Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 10:21, 4 January 2025

• 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.

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)

@Generalissima: After going through the "other" category (again) I think an "activist, revolutionary, anarchist and suffragette" category would be appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Bit of a mouthful - I think "Activists and revolutionaries" encompasses all four Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Works for me. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I have created the "bureaucrats and administrators" category per this discussion. My next step is to go through the "other" category and move biographies to more appropriate categories. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

A streamlining of the GAN review process?

I was looking at some old nominations today that were under review, to check if any could be eligible for the January backlog drive (there are two, and I have pinged the reviewers there)- and I saw many reviews that were abandoned: there had not been a single comments in these reviews for months in many cases. This, plus the above two topics of new reviewers incorrectly starting reviews (and many similar cases in this talk page's archive) was making me wonder if we could make some changes to the process. Some of the changes could include- reviews without comments for a long time could also be seen in the report sub-page (or somewhere more prominent), a change in the template to show on the talk page when a review was started (just like it shows when a nom occurred), some co-ordinators to give at least a cursory glance to reviews: bad reviews might still slip through, but they would very much reduce in quantity. We can't just rely on the nom and reviewer, as even 3rd parties might like to help make it reach GA by nom-ing or reviewing it, and the whole process to ask so on the talk page and wait (which in many cases also sometimes lead nowhere) turns many off. I know some of the changes would be hard to implement, especially bcs of the needed eyes and hands, but I think at least some changes could be made. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues here. I'm not quite yet sure how to tackle "substandard reviews", but here are my thoughts on abananded reviews.

• I certainly agree that we need a better way to track apparently abananded reviews. Currently, Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations shows where the reviewer is inactive for a certain number of days. (I don't know anything about bots but) I suspect it would be fairly easy to change this to number of days without an edit on review page, which will make it easier to track editors who have abandened reviews but are still active (which is a much bigger problem; and no point having both). (@Mike Christie: who operates the bot which updates this page)
• Would it be possible to add a section for review's which haven't be edited for a certain number of days onto the Good article nominations report page, again so we can track potentionally abananded reviews. (@Wugapodes: who operates the bot which updates this page) Yes, we already have a section for reviews lasting over seven days. But some reviews will legitamtly last over seven days. And this section is also overpopulated with reviews that were temporily abandened. (i.e. the review is now actively ongoing). This makes it difficult to see the wood from the trees.:*I think we should be more aggresive with following up on reviews. I think that if a review has not been touched for (picking these time frames out of thin air) 14 days we provide a message on the review page, tagging the reviewer, with a message where we chase up the review and if they have not reaffirmed their commitment within 7 days the review will be considered abananded and reset inline with the recommendations at WP:GAN/I#N4a. If they reaffirm their commitment and don't follow through we will also just reset the nomination. If we hardcode that into the instructions it will also (hopefully) rectify part of the problem and enbolden nominaters who feel their review has stalled.

SSSB (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

True, and I was thinking also a separate page to list the GANRs with these issues- like inactive noms or reviewers are listed on WP:GAN, but it needs to be searched, which while each, could be made more straightforward. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

New reviewer required

Hello, could I kindly request a new reviewer for the article Halimah Yacob? The previous reviewer has been inactive for some time and was unable to complete the GA review. Many thanks in advance. Pangalau (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like the reviewer had a bit more of the article to go. I have reset the nomination. If the reviewer returns they are welcome to reopen the old GAN. CMD (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I hope someone else would start this nomination again. Many thanks! Pangalau (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Inactive reviews

I was checking inactive reviews due to the backlog drive coming up, and I saw the following:

• Talk:Sleeping Beauty (1959 film)/GA3: I think the reviewer said they are fine with a second reviewer, but haven't marked it as such. Plus the nom has been inactive for 24 days.

  Relisted.

• Talk:Jonna Adlerteg/GA1: The reviewer has been inactive for more than a month, but it does look almost finished, so maybe it should be marked as needing a second opinion?

  Luckily this review seems substantially complete, unlike a couple of others from the same reviewer, and the reviewer seemed broadly positive on it. If there are no objections, this one might take a light lookover and pass.

• Talk:IMac (Apple silicon)/GA1: Have had no review despite being open for more than 3 months

  Relisted.

• Talk:Andhra Pradesh/GA3: Also have had no review even after being open for three months

  Reviewer has not edited since the ping three days ago, giving this one a bit more time.

  Reviewer has returned.

• Talk:Amos Yee/GA1: The reviewer barely started and have been inactive for more than a month

  Relisted.

• Talk:Mating of yeast/GA2: Had no edits for a month, then had a week of reviewing, and then again has no edits for a month

  A bit more of a confusing one, probably should be relisted, but I've dropped a note on the reviewer talkpage.

  Reviewer has not replied despite editing again, relisted.

• Talk:June/GA2: The reviewer had filled out a review template, but has said nothing, or failed it (as they marked in the template), maybe they are inexperienced

  Opened just this month, dropped a note on the user talkpage.

  Reset.

• Talk:Yang Youlin/GA1: New reviewer did not review, just marked it GA on the talk page, and has not been editing for two weeks (after having not edited for 3.5 months)

  This one is a bit weird, usually I'd wait longer given the review just opened, but, given the talkpage action, the lack of activity in general, and the upcoming drive, not opposed to relisting sooner.

  Failed.

Can something be done about these- either marked as needing another reviewer, or reset, as seems best? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking all this. I've relisted three obvious cases in line with my understanding of our precedents, other comments above. CMD (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. There are even more GANRs similar to the above, but they were all started around less than a month ago, so I only mentioned the most egregious ones. Might do a similar check around the middle of next month. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer came back for Andhra Pradesh, I'm going to try and second opinion Jonna Adlerteg. This is the second time Mating of yeast has been relisted, which is a bit of a shame. Otherwise the rest are handled. CMD (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Inactive nominations

Hi! It's great that the bot now mentions when there has been a while since a nominator has made an edit. I usually give a talk message to the user before picking up a review, but I don't think there is a requirement for this as of yet.

To streamline our nomination process and take out articles which won't ever have their reviews addressed, could we maybe get the bot to ping users after, say 30 days, of their last edit and confirm they still want the review. If they don't return to editing by 45 days (or whatever), then the nomination is pulled.

The resources of reviews are low enough to not have to address reviews of inactive nominators. An example of this happening manually can be found here: . Lee Vilenski 15:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Lee, are you thinking of the same approach as suggested here? Or just for nominations where the review has not yet been started? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Not yet started. Whilst I appreciate it's hard when doing a review for a non-active nominator, I'd like to avoid it before we get that far. Lee Vilenski 15:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Inactive reviewer

I have already asked for a review in Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1, and the reviewer previously has gone AWOL. See discussion. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion on review

Can I get a second opinion on Talk:Hilda Heine/GA1 to confirm that nothing was missed? I ask because History6042 has already had their reviewing scrutinized at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30#Potential issue with review of Arithmetic (again), and since then they have passed Talk:Texas Centennial half dollar/GA1, Talk:Serbia Against Violence (coalition)/GA1, Talk:Charles Brenton Fisk/GA2, Talk:National Gathering (Serbia)/GA1, Talk:Branislav Djurdjev/GA1, and now this one without taking the feedback on board. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

What was wrong with Serbia Against Violence (coalition), Charles Brenton Fisk, National Gathering (Serbia), and Branislav Djurdjev, no issues were brought up about those. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, I might not be fully sure what a spot check is, the only thing I could find just said see if the sources are good and say what they are. Am I wrong? If so someone please explain to me what a source spot check is. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If necessary I can go back and do one one Hilda Heine once I understand what a spot check is. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I did that now. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Crusading_movement/GA5

In the context of the backlog drive this one could do with a little help to get over the line. It has been on the list since July 2024 and in review for a month now. Mea Culpa it used to have issues with overly close paraphrasing of sources but it should be sorted now. AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) is doing a source check. IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) did check in at Christmas and there was some objective points raised that are now all resolved. What would be really great is if another editor or editors could have a look and give additional feedback/comments. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

As I have said, the review is in progress. I am waiting to gain access to a couple of books. Of course, "Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article", especially with regard to source-text integrity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My impression was that Airship had this review handled. An article of this size is bound to take awhile. IntentionallyDense 19:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Taking into account that the nominator has failed to clear the article of close paraphrasing and copyvio during a series of reviews for more than four years, I think the reviewer's precaution is quite reasonable. Now, I do not want to refer to several cases of unverified claims and misinterpretations. If I were Norfolkbigfish, I would be extremly patient and grateful. Perhaps, they could meanwhile clean "their" other articles of close paraphrasing and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Former GA

Is there a list of all delisted GAs by when they were delisted? I want to see the newly delisted articles. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you want new ones you could watchlist Category:Delisted good articles. CMD (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think most of the GARs since the change to remove the individual GAR option end up getting logged in the reassessment archives, although I can't guarantee that those are fully comprehensive. Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Archive 82 is the most recent one; the ones delisted from that are Joseph Franklin Rutherford, USS Texas (BB-35), Forbes Field, United States constitutional criminal procedure, Melbourne Airport, 1997–98 Manchester United F.C. season, Tristan da Cunha, Temper (film), 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song), Anuel AA, National Register of Historic Places, Fantastic Four in film, Mitch Daniels, Portland Monthly, UConn Huskies women's basketball, and Teleological argument. You can also check the various topical subpages of WP:GA and look in the page history, although anything by FACBot to "update good article list" is an GA being promoted to FA, not a delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 05:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)