who hold the project in deep and profound contempt. Let us not hand that community a verifiable basis for their contempt. Yes, there is a backlog. To those alarmed by such, ]. If the Good Article nomination and evaluation process can be demonstrated to be erratic in its application, then there arises a proper and justifiable basis to shut the project down. That, of course, would neatly deal with the back log in a very short order. Take care. ] (]) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

	:I've listed this at ], since you're disputing the reviewer's decision. There's a link at the top of the article talk page to the reassessment discussion, or you can click ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
	::My guess is that NobleStory looked at the article and considered it a list. Per ], lists are not candidates for GA, instead ''Lists, portals, and images: these items should be nominated for featured list, featured portal, and featured picture status respectively.'' I think the article fails NPOV - I looked up the New York Times article and it refers to two societies at Cornell: "Sphinx Head" and "Quill and Dagger" and says "Election to these societies is on the basis of of prominence in student activities and is considered the highest non-scholastic honor within the reach of undergraduates." However, the quote as used in the article omits any reference to the other society (Quill and Dagger), clearly POV in favor of Sphink Head. I also think the article (which is just a list of the 63 newest members and a bit of background on the soceties) clearly implies this is the highest non-scholastic honor within Cornell (in 1929). ] ''']''' 17:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

	::Thank you for your remark. To prevent discussion fork, I'll reply at the ] that ] established. Take care ] (]) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

	:::I would conclude from this that we need to deprecate quick-failing; it is already discouraged, and rightly so. Every nomination deserves a review, and now that we have the subpage system, every completed GAN action must have a permanent link to a review subpage explaining that action. I am not against articles being failed quickly: putting articles on hold is optional, and the further away an article is from meeting the criteria, the briefer the review can be. But a review there should be, nonetheless. '']'' 08:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

	== Adding "is a list" to Quick-fail criteria ==

	Right now the ] says nothing about failing an article because it is a list. However, that is a valid reason to fail. So, I'm thinking a sentence about that should be added. Thoughts? ] (] • ]) 04:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
	*I "quick failed" a list once and then thought about it and removed the failed GA template from the talk page. To my mind, quick fail means that at some point the article may pass and become a GA. However, a list by its nature can never become a GA, so is it really fair to put a "failed GA candidate" template on its talk page when it can never become a GA? </br> I do think it is worth adding to the "First things to look for" that lists and others that can never be GA can be removed from GAN. ] ''']''' 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
	::Perhaps we could list it as a quick-fail criterion, but with instructions for the reviewer to leave a message on the talk page and not to use the failed GA template. Does that work? ] (]) 05:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::Has the removal of a list from GAN ever been disputed? (Note, the above recent case is ''not'' an example of a list: it merely contains an embedded list.) If not, then perhaps we don't need to be making up rules for problems which don't occur. '']'' 08:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::So you're saying that the above article is ''not'' a list? If I may ask, at what ratio of prose/list does an article have to be to considered a list? I think a lot of people would consider that article a list. ] (] • ]) 09:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Regardless of the above case (which I haven't observed so won't comment on yet) I agree with Ruhrfisch. Lists will never be GA so we should remove GAN templates (and tell editors why we did so, obviously). '']'' <sub>(])</sub> 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::::What about borderline cases, like TV season articles? ] is an featured list; ] is a featured article. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 10:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I suggest that borderline cases like these can, ''in principle'' at least, be GAs. '']'' 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

	== Image licence ==

			== Old nomination ==
	I am reviewing ] and on checking the images I found a ] I had not seen before. As the image is limited to wikipedia and not to be copied to commons is this fair use? All the other images are under ] . Assistance gratefully received - you could make use of the ] if relevant. Thanks ] –<small> ]</small> 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

			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 don't see what the problem is, really. The use of the image on the English Misplaced Pages would be under a free license, and since it's being used in an English Misplaced Pages article, it doesn't need a fair use rationale here. It can't be uploaded to Commons simply because Commons doesn't accept images that aren't free both in the United States and in the country of origin, not because it's somehow an invalid license. Cheers! ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:01, 13 June 2008 (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 ==
	Has anyone else noticed this editors actions on GAN. He is wasting reviewers free time, I hate to say it that bluntly. He nominates articles, articles he doesn't even work on and NEVER does any of the work while on hold. This results in the article failing and leaves the reviewer pissed off quite frankly. This needs to stop, it boarders on disruptive. He has been told its not good multiple times. He nominated the ] a while back. The reviewer did a nice job summing up what needed doing. On an article of that size the reviewer must have lost about 1 hour or more of their free time. I was so annoyed that the nominater hadn't done any of the work that I decided to do it despite never working on the article previously. Months on and I see that he is still doing it. — ] (]) 05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
	:], ]. Any new thoughts? '']'' <sub>(])</sub> 11:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
	::* ] He is aware of the backlog problem and…
	::* ] … the complicity of multiple nominations with backlogs.
	::* His ] shows, of late, that he reviews and copyedits articles prior to nomination. To me, the (, , ) on ] shows that Kaypoh knows how to consolidate prose. He seems to be of a mind to prep an article, nominate it, and then move onto other tasks. With his moving on to other tasks, Kaypoh raises an interesting question. Suppose that a nominating editor just doesn't like the kind of interleaved editing session with a reviewer that many of us have come to expect of nominators. Is it ''necessary to codify'' such an interactive session as an evaluation requirement? If a reviewer leaves a well-reasoned blueprint for improving the article, does it really matter that the nominator chooses not to be the implementor? I'm rather inclined to think not. The reviewer's criticism, if it forms a well-crafted blueprint, ''is'' the useful output of a Good Article evaluation. Producing such an artifact would certainly not be a waste of the reviewer's time. This being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then anyone can take up such a well-made blueprint and run with it. I would think that a reviewer would find it a source of pride to author an article review that is of sufficient clarity and detail that anyone could work with it and that it requires no dependencies or tacit understandings between the reviewer and a particular nominator. I think that it would simplify the Good Article evaluation process if we reviewers would write our reviews with sufficient generality so that anyone could work with them.
	::* Kaypoh raises another interesting question. Is there a minimum effort that a nominator must invest in an article before "gaining" the right to nominate it? I believe, at present, that we ask a nominator to ''recognize'' that an article is good before nominating it. Are there concrete preparations that a nominator must make to ensure that his or her certification of the article has merit? I've ] that, prior to enqueuing an article, a nominator should self-review the candidate in accordance with the good article criteria and take any necessary steps to bring it up to GA standards ''before'' nominating the candidate. Such a rule may minimize dead-on-arrival candidates but may discourage nominators from participating. It's not clear to me if a 'nominator's requirement' rule is needed, or what it should exact of the nominator. That said, I would like to see better-prepared articles nominated. Take care. ] (]) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

			===Historical figures: politicians ===
	::::The problem is not only with this particular editor, although I agree that he/she is consistently not "playing fair", as it were. I ran into a similar scenario while reviewing (and consequently failing) ] for GAC; although I provided an in depth review, placed the article on hold for a week, and contacted the nominator, zilch was done and I received no reply. In fact, I was outright ignored. It's incredibly irritating that my time, and the time of various other reviewers, must be wasted on these halfway noms; if a nominator is only willing to go halfway, then what are we even doing providing these reviews? I say we make it absolutely clear in the instructions that the nominator should '''expect''' to take part in the reviewing process, meaning that they respond to questions/suggestions/comments to the best of their ability and '''work''' to improve the nominated article if it does not fully meet the criteria after an initial review. I don't like the idea of "banning" certain users from nominating, but in the case of "repeat offenders", open discouragement may help alleviate the problem. <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(] con])</small> 15:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::On following the link above I read this ], and thought here is another issue that Kaypoh has raised. One possible result from this is the article has a history of a failed GA, when actually at least one editor did not want it nominated in the first place.] –<small> ]</small> 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Reply to Gosgood, you have raised some interesting points that I never thought about. I can see there are ''some'' good qualities to what the editor is doing, so thankyou for explaining that. However GA review isn't a fairy tail where we have all the time in the world. The fact of the matter is we have a backlog, this editor is unnessarily adding to that. Regarding your statement here:
	::::::'''Suppose that a nominating editor just doesn't like the kind of interleaved editing session with a reviewer that many of us have come to expect of nominators. Is it ''necessary to codify'' such an interactive session as an evaluation requirement? If a reviewer leaves a well-reasoned blueprint for improving the article, does it really matter that the nominator chooses not to be the implementor? I'm rather inclined to think not. The reviewer's criticism, if it forms a well-crafted blueprint, ''is'' the useful output of a Good Article evaluation. Producing such an artifact would certainly not be a waste of the reviewer's time.'''
	:::::: We already have a process for this sort of activity. Its called peer review. If the editor wants feedback on an article to give the "future generation" help/advise take it to peer review, not here. — ] (]) 18:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
	::(← outdent) When I review an article, I take as my remit the ] ]. In the case where an article is failing, then step three of this guideline charges me with the responsibility to prepare a review ''"extensive enough to allow the article to be improved and renominated, so that it will pass in the future."'' Even when an article passes the ], my remit still calls on me to furnish constructive criticism, perhaps given in the context of the gap from the Good to Featured article standards. In any case, if I assume the role of a good article reviewer, then that is the deliverable which I am entrusted to convey to the community. I regard the nominator as the representative of that community. There is a peer review process; it appears that the responsibility with which I have been charged has no dependency on that process. As a consequence, I have no option to delegate my review responsibility to it. I have the overriding responsibility to ignore all rules when they get in the way of writing the encyclopedia; I don't think this guideline is so dysfunctional that I am obliged to invoke that overriding responsiblity. That is my understanding of the responsibility of a Good Article reviewer. Pray, have I left anything of significance out?

			In Historical figures: politicians at ], 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. ] (]) 20:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I find ]'s behaviour a pain in the behind. He appears ] about the "nominate one, review one." rule-of-thumb. He says he's not good at reviewing. He's been asked, "how, then, could you figure out if a nominated article is good?" He hasn't answered that one, but it may very well be, "Aren't you guys the reviewers? Isn't that your job?" He reminds me of an executive who avoids getting bogged down in details that he's not good at executing. Kaypoh doesn't get involved in content. His strengths, it seems, lie in the realm of logistics and dispatch. He seems to think that he's not a good writer, copyeditor, or article reviewer, so he exercises his strength (dispatch), and farms out his weaknesses (writing, editing, content review...). Does this irritate me in the extreme? Oh yes. I'm one of the dopes-at-the-end-of-the-rope who is getting what he's farming out. And so are you and everyone else on this thread. Is what he's doing ''wrong?'' Uuuuuh. I draw a blank there, because nominators are not governed by a guideline-level document as reviewers are. The closest there is to a nominator governance is ]'s essay "]." There I read about all of the nice behaviour we'd like nominators to exhibit. But this is an essay, not policy, and not a guideline. Kaypoh or any other nominator can read it and conclude: 'Eh. I'm not real good at doing any of that. I think I'll pass.' Does this frustrate the stuffing out of me? Ya, you betcha. But Kaypoh's high-handed, executive-elite behaviour reminds me of an old buzzard of a supervisor I once had. "Osgood," he said, "Sometimes people don't color between the lines you draw for them." Looking back twenty years, I can only say that it was a day I needed slapping with a ]. Messy inputs are a part of real life. One has to observe them from a neutral point of view (what a coincidence!), document their behaviour in a passionless way, and then — and only then — design a process that is adaptive to the observed, real-life, human behaviour, and not the fairy-tale case where people always behave the way you'd like them to. The discussion of such a process, by the way, may very well be taking place on the ]. If not, it should start there. Take care. ] (]) 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			:] and ] seem to be Canadian, ] 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? ] (]) 15:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Funny goings-on at GA ==
			::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. ] (]) 15:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	I saw on a talk page I regularly watch, which led also to and . ] (]) 01:44, 18 June 2008 (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. ] (]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I nominated the article partly because Meldshal asked me to do so and partly because I wanted to know how to improve the article. Perhaps this was a lapse of judgement on my part, as I honestly didn't think the article had enough referencing along with other problems. Perhaps we should delist it or have a more in depth review. I'm an ''''']]]]'''''<sup>]]</sup> 01:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::I delisted it, but I left it as a GA nominee so that a more thorough review could be performed. ] (]) 01:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::I was simply going to delist it without puting it back up for review. Two entire sections are unreferenced, and the article is too short to be comprehensive. It's a quick fail candidate, imo, but I'll essentially leave it for a second reviewer. ]] 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			===Splitting "Historical figures: other"===
	I apologize for not speaking up before this. I saw ] pass, which it should not have with a source used 33 times. I also saw that ] was passed, and it should not have been. A national park article should be much more comprehensive. I've had GAs passed by editors who really didn't seem to know what they're doing. It's really not worth it. I'd much rather feel as if I achieved something. If you continue to review GA's Meldshal, I suggest making your criteria ''much'' more stringent. --] (]) 02:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
			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, ] (]) 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:IMO, the criteria is fine as it is. The problem is the lack of quality reviewers, and the surplus of reviewers who pass articles that really shouldn't be. The original purpose of GA was to recognize articles that are not or not likely to reach featured, so raising the GA bar would further blur the GA/FA line. ] ] ] 02:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::I still think theres a BIG difference between GA and FA. I have 6 GA's and not a single FA yet :-(. For me at least the jump is still noticeable. Im quite supprised by the links provided. It doesn't look good and cheapens a process I have a lot of respect for. — ] (]) 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::There is indeed currently a substantial difference, but with the ongoing discussion at ] regarding lowering (IMO) the FA standards, and this discussion to raise the GA standards, there might not be in time. ] ] ] 02:46, 18 June 2008 (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. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 22:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::I believe what Moni meant is not that the GA criteria isn't stringent enough, but that ''Meldshal's'' personal criteria for assessing GACs is lacking, which, having left my comments at Hell's Gate National Park's talk page, I have to agree with. That article is nowhere near GAC standards and yet it passed with (seemingly) flying colors. The process wonkery stated above by Sandy is, in my opinion, highly immoral. <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(] con])</small> 02:57, 18 June 2008 (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.) ] (]) 03:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::This is, in fact, what I meant. I did the initial GA review for Mary Meader. When it sat for 7 days without action, it failed. The first comment from Meldshal in their review was to rectify the repeated use of ''The New York Times'' source, but it was retracted. It's my personal observation that that's from lack of confidence, and being challenged by an enthusiastic nominator. The encouragement to nominate articles to be specifically reviewed is very troubling, however. --] (]) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
			:::{{re\|Generalissima}} ] 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. ] (]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I don't approve of what those diffs seem to imply, but this is hopefully just a mistake due to a lack of familiarity with the GA process. ] (]) 03:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::: I'm sorry, but this is clearly no mistake. This is gaming a system set up on good faith. I run into articles every day, many times when they arrive at FAC completely unprepared, that were victims of either a nominator "collecting" GAs for awards or a reviewer "collecting" GA reviews for some purpose I do not understand. Sharkface's award center gave me some insight into the problem but, like Star Wars Episodes 1–3, I have decided to ignore it for the sake of my own sanity. This is a deliberate process in which an editor about an article being ready (fishing for other interested parties), then an editor to nominate it, that they intend to review the article themselves. The result is severely deficient articles carrying GA status which at some point emboldens either the original nominator or some unwitting editor to try bringing it to FAC, which, as others have pointed out, is leagues away from GA in terms of quality. I've caught other editors doing this and literally had to threaten an RFC to get them to stop. --] ] 03:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Well that's just plain wrong and a threat to the whole process. It should be discouraged in the strongest possible way. ] (]) 03:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Nipping it in the bud might be facilitated by following ] and admin coaching; two factors that are detrimental to both GAN and FAC, as editors on a checklist path to RfA try to gather awards. ] (]) 03:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:(← outdent) ] expresses the intent to ], that he or she likes to review and is not out ], but when I look at a review like this:
	:* ]
	:and compare it to a review like this:
	:* ]
	:I am struck with how, regardless of his efforts, ] review is being undermined. As ] has pointed out in more ways than I have fingers and toes, just ''one'' weak Good Article review makes ''all'' reviews suspect. The one weak review is sufficient to demonstrate that the process is uneven. It establishes doubt, and doubt travels faster and penetrates deeper than a sense of integrity about things. As Moni3 has shrewdly observed, people rejoice only if they feel they have achieved something, but doubt undermines that sense of achievement. It leaves people who are working hard on nominating or reviewing articles wondering if they are doing anything useful for the larger community. Becoming doubtful, they wander off and find something else more rewarding. And as we learned today with ], it does not take very long after project has become moribund for somebody to kindly and lovingly put a bullet through its head, so that the project is in misery no longer. Then hey, presto! no more Good Article awards! They'd just be stupid green trinkets anyway, cluttering talk pages. Take care. ] (]) 05:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			====Historical figures: bureaucrats and administrators split?====
	::I apologize to all users because I didn't realize that it was kind of unfair. Please, let me review the articles fairly. ~~] ] 10:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::You're welcome to review articles fairly. To confirm that you are doing so, please post a new section here, or contact one of the ], before posting a review on an article's talk page, so someone more experienced can confirm that you ''are'' "review the articles fairly". Thanks and good luck. '']'' <sub>(])</sub> 10:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::I did spot one editor sign up at the Award's Center to do 10 GA reviews. Within just a couple of minutes he/she had passed one GAN. It may well have been a pass, and the Award may have been set up in good faith, but I think there are some people who go to the Award Center to pick up awards without making quality edits. There are countless number of editors who do far better work for no reward. ] (]) 11:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::It may well be that I am more to blame than Meldshal. 1556 Shanxi was most certainly not a good article and I was only listing because I wanted specific concerns, not an all-out pass. I personally thought that everything that needed to be said was said in all my GAs that Meldshal passed, though I agree they were all on the short side. I do not participate in the Award Center and I wrote these articles for to embetter Misplaced Pages. Meldshal's reviews should've been a bit more thorough, I suppose. P.S. I bought the Mary Meader Book, but I think using it would give too much detail to Meader's flight and thus the article would not be NPOV, so I decided not to use it. I'm an ''''']]]]'''''<sup>]]</sup> 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			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? ] (]) 22:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Feedback requested ==

			: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)
	Hello all - I'm a novice GA reviewer, and I'd appreciate feedback on my most recent reviews: ] (based on version of the article), ] (based on version of the article), and ] (based on version of the article). Am I being too harsh? Unduly emphasizing "well written" over the other criteria? Being too pedantic about grammatical rules? I don't think I'm going to turn into one of your most prolific reviewers, but I could see myself enjoying doing a burst of reviews from time to time, and I'd like to make sure I'm doing them right. Apologies if there would have been a better place to post this. ] (]) 03:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			== New editor incorrectly starting GANRs ==
	:Your reviews are fantastic. Seriously, they are some of the best I've seen. ''''']]]''''' 03:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::Very nice, always check web links to make sure they work and always read the notes/references to make sure all sources come from a reliable place. I only took a quick scan but I'll ashume you did that. Much better than me after my first attempt. Gush, it makes me teary eyed. If I had the time I would do a review right now. — ] (]) 04:08, 18 June 2008 (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)
	:::Looks great to me! That's the sort of review I'd love if I nominated an article. I also worry whether I'm too pedantic about prose when reviewing... I don't expect "engaging, even brilliant" prose, but I think clarity and correctness is extremely important for GA. ] (]) 04:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::(I'm his GAN mentor ;-)). SI, that's great. Much better than the section above this one. Please keep it up. '']'' <sub>(])</sub> 06:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			: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)
	== A simple proposal ==
			::@] @], 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)
			:::It has been reinserted in its old position in the "queue" (in effect, it never left the queue) ] (]) 14:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::@] Thank You! 🙂 ]] 15:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Nonsensical review ==
	What if GA reviewers had to be certified in some way? Another way to think of this is to require all GA reviewers from now on to go through the mentoring process. In order to do a review, you would have to be listed on an approved reviewers list. Misbehavior would remove you from that list. Reviews would still be basically a one person operation, but the reviewers would be vetted.

			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)
	To start, there would have to be some criteria for who was "]" in as an established reviewer (perhaps anyone who ever received top 5 in the GA reviewer of the month or anyone who had done 5 reviews that were not disputed). Perhaps there could be a page where GA reviewers listed their names and five reviews they had done (linked). If a certain number of other editors active in GA reviews supported, they would be "established".

			:seems like a pretty clearly Chat-GPT generated review. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 22:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Once a pool of established reviewers was set up in some way, they could act as mentors to new reviewers. While this would take some time and effort to set up, it might be worth it to establish some way of knowing reviewers were "approved".
			: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. &spades;]&spades; ] 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)

			{{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)
	This is an idea I had last night and it still seems reasonable, so I thought I would throw it out for others to shoot holes in or hopefull improve it. The basic idea is to have a list of approved GA reviewers who would be the only ones allowed to do a review. Quality control would be of reviewers and not each individual review. The goal is to improve the overall quality of GA reviews and avoid apparent gamesmanship and drive by reviews. What do you think? ] ''']''' 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			:I did not use LLMs this time, I copied the wiki-text from my sandbox and pasted it into the sub talk page. And what is your criticism of my review now, that it does not meet your standards or that it was done by me. Is it wrong according to Good article criteria or you just hate me. Please highlight what did you meant by "same manner".
	:My major concern with this would be that it seemingly goes against the whole spirit of "anyone can participate". If any process needed experienced and certified individuals to read and judge articles, it would be FAC and not GAC. While I like the idea of encouraging more training and mentoring, especially for new participants, I fear many potential reviewers would be turned off the process if some kind of authentication process was added to the mix. Think of the <s>children</s> backlog! <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(] con])</small> 13:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
			:And how am I supposed to get seasoned without reviewing, if the people on the talk page don't object and nominator/s don't object what is the problem I may ask. And do you think I am rubber stamper or someone just afraid to fail a nominee after my last encounter, If so you should read the ] and also don't forget to read the ] and come and tell me If I violated something and also read ], and tell me if there is something from here present in my review. If the nominators/s have a problem or two I am obliged to listen and reopen the review.
			:And lastly, what is your purpose to stalk me? ] (]) 18:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Nobody is stalking you, but when someone publicly says "I'm not going to do " and then immediately goes back to doing the thing, it's not a great look. &spades;]&spades; ] 18:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] Great, so what should I do, should I never do a review again in my life? I have a question; what is wrong with my review on ], please I need your opinion so I can improve reviews next in line if I get any ] (]) 18:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::You have really got to stop putting words in peoples' mouths. No one has said you can never do another review ever in your life. You yourself said you would be refraining until you were "seasoned", yet you immediately did another review! There is a lot of space between "review again immediately" and "never review again", and waiting even a few weeks would have put you in a position of much less judgement. &spades;]&spades; ] 18:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, {{u\|Infoadder95}}, all editors are supposed to ] - which you are not, by asking me why "I hate you" and "am stalking you", which seems to be casting ]. And you also said you would not review before learning, and try to understand what the issues with your reviews were. ] (]) 18:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I have been issued a warning on my talk page for using LLMs on ] which I did not, yes I did use them on the 2 reviews before but I completely wrote this one myself, what seems to be the issue. ] (]) 18:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I have replied to that below.
			:::::::As for why you have warned of LLM usage- even in the case you didn't (which seems weird, as some of the links are missing, which seems unlikely to be done by a human hand), you have copied the format of your last two reviews, which is why they seem LLM generated, even if they might or might not be. ] (]) 18:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Ok I quit reviewing, this is probably not a task for me. ] (]) 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'll tell you how the review does not meet the criteria in some time if you want, but I would like to address the other points. "or you just hate me."- I do not, I just brought it up bcs it's wrong according to the criteria- you list issues in the review which very much mean that the article does not meet the criteria yet, or would be if some, if not all, of them were not incorrect. You get seasoned by reading the criteria and instructions properly and seeing other's people reviews.
			::I'm not stalking you, I was just checking what reviews have been passed/failed today till now as there has many incorrect reviews the past few weeks. ] (]) 18:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] Ok please tell me what is wrong with my review, me listing issues does not mean that the article does not qualify, instead they are the areas of improvement. Let me ask you, if you deem that one citation from one section of the whole article is unreliable or does not support the claim it is next to, will you fail the whole well written article or just bring it up so it can be addressed. Or another example; if the lead section is good but it can be a bit shorter, will you just fail the whole article.
			:::And please don't forget to tell me that what is wrong with my review. ] (]) 18:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Minor-ish issues: you do not need to explain the GA criteria, just have to say they pass or fail bcs of this or that reason. And you should not highlight your reviews with a background colour, it's distracting.
			::Major issues- you have passed it despite you saying there are issues. (added after your reply) yes, bring it up, let it be fixed, do not just pass the article, as it very clearly states in the instructions, and what you would know if you had checked other reviews.
			::major issue 2: travolta is mentioned in ref 2 for the first sentence. The garfield cite is Variety- which is reliable, (and which you have also misplaced from the review, as its blank there). I might be able to find more, but the review is written badly, and it's hard to check what is and what isn't a problem. ] (]) 18:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thanks for highlighting, I think I should not probably not review again, and I think it is for the better of Misplaced Pages and it's community. ] (]) 18:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::You may return, if you read and understand the ] and have checked how a reviews are supposed to work. Though probably not for a few weeks or maybe months. Misplaced Pages will always be grateful to all editors who can do whatever they are doing correctly. ] (]) 18:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::@] There is no need to make this personal or be self-depricating. When you edit on a public space like Misplaced Pages, people are going to point out your mistakes. Responding to critisism is a lifelong skill that takes awhile to learn. The best thing you can do is acknowledge your mistakes, clean up your mistakes, educate yourself, do better in the future, and move on. Maybe you're not quite at a place in your Misplaced Pages editing where you can contribute to qaulity articles. And that's okay. But know your limits. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 20:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Thanks ] (]) 14:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			I forgot this earlier, but could someone reset the review to it's original state with the original date, to ensure it gets a proper review. ] (]) 20:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Done, although it's a weird one given it was a pass. If the problems raised are correct and it was a fail, I would not have put it back in the queue, so hopefully they will be addressed. ] (]) 01:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Agree. Let's not forget that we have a ] where this idea — and others — ]. Please visit there. I'm personally favourable to the ] fielded by ]. I think she's struck a good balance between oversight and the "anyone can participate" spirit. Plus, I think, she has even simplified the overall process flow, so fewer tags and fewer review states are required (but I haven't done my homework on that). Take care. ] (]) 13:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm not completely opposed to this idea. It would certainly reduce the number of poor, quick reviews. I agree, though, that the extent of the increased bureaucracy would discourage new reviewers who may turn out to be experienced reviewers eventually. What if we let everbody review articles, and if they fail to do it correctly, they must go to a coaching of sorts to learn how to do it correctly? I have been recognized as one of the top five reviewers, so my opinion on this individual proposal might be biased. ] ] ] 13:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			== A streamlining of the GAN review process? ==
	: I still suggest that final passes be processed through a clearing house. ] (]) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::Then we would end up too close to ].<!--:)--> ] ] ] 14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			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)
	::While any system will have flaws, I think we have to determine what our priorities are. The highest priority in my view is establishing and maintaining high standards for GAs. After that, it's providing an open forum for anyone to edit and evaluate those GAs. I think having a certification of GA reviewers is a good idea, but of course, things can go wrong. My fear is that it may turn into something to achieve without any substance, almost like the pseudo-hazing that goes on at RfA. An alternative idea is to have apprentice GA reviewers, whose fist 5 to 10 reviews should be approved by someone who has a significant amount of GA reviews, GAs, or FAs in their experience. If an experienced reviewer notices a new editor mark an article for review, or pass an article, s/he can observe the review and take the newcomer under his/her wing, so to speak. --] (]) 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::: Without a clearing house, ''nothing else put in place will be enforceable''. Whatever is put in place, you need a final check to make sure it's happened because, like it or not, the current GA system is gameable by those who seek awards on the path to RfA. ] (]) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::Why, Sandy. It's as if you don't have faith that people with a common goal can work effeciently toward that goal. Or even that they agree on the goal. --] (]) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Sure they can ... but respect for GA will increase if there is a way of knowing when something fishy is happening, other than by chance from a talk page post. ] (]) 14:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::(ec)I had not thought through all of the implications of my "simple proposal", but Sandy is correct (as usual). Even a system of accredited reviewers would need someone checking all of the new GAs to make sure no unapproved reviewers (or reviews) slipped through, in short, a clearing hosue. I agree with Sandy, whatever the changes in GA, to ensure the quality of all reviews, there must be some sort of clearing house. ] ''']''' 14:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::What if there is the initial reviewer, and then people can !vote on whether they think the article should pass? Or better yet, (I've thought about this for a while), what about one or two GA directors that would just ensure that all passes were done correctly? ] ] ] 15:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Voting is too much "process" (that definitely puts you in FAC territory :-); I'd say a panel of six to twelve directors, which is exactly what I mean by a clearing house. When an editor passes a GA, it's posted to a central clearing house, where someone on that panel checks and does the final talk page updating of the pass. ] (]) 15:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm actually starting to like this idea. I don't know that we have 12 editors who are dedicated enough to the process to be a director of sorts, however. ] ] ] 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Four to eight might do the trick. This idea came to me because of the number of articlehistory errors introduced on talk pages by "anyone can pass" GA passes. If only four to eight editors can do the final final pass, that would kill two birds with one stone (checking each GA pass, and making sure the bookkeeping is done correctly). But two GA directors wouldn't be enough, because of the volume of GA. ] (]) 15:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:It looks like it is being discussed at the WPGA reform pages, but I think the simplist solution is to require two successful reviews to pass. That would maintain the simplicity of the GA process, while also helping to limit attempts at gaming the system. If we are going to start electing directors and what not, why not just formally make GA a step in the FA process? ]] 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:: I think if you'll look at the sample of issues being discussed, you'll see that two can game the system just as easily as one. (And, there would still be bookkeeping errors in the passes.) Making it part of the FA process is a big leap forward; why not first get a system that works, and cross that bridge when you come to it? ] (]) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	What if we just have a group of volunteers as a task force dedicated to watching the GA page and checking each and every pass as it comes in? That wouldn't change the system at all, it would just organize something that is already a natural occurrence. I'll volunteer.v You could put a message on the GA review saying it's been double checked. That would prevent overlap, unless, of course, we want overlap. ] (]) 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			== Drive by review ==
	: (after three edit conflicts, I should have learned by now not to post after Wrad :-) How would you know who has checked what, to avoid duplication of effort, and to know that all volunteers checking the same thing, possibly missing one? In other words, back to a clearing house, to make your idea work efficiently. ] (]) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::I think it's time to start a straw poll... ] ] ] 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::: I haven't read the reform page, so I'm not sure it's time for a poll yet. Why not first try to get that silly awards center finally MfD'd and see if that doesn't eliminate some problems ? ] (]) 15:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::The AWC has survived a number of MfDs already, and given the number of people that contribute to Misplaced Pages solely to receive barnstars there, I doubt we'll ever be able to get rid of it. ] ] ] 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::: What's this awards center y'all speak of? And why haven't I gotten copious amounts of them? Have I been giving away my time for free all this time? I expect to get paid richly for all I do... uh... for FAC, really. (I've been slacking at GA recently)... --] (]) 15:55, 18 June 2008 (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)
	::::: ]. That, and checklist admin coaching, are enticing editors to pass GAs on their path to backlogging FAC with ill-prepared noms on their path to RfA by checklist. ] (]) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:~~::::::The tragedy, of course, is~~ ~~that~~ you ~~don't~~ ~~even~~ ~~need~~ ~~GAs/FAs~~ on ~~your resume~~ to ~~get~~ the ~~mop~~ - I ~~was~~ ~~passed~~ ~~unanimously~~ ~~without~~ ~~either~~ ~~one.~~ ~~Whence~~ ~~comes this idea that there's a mandatory RFA checklist?~~ ] (]) 16:07, 18 ~~June~~ ~~2008~~ (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.}}
	::::::::: It's a notion bred by admin coaching, and furthered by the crowd that frequents RfA. (Some of them actually have checklists including participation at GA and FA processes.) And lest anyone has any doubts, most of these GAN/FAC issues are because of editors on what they perceive to be the path to RfA. Invariably, when a really bad GA pass shows up at FAC, an RfA is right behind it. ] (]) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
			::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".
	:::::: By the way, I hope someone doesn't MfD that thing right now; it needs to be done right this time, and work is underway. ] (]) 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
			::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)
			:::Even an article with no issues needs a spotcheck. ] (]) 01:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Discussion at the Village Pump ==
	:::::::Well, I've been in favor of a central station for awhile now to eyeball recent passes, so whatever we get along those lines is fine by me. (And sorry for the ec's!) ] (]) 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			There's a discussion at ] related to good article nominations. ] (]) 22:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::I can see a place for some kind of "random" sampling of passes, as a QC check, but I would not be in favour of every listing having to be double checked. --] (]) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			== New reviewer required ==
	:::::::::I agree with Malleus. Just an idea, but what's wrong with delegating a l33t group to watchlist ] and check for duds? That could be our "clearing house". <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(] con])</small> 16:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

	~~::::::::::~~ ~~That's~~ ~~like~~ ~~politically~~ ~~correct~~ ~~screening~~ of ~~grannies~~ at ~~airports;~~ I ~~can't~~ ~~imagine~~ ~~why~~ a ~~random~~ ~~process~~ ~~should~~ ~~waste~~ time ~~reviewing,~~ ~~for~~ ~~example,~~ an ~~Awadewit~~ GA ~~pass~~. ] (]) 16:24, 18 ~~June~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		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)

			: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)
	(OUT) I agree with Sandy, a screening process '''''is''''' needed as seen by recent events. However it would have to be done properly and shouldn't turn into the FA process. Only one "screener" need check the review. If 6 checkers all start commenting on 1 article, you get six times the number of complaints until eventually the article is closer to FA than GA. — ] (]) 17:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:21, 27 December 2024

Main

January backlog drive

Good article nominations

Shortcut

WT:GAN

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

Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4

Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

GA help: 1, 2

Nominations/Instructions: 1

Search archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Old nomination

I nominated Atlanta Braves 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. Nemov (talk) 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. SSSB (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Nemov (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

New editor incorrectly starting GANRs

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 instructions on how to review properly. I have asked them before on one of the review page and Remsense has also msged them on their talk page. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Given discussion has already been opened, I have reset Talk:UNICEF club/GA1. Of course, if Velthorian reopens that GAN it can be taken out of the queue again. Talk:Darren Moore/GA1 has already been reset. Talk:Chennai Super Kings/GA4 has not started, so let's see, it can be G7ed. CMD (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 @Chipmunkdavis, 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! Johnson524 14:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It has been reinserted in its old position in the "queue" (in effect, it never left the queue) SSSB (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@SSSB Thank You! 🙂 Johnson524 15:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Nonsensical review

I believe @Infoadder95:'s recent review of Swim School 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?--Laun chba ller 22:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

seems like a pretty clearly Chat-GPT generated review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we can add Talk:Tudor City/GA1 to that list as well, as it seems to reference a bunch of things that aren't actually in the article. For example:

Add more inline citations to the "Notable residents" and "Cultural significance" sections, as some claims lack direct sourcing. - Tudor City doesn't have sections with either of these names, nor is any of the content lacking direct sourcing.
- **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.
However, certain phrases, such as "masterpiece of urban planning," could be perceived as promotional. - That phrase does not appear in the article.

As such, can someone take a look at this as well? I suspect this may have been an LLM-generated review. – Epicgenius (talk) 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. This diff, 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 Pakistani 75 Rupee Commemoration Notes. —David Eppstein (talk) 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. Infoadder95 (talk) 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for not suggesting exiling me in the barren land of banned accounts Infoadder95 (talk) 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. Infoadder95 (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Infoadder95, 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. Epicgenius (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Infoadder95 (talk) 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. Infoadder95 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Infoadder95, please nominate both reviews above for G7 speedy deletion, to aid cleanup of the errors. Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok Infoadder95 (talk) 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Infoadder95: you just "reviewed" Talk:Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)/GA1 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"? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I did not use LLMs this time, I copied the wiki-text from my sandbox and pasted it into the sub talk page. And what is your criticism of my review now, that it does not meet your standards or that it was done by me. Is it wrong according to Good article criteria or you just hate me. Please highlight what did you meant by "same manner".

And how am I supposed to get seasoned without reviewing, if the people on the talk page don't object and nominator/s don't object what is the problem I may ask. And do you think I am rubber stamper or someone just afraid to fail a nominee after my last encounter, If so you should read the good article criteria and also don't forget to read the instructions and come and tell me If I violated something and also read this, and tell me if there is something from here present in my review. If the nominators/s have a problem or two I am obliged to listen and reopen the review.

And lastly, what is your purpose to stalk me? Infoadder95 (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is stalking you, but when someone publicly says "I'm not going to do " and then immediately goes back to doing the thing, it's not a great look. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos Great, so what should I do, should I never do a review again in my life? I have a question; what is wrong with my review on Alvin and the Chipmunks, please I need your opinion so I can improve reviews next in line if I get any Infoadder95 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You have really got to stop putting words in peoples' mouths. No one has said you can never do another review ever in your life. You yourself said you would be refraining until you were "seasoned", yet you immediately did another review! There is a lot of space between "review again immediately" and "never review again", and waiting even a few weeks would have put you in a position of much less judgement. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Infoadder95, all editors are supposed to asssume good faith - which you are not, by asking me why "I hate you" and "am stalking you", which seems to be casting WP:Aspersions. And you also said you would not review before learning, and try to understand what the issues with your reviews were. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I have been issued a warning on my talk page for using LLMs on Talk:Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)/GA1 which I did not, yes I did use them on the 2 reviews before but I completely wrote this one myself, what seems to be the issue. Infoadder95 (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I have replied to that below.

As for why you have warned of LLM usage- even in the case you didn't (which seems weird, as some of the links are missing, which seems unlikely to be done by a human hand), you have copied the format of your last two reviews, which is why they seem LLM generated, even if they might or might not be. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok I quit reviewing, this is probably not a task for me. Infoadder95 (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll tell you how the review does not meet the criteria in some time if you want, but I would like to address the other points. "or you just hate me."- I do not, I just brought it up bcs it's wrong according to the criteria- you list issues in the review which very much mean that the article does not meet the criteria yet, or would be if some, if not all, of them were not incorrect. You get seasoned by reading the criteria and instructions properly and seeing other's people reviews.

I'm not stalking you, I was just checking what reviews have been passed/failed today till now as there has many incorrect reviews the past few weeks. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 Ok please tell me what is wrong with my review, me listing issues does not mean that the article does not qualify, instead they are the areas of improvement. Let me ask you, if you deem that one citation from one section of the whole article is unreliable or does not support the claim it is next to, will you fail the whole well written article or just bring it up so it can be addressed. Or another example; if the lead section is good but it can be a bit shorter, will you just fail the whole article.

And please don't forget to tell me that what is wrong with my review. Infoadder95 (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Minor-ish issues: you do not need to explain the GA criteria, just have to say they pass or fail bcs of this or that reason. And you should not highlight your reviews with a background colour, it's distracting.

Major issues- you have passed it despite you saying there are issues. (added after your reply) yes, bring it up, let it be fixed, do not just pass the article, as it very clearly states in the instructions, and what you would know if you had checked other reviews.

major issue 2: travolta is mentioned in ref 2 for the first sentence. The garfield cite is Variety- which is reliable, (and which you have also misplaced from the review, as its blank there). I might be able to find more, but the review is written badly, and it's hard to check what is and what isn't a problem. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting, I think I should not probably not review again, and I think it is for the better of Misplaced Pages and it's community. Infoadder95 (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You may return, if you read and understand the instructions and have checked how a reviews are supposed to work. Though probably not for a few weeks or maybe months. Misplaced Pages will always be grateful to all editors who can do whatever they are doing correctly. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Infoadder95 There is no need to make this personal or be self-depricating. When you edit on a public space like Misplaced Pages, people are going to point out your mistakes. Responding to critisism is a lifelong skill that takes awhile to learn. The best thing you can do is acknowledge your mistakes, clean up your mistakes, educate yourself, do better in the future, and move on. Maybe you're not quite at a place in your Misplaced Pages editing where you can contribute to qaulity articles. And that's okay. But know your limits. IntentionallyDense 20:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Infoadder95 (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I forgot this earlier, but could someone reset the review to it's original state with the original date, to ensure it gets a proper review. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Done, although it's a weird one given it was a pass. If the problems raised are correct and it was a fail, I would not have put it back in the queue, so hopefully they will be addressed. CMD (talk) 01:36, 26 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)

Drive by review

Curtosy ping @CapeVerdeWave and 12george1: I stumbled upon Talk:1873 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1 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. IntentionallyDense 16:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense: So you think I should provide more detail to justify the GA? In what areas, if so? I thought the summary seemed sufficient. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@CapeVerdeWave Per Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Instructions 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. IntentionallyDense 17:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Even an article with no issues needs a spotcheck. CMD (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at the Village Pump

There's a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Dealing with drive-by reviews of GA related to good article nominations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:19, 26 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)