Misplaced Pages

talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:04, 10 November 2011 editCrisco 1492 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators137,676 edits →December 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive: ?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:08, 28 December 2024 edit undoDoctorWhoFan91 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers2,225 edits →Inactive reviews: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Tab header}}{{Vpad|0.25em}}
{{FCDW/T|style=font-size:88%; width:23em;}}
]
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{shortcut|WT:GAN}}
{{archives
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.
|style = font-size:88%; width:23em;
{{tmbox
|auto = no
| type = notice
|editbox= no
| image = ]
|search = yes
| text = See the ]}}
|prefix = Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive
{{central|text=several other GA talk pages redirect here.}}

|bot=MiszaBot
|age=7

|1=<div class="nowraplinks">
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
</div>
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 15
|counter = 33
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archives|bot=MiszaBot II|age=7 |auto=short |search=no
{{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.
|
}}
GA: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
{{shortcut|WT:GAN}}


Criteria: ], ], ], ]
== Request for reviewers for educational assignments GANs (for mid-November) ==


Reassessment: ], ], ], ], ], ]
Some of you may already be familiar with that :) As I've done in the past, I am assigning my students to improve sociology-related articles on Misplaced Pages to Good Article. Since this is an educational assignment, the students will need their work reviewed within few days of them requesting a review (they are supposed to request one by November 14, and the course ends within a month of that - and we cannot expects the students to contribute past the grading period, sadly). At the same time I'd ask the reviewers to give students extra time if they need it - some groups may need an entire month to address the issues raised (and some may do it within days - no different from an average editor, really...). Just as ], I am asking for reviewers to pre-sign for the articles to be reviewed (list below), and in exchange I promise to review myself an article from our backlog (I'll start soon). This time there will be eleven articles to review:


GA help: ], ]
Group 1: <s>{{article|College dating}}</s>


Nominations/Instructions: ]
Group 2: <s>{{article|Grounds for divorce}}</s>


{{hidden|Search archives|
Group 3: {{article|Double burden}}
{{#tag:inputbox|
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix={{FULLPAGENAME}}
break=yes
width=22
searchbuttonlabel=Search GAN archives}}


{{vpad|1.5em}}
Group 4: {{article|Family honor}}
{{#tag:inputbox|
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Good articles
break=yes
width=22
searchbuttonlabel=Search GA archives}}


{{vpad|1.5em}}
Group 5: {{article|Personal wedding website}}
{{#tag:inputbox|
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Good article criteria
break=yes
width=22
searchbuttonlabel=Search criteria archives}}


{{vpad|1.5em}}
Group 6: <s>{{article|Single parent}}</s>
{{#tag:inputbox|
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Good article reassessment
break=yes
width=22
searchbuttonlabel=Search reassessment archives}}
}}
}}


== Old nomination ==
Group 7: <strike>{{article|Marriage in the United States}}</strike>


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)
Group 8: {{article|Family in advertising}}


: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)
Group 9: {{article|Open relationship}}
::Thanks so much! ] (]) 19:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== Splitting sections ==
Group 10: <s>{{article|Bride scam}}</s>


===Historical figures: politicians ===
Group 11: <strike>{{article|joint custody}}</strike>


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)
Promised reviews by me on my end of the bargain: 1) ] 2) ] 3) ] 4) ] 5) ] 6) ] 7) ] 8) ]


:] 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)
If you would like to review one or more articles, please post here and cross it from the list above. I'll post the articles I've initiated a review for here, too. Thanks! PS. You are more than welcome to check the student progress before a good article review and offer comments. Some groups are progressing very quickly ( :) ), while others, despite graded course deadlines, have done little or nothing yet (sigh...). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 18:03, 11 October 2011 (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. ] (]) 15:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:If any are able to complete it by the end of October and nominate it by then, I'm willing to review it quite quickly (if the students are anything like me though, they'll all be nom'd on the 14th lol). Beyond that I can't make any guarantees personally, as I plan to edit sparingly the last month or two of the year. ] <sub>]</sub> 18:29, 11 October 2011 (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'll do one (joint custody). Sounds like fun. Just let me know the time line and if any groups have chosen it. ] (]) 02:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
:I'll take Marriage in the US. Ditto with Astrocog's comments. ] ] 03:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


===Splitting "Historical figures: other"===
:I'm willing to take on ]. I'm likely to have time to review this in November. I've cleaned up some of the other wedding-related articles on occasion, and based on the difficulties there, I sincerely wish the students luck with finding enough independent sources to write a decent article. ] (]) 01:55, 16 October 2011 (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)
::I'm fine with reviewing any. ] (]) 02:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks, two down, nine to go (students are supposed to be already working on all of those articles, but their progress varies significantly). If you select an article from that list, please do not hesitate to drop by the article's talk page, introduce yourself to students and offer the any early advise you think is relevant. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 03:21, 16 October 2011 (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)
Still waiting for more reviewers... :) --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 22:07, 28 October 2011 (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)
:I've taken college dating and Bride Scam. ] (]) 18:44, 29 October 2011 (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)
::I'll take ]. Looks like it needs lots of work. ] (]) 02:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Single Parent looks like the best of the rest. You may need to start cracking the whip soon. ]&nbsp;] 06:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Yep, I've begun doing so. In the end, however, I cannot force them to do anything, and some groups will probably produce problematic entries :( On the bright side, there are always those who do pretty good work, so... the usual :) --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


====Historical figures: bureaucrats and administrators split?====
Still need 5 more articles to be taken. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 02:46, 10 November 2011 (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)
== Aniru Conteh ==


:I think that'd be a good idea. One final category of "sort-of-politicians-but-not" could be activists, which I've seen a lot of in that category. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I am ill and cannot continue with "Aniru Conteh". --] (]) 18:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC) ::{{re|Generalissima}} After going through the "other" category (again) I think an "activist, revolutionary, anarchist and suffragette" category would be appropriate. ] (]) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Bit of a mouthful - I think "Activists and revolutionaries" encompasses all four <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have created the "bureaucrats and administrators" category per this discussion. My next step is to go through the "other" category and move biographies to more appropriate categories. ] (]) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== New editor incorrectly starting GANRs ==
<s>:Sorry to hear that. I'll take over the review if you like and ] doesn't object. ] ] 18:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)</s>


{{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)
::I think Malleus has pulled out for other reasons. Please, can some help. --] (]) 14:00, 27 October 2011 (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)
== Three month backlog: incentives? ==
::@] @], 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 ==
I notice there is a 3 month backlog in GAC (although it seems to vary widely between the various topic areas). Is that about average? or has it gotten larger lately? Has there ever been a discussion of processes to incentivize editors to perform GA reviews? For example, the Copy Editing guild awards barnstars for doing significant amounts of work; and DYK has a "quid pro quo" requirement where anyone submitting a DYK nomination must review a pending DYK. Have such processes been considered for GA? (Obviously, there would have to be some protections put in place to ensure that GA approvals were not given out without due process, but there are always ways to make that happen). --] (]) 16:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
:The raw number of GANs has actually plateaued over the past few months. Unfortunately, people are tackling recently-added articles rather than ones that have been waiting for months. Part of it is them due to them only wanting to work on articles they like (can't blame them for that), and part of it is that the ones waiting may have some baggage with them. Quid pro quo's been discussed on shot down numerous times since some people can write but not review well and vice-versa. ] <sub>]</sub> 17:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
::If the number of GANs is flat, that is the most important indicator, so I guess there is no reason for drastic action. As for older nominations languishing, that is a shame ... I'm wondering if there could be some way to incentivize reviewers to focus on the older nominations? It seems a bit odd to have a 3-month old nomination sitting there, and being skipped by dozens of reviewers. --] (]) 17:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


I believe {{yo|Infoadder95}}'s ] of ] to be nonsensical. Despite the review claiming otherwise, every single claim in the article is backed up. The review's Lack of Neutrality section accuses the article of containing several quotes that it simply doesn't have. Could someone else have a look?--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 22:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems perfectly normal to have some pop culture article skipped by dozens of reviewers in favor of geography (three weeks), history (two months), and science (two weeks). Perhaps what we need is a recruiting campaign that addresses arts and pop culture editors.
:::The current backlog stats are always listed in the first answer at the top of the ], by the way. Today's numbers show about 10% more nominations waiting for a reviewer than last year's average. ] (]) 17:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Thanks for pointing out that backlog stat in the FAQ ... I wasn't aware of that. --] (]) 17:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::FWIW, I just stumbled on ], which is more or less what I was driving at (based on what I've seen in the Copy Editing realm) so it appears someone else already had that idea for GAC and followed through on it. If there is another GA drive someday, I'd be happy to participate. --] (]) 02:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


:seems like a pretty clearly Chat-GPT generated review. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 22:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::WhatamIdoing's "some pop culture article skipped" is a target, IMO because reviewers can get a good or a terrible article - and the terrible article are protected by fanatics. --] (]) 14:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC) e.
: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:
:Is it time for another drive? <span style="color:#3A3A3A">'''Grandiose''' </span><span style="color:gray">(], ], ]) </span> 14:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
:* {{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.
::Three months seems like a long time to me. Granted, the best long term solution may be something like "recruit more reviewers who have an interest in the big-backlog topic areas" but I have not yet seen anything specific proposed towards that end. Should we post notifications on the relevant project pages? Or institute some kind of project-wide QPQ (that is, new articles within a project cannot be nominated for GA until the backlog is under 2 months?). Unless some specific initiative is started, then, yes, GA drives will be periodically needed. From glancing at the GA drive history, it looks like they are more or less on an annual schedule: the last two were in the Spring. Maybe just have an annual springtime GA drive? --] (]) 15:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
:* {{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.
:::I think limiting the flow would be better. What about only allowing a person to only have a certain number (2?) of nominations in any given category at once? Much of the backlog is caused by editors mass nominating similar articles. I would also like to see ''Sport'', ''Music'' and ''Theatre, Film and Drama'' (maybe ''Literature'' as well) divided into subsections if possible. Many important articles (Bands, Genres, Sports, Actors) are being lost amoungst less important articles (Songs, Games, Episodes). ]&nbsp;] 20:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
:* {{tq|However, certain phrases, such as "masterpiece of urban planning," could be perceived as promotional.}} - That phrase does not appear in the article.
:::Having a two nomination limit at this time would reduce Music by 29, Theatre by 11, Literature by 7, Law by 7, Transport by 6, War by 6 and Sport by 4 (three nomination limit changes the figures to 17, 4, 6, 6, 3, 3, and 0 respectively). The law and literature numbers are due to just a single person mass nominating, while music has twelve nominators with three or more current nominations. ]&nbsp;] 22:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
:{{pb}}As such, can someone take a look at this as well? I suspect this may have been an LLM-generated review. &ndash; ] (]) 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That's an interesting suggestion. I wonder if it could be enhanced to include a quid-pro-quo exception, as in: "A nominator can have at most M articles open for GA consideration at once. However, that quantity can be increased if the nominator reviews articles (for every article reviewed, the nominator can submit one additional article) but, of course, the nominator must be willing and able to perform competent reviews (no rubber stamping :-)." I dunno, maybe that is getting too legalistic. --] (]) 22:52, 27 October 2011 (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)
:::::Personally I am not a fan of QPQ as I think it could affect the quality of the reviews. Does anyone with experience at DYK know how it has worked there, the talk page archives seems to contain a lot of complaints about it. With this proposal there will be the indirect incentive of reviewing articles so that yours gets to the head of the queue faster. ]&nbsp;] 23:06, 27 October 2011 (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)
{{tps}} I saw this appear in my watchlist. I think some form of drive is a good idea. I work on Music articles, and there are currently 90 articles waiting to be reviewed/process of being reviewed. And I saw that even though some music articles had been waiting over two months (number 5, Romances, nominated by Erick on August 17 is the oldest one waiting to be reviewed), ] was nominated on October 21 and was selected to be reviewed less than 5 days later, yet the reviewer hasn't even reviewed anything in the article yet. My point is, I think it's a bit unfair that people are waiting nearly two and a half months without any sign of getting reviewed, yet some people review nominations which are literally 2/3/4 days old. I understand that people will review ones they are interested in, but I think it should be made a rule that no one can review a nomination less than a week old (if there is over a certain amount of articles in that topic waiting to be reviewed); perhaps this way people will be prompted to review older ones. ]&bull; ] 22:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:I disagree with this sort of ]. Editors are free to review any articles listed at ], and if I choose not to review articles about trivial pop music or musicians who fail to interest me, that is my business. ] (]) 22:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:It isn't nice for nominators to have to wait such a long time for a review; I've been there, and it can be discouraging. However, making such a rule would not encourage me to review articles that I am not (for whatever reason) interested in reviewing. By the way, it's now (almost exactly) three days since I initiated the Mahalia Jackson review. That's not ideal (not exactly outrageous either), and I nearly always begin reviews immediately after selecting them. I intended to start this one later on the 26th, but have been kept off Misplaced Pages by real life issues. That really has no bearing on this discussion though. There is a shortage of reviewers; preventing them from reviewing the nominations they're inclined to review is unlikely to encourage them to stick around.--]] 23:19, 28 October 2011 (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".
Positive reinforcement is always a good idea. Some form of GAN-reviewer award of barnstar has been long overdue. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 23:21, 28 October 2011 (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)
:Responding to some of the comments above, I think it may be time for another GAN drive, perhaps in December when people are home and have time available to review. I don't like QPQ for reasons stated, but I'm leaning towards a maximum number, though I would go to 5 at the lowest (it would only cut the backlog by 20 or so, but those affected may be more inclined to review). I get annoyed at the ones that sit for 3-4 months without a review, but there's not really a way to force them. Basically what ends up happening is that I tend to review them and do what I can, though I don't exactly do it with a good attitude as I would when reviewing an article I'm interested in. I would be fine waiting seven days to review (if you want to review the article that badly, you can wait a bit and see how it feels for the rest of them). ] <sub>]</sub> 02:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


== A streamlining of the GAN review process? ==
::It's kind of like natural selection, you nominate a boring article or have acted like a dick when a previous one was reviewed then it sits around a lot longer. A limit may reduce the number of these articles coming through as it will affect mass nominators whose articles get picked up early less. I feel five is far too high though, it will barely make an impact. I like two, its not like it's a race and it will reduce the number of articles quite substantially, especially in music which is perennially backlogged. If someone is ] then they can still nominate in different categories, spreading the burdon amoungst reviewers. A backlog drive is only a temporary solution and are people really motivated by barnstars? I would much rather have a simple and personal thank you. ]&nbsp;] 04:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:::If the music (or any other subject) articles are taking some time to be reviewed, its in the nominators own interest to review some of those already waiting. I only review history articles, that's wheat interests me, but once or twice I have had a bad experience with other editors during a review and avoid their nominations. Limiting the number of nominations an editor is allowed, is a non starter IMO, nobody stays around here for ever, so why stifle article improvement. I also tend to review more than I nominate about three reviews for each nomination and have noticed other editors doing the same. Probably like me they want to get rid of the backlog so their own article has a better chance of a quick review. I would be happy with any drive but what guarantee is there that articles that have been waiting the longest would get reviewed? ] (]) 08:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
::::It may be in their best interest but many are not doing it. Toa Nidhiki05 currently has nominated 10 articles in the music category and is reviewing none. They all seem to be individual songs written by one band. It's a similar case with Jherschel, SchroCat and Leszek Jańczuk. I don't see how this would stiffle article improvement. If they are only here to get a green spot then they are probably in the wrong business. It is not like DYK where articles go stale if they are not nominated straight away. ] limits individuals to four articles at a time, and in theory it should be easier to do most peer reviews than a good article review. Drives are all well and good, but why not look at some long-term solutions. ]&nbsp;] 22:06, 29 October 2011 (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)
This is what is annoying me. Last night, ] was nominated at 22:14, 28th October 2011. By 22:58, 28th October 2011, it had a reviewer. Only 42 minutes went by. I'm sorry, but this nomination should be quick failed or something. I'm not allowed to review GANs anymore because I was told that I was only reviewing Mariah Carey articles and Mariah articles which were nominated a very short time before I reviewed them. Since this has been pointed out to me, I am now aware of how it is not fair and wrong. ]&bull; ] 10:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:If you want to review those types of articles, go for it. Those that told you off probably won't review them anyway, so it's a bit hypocritical. ] <sub>]</sub> 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
::It is probably not in the best interests of the project for one editor to focus on such a narrow group. Why not review some non-Mariah Carey articles in the music category? It's not like there is a shortage of Pop songs nominated. ]&nbsp;] 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Agreed, in fact it is good to do articles on other topics as that, for me, has been illuminating in how to create my own good articles and get them promoted. ] (]) 00:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:::: I did review other articles, Beyonce; Leona Lewis; Lady Gaga; Rihanna. I don't review anymore, I was told not to. ]&bull; ] 00:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::I've just very recently started reviewing GAs (I've only done two so far but intend to keep at it) but here are my thoughts on the issue. I totally agree with the "process of natural selection" view above. Those who nominate topics that are more appealing to GA reviewers, or have proved easier to work with in the past, or who have put in the time to write a well-sourced problem-free article that isn't going to be a hassle to review, will get their nominations reviewed sooner. I have no problem with that. Sure, two or three months is a long time to wait, but c'est la vie. There's no guarantee when you nominate an article that it's going to be reviewed lickety-split. And maybe it's no fun to see a bunch of newer articles reviewed ahead of yours, but I'd recommend those editors just get on with editing their next article, and eventually they will see their older article reviewed. If anything, I feel bad not for those who have to wait, but for people like Wizardman who feel obligated to review articles they aren't interested in. I may well occasionally review articles that I'm not interested in, but if I do, it will be more to lessen the load for reviewers like Wizardman, than out of any huge sympathy for those who have to wait a long time. ] (]) 19:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Glad you want to keep at it, despite the naysayers it can be an enjoyable process. While skipping articles you don't like is perfectly acceptable something really needs to be done about the backlog. If for nothing else than the possibility that it is turning people off nominating articles due to the perceived wait time. A major problem here is that the backlog has been around for so long now that it is ignored or accepted as part of the process. The FAQ even seems to suggest that having one is a good thing! Unfortunately until there is general agreement that something should be done then nothing will happen. My major beef at the moment with a three month wait is that a nominators situation may change. Of the last nine reviews I have conducted (all from near the end of the backlog) only one was finished with the original nominator. It is demoralising to invest time in a review and then to not get a response. ]&nbsp;] 01:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::That makes sense. Well, I would support a drive, and take part in it. ] (]) 13:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::The three month backlog can be a problem. I recently saw a GA review in which the nominator had waited three months for the review and now he didn't have the time to respond. The last time I had a GAN I worried that someone might start reviewing while I was on vacation. I had already waited two months and didn't want to start all over. Obviously, it would be great if people would do one review per GAN and then pick the article from the top. Maybe we should just make a note of it somewhere in the process of nominating an article. --] (]) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks like there is consensus for a GA drive. ] (]) 01:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::Reviewers are all volunteer's and if we start telling them which articles they have to review, they might not want to play any more. Look at DYK and the problems they have with ] reviews. The articles listed the longest are one each in education, world history, language and linguistics, and two in theatre, film and drama, with the backlog down to ten weeks. Its not the end of the world, by all means have a drive but there is no need for any drastic measures.] (]) 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::There's the main problem, editors thinking that ten weeks (it's actually eleven) is acceptable. A GA drive is only going to be a temporary fix, the numbers will increase again quickly. ]&nbsp;] 21:42, 2 November 2011 (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 think a drive is acceptable. I don't think any new rules about who can review or what people have to review is necessary. I have tried to do my part by reviewing articles further back in the backlog, and have even branched out in to articles outside my main interests of television and science. I quite enjoyed ], for example - an article unlikely to pique the interests of many reviewers due to its apparently dry and history-centric subject matter. One problem I have with reviews is that many GANs I have encountered seem to be nominations for the purpose of a peer review, rather than an assessment of the GA criteria that an an article meets. I'm not saying that GA reviews should be a quick rubric check, but when major structural changes, copy editing, or content additions are needed, I'd rather feel ok with doing a quick fail or withdrawal request than having to do a peer review to outline everything the nominator needs to do to improve the article. I have done that, and many nominators are good sports. Other have not been such good sports. That makes me less likely to start a review of a backlog article that I think will need major improvements. ] (]) 15:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:* I certainly agree that we need a better way to track apparently abananded reviews. Currently, ] shows where the reviewer is inactive for a certain number of days. (I don't know anything about bots but) I suspect it would be fairly easy to change this to number of days without an edit on review page, which will make it easier to track editors who have abandened reviews but are still active (which is a much bigger problem; and no point having both). ({{ping|Mike Christie}} who operates the bot which updates this page)
]
:*Would it be possible to add a section for review's which haven't be edited for a certain number of days onto the ], again so we can track potentionally abananded reviews. ({{ping|Wugapodes}} who operates the bot which updates this page) Yes, we already have a section for reviews lasting over seven days. But some reviews will legitamtly last over seven days. And this section is also overpopulated with reviews that were temporily abandened. (i.e. the review is now actively ongoing). This makes it difficult to see the wood from the trees.:*I think we should be more aggresive with following up on reviews. I think that if a review has not been touched for (picking these time frames out of thin air) 14 days we provide a message on the review page, tagging the reviewer, with a message where we chase up the review and '''if they have not reaffirmed their commitment within 7 days the review will be considered abananded and reset inline with the recommendations at ]'''. If they reaffirm their commitment and don't follow through we will also just reset the nomination. If we hardcode that into the instructions it will also (hopefully) rectify part of the problem and enbolden nominaters who feel their review has stalled.
:Here is a graph showing the backlog since May 2007 taken from ]. The bot has missed the odd day, but it should be a good representation. Depending on where you stand with good articles you could read different things into it. I think it is fair to say that for whatever reason the backlog currently equilibrates somewhere around 275 unreviewed articles. It also suggests that a backlog drive is effective at reducing the backlog, but not at keeping it down. I would feel better about doing a drive if there were some changes introduced aimed at permanently reducing the current equilibrium. ]&nbsp;] 22:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
: ] (]) 14:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::That graph, certainly for recent drives, suggests that the drives only very temporarily remove the backlog and after that it returns to normal and remains steady. Either I'd suggest doing a drive for two or three months or a post-drive surge be maintained to keep the backlog right down, maybe even eliminate all requests. And perhaps beyond that, some other idea to prevent the backlog resurfacing. Yep, just like a magic wand eh!? ] (]) 23:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
::True, and I was thinking also a separate page to list the GANRs with these issues- like inactive noms or reviewers are listed on WP:GAN, but it needs to be searched, which while each, could be made more straightforward. ] (]) 20:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There is much value in a drive, even if levels return. It "clears out" the build-up, and contributes in other ways; for example by rewarding reviewers. Will someone knowledgeable take up the mantle of having one in December? <span style="color:#3A3A3A">'''Grandiose''' </span><span style="color:gray">(], ], ]) </span> 14:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


== Dealing with disruptive editing == == Drive by review ==


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)
I've ] on whether/how to change the process with which WP deals with disruptive editors. All input/ideas are welcome - I'd love it if we could develop some proposals to put to the broader community. ] (]) 19:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:{{ping|IntentionallyDense}} So you think I should provide more detail to justify the GA? In what areas, if so? I thought the summary seemed sufficient. ] (]) 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] Per ] {{tq|Read the whole article. Understand its sources. Based on the Good article criteria, determine whether the article should be quick failed. An in-depth review must be provided in all other cases. This must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers, and that no copyrighted material has been added to the article from the source.}}
::The part that is missing in your review is the in depth part. Sometimes there is articles where nothing or very little has to be changed. In this case it is more helpful to say something along the lines of "This article passes criteria 1 because xyz, I know this because I checked xyz" (modify as needed ofc). This is especially important when it comes to the sources. For example I would usually write something along the lines of "this article uses reliable sources without plagerising content, I checked sources 2, 4, 8, 19, and 20 and found no issues".
::However it is very rare for an article to have absolutely no issues. For example the article in question has some overlinking which while not technically in the GA criteria, can reduce readibility and make it look overly technical. For example, countries are linked which is generally not needed. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 17:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Even an article with no issues needs a spotcheck. ] (]) 01:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Discussion at the Village Pump ==
:Why... um... is this being posted here? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 00:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


There's a discussion at ] related to good article nominations. ] (]) 22:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::Because the discussing is based mainly around how to allow editors to better focus on writing content, with less disruption from POV-pushers, people trying to use non-reliable sources, etc. Since people who participate in the GA process often focus their wiki-activities on writing/improving content, it seems that notifying them of a discussion regarding content contributors is polite, at the very least. ] (]) 02:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


== New reviewer required ==
:::Aren't these issues mostly relevant to editing Misplaced Pages in general? I'm not seeing anything in that discussion that is specifically relevant to GA. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


::::Not specifically to GA, but since GA is a place where a lot of content writers congregate, it would seem that this would be a good place to notify a lot of them with one post... ] (]) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (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)
== Portia labiata ==


== Inactive GAN review ==
] says the articles was promoted to GA on October 21, 2011 - see also Talk:Portia labiata/GA2, where ] reviewed. But '']'' still says, "An unassessed article ... Currently a good article nominee." How can it be resolved? --] (]) 23:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:Looks fine to me. If the gadget is showing old assessment information, sometimes just reloading the page is all that's needed, but it loaded fine for me. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 00:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:Looks fine to me, too. I imagine the browser should be refreshed. ] (]) 00:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi! I nominated the page ] for GA on 25 August and ] started on 1 September 2024. Then, in two days he has gone off-wiki and hasn't returned yet; it's been almost 4 months since his last edit. Can an admin reset the review page, so it could be included in the upcoming backlog drive. (]).
::Thanks. --] (]) 16:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


Courtesy ping: @]. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#50B849;">'''''Vestrian24Bio'''''</span> (<small>]</small>)</span> 13:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== How can Philcha help the GA project? ==
I am ill and must give up reviewing for GA. At the same time I can still write articles, hopefully to GA level but very slowly. Is there any way I can reduce the load on other reviewrs? --] (]) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
:You're not that big of a drain :P Just get well soon! <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 18:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


:I have applied the instructions laid out at ] to the nomination. ] (]) 13:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with David Fuchs; be selfish, think of yourself. But may I say that I find it rather creepy to talk about yourself in the third-person? ;-) ] ] 18:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
:It has been not quite a month since their last edit overall, but combined with the more than 3 months since the last edit to the GAN I have reset the nomination. ] (]) 13:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Haha, looks like I was beaten to the punch. ] (]) 13:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#50B849;">'''''Vestrian24Bio'''''</span> (<small>]</small>)</span> 13:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] and ] ==
:I'm sorry to hear that you're ill. If you wanted to "do something" that wouldn't take too much time or energy, and would avoid a lengthier commitment, then I have two suggestions:
:* Look in at ] every now and again to see what's happening (if anything) with some of the oldest reviews. Sometimes people need to be prodded to wrap up old reviews, or we need a note here about a review that's been abandoned by its reviewer. Checking one or two and leaving a brief note if there's been no activity for several weeks takes only a couple of minutes. Similarly, sometimes old second-opinion requests can be resolved quickly, without requiring a significant commitment.
:* Stop in at ]. Sometimes the issues are simple, so five minutes' work provides a significant benefit to the nominator.
:I hope that you feel better soon. ] (]) 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello. I'm currently reviewing '']'' and I'm unsure if the article is neutral. There are not that much mixed to negative reviews on the album, and I'm unsure if adding them to the reception would be a violation of ]. Should I pass, hold, or fail the nom?<span id="LunaEclipse:1735333868730:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNGood_article_nominations" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 21:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
== Bot screw up ==
{{resolved}}
What is going on with the ] review. I failed it and the bot .--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 00:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:It seems to have corrected itself.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 05:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
::It isn't a screw up, if the bot runs while you are changing the template this sort of thing can happen. ] (]) 13:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


== Inactive reviews ==
== December 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive ==


I was checking inactive reviews due to the backlog drive coming up, and I saw the following:
I've created a sub-page for the ]. Let's organize our efforts there. I'll add some other stuff to it later. ] (]) 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
*<s>]: I think the reviewer said they are fine with a second reviewer, but haven't marked it as such. Plus the nom has been inactive for 24 days.</s>
:Also, add your name if you want co-coordinate with me. ] (]) 20:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
*:Relisted.
::I can jump in as a coordinator if needed, though I'd rather take a backseat and just review for one rather than running it. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
*]: 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?
:::As I've suggested above, how about running the drive for two months? ] (]) 22:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
*: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.
::::Sounds good to me. I'll make the change. ] (]) 22:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
*<s>]: Have had no review despite being open for more than 3 months</s>
::::: 2 months is too long. Even 1 month can cause coordinators to suffer burn out. (Trust me, I did ] before and it's gruesome.) One month of backlog elimination drive is good enough. ]] 03:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
*:Relisted.
::::::Start the drive now, say November 15, and let it run until the end of December as a compromise. A month and a half is not too long or too short and it also allows people who are going to be home for Thanksgiving to contribute. ] (]) 07:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
*]: Also have had no review even after being open for three months
::::::::Thanksgiving - remember the rest of the world. ] (]) 07:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
*:Reviewer has not edited since the ping three days ago, giving this one a bit more time.
:::::::::While I understand burn out for a two-month drive, the statistics above always show the backlog bounces back to normal anyway. I just feel with a two-month drive, even if burnout happens during the second month, it should keep a lid on the bounce a little more than normal. ] (]) 22:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*<s>]: The reviewer barely started and have been inactive for more than a month</s>
*Do you want Signpost coverage for this? Maybe bring a wider audience. ] (]) 16:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
*:Relisted.
** There's a trade-off. While it's good to have more people aware of the drive, you may also bring sub-par reviewers which duplicates the efforts because their reviewers will have to be reviewed by third party. ]] 16:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
*]: Had no edits for a month, then had a week of reviewing, and then again has no edits for a month
***The more participants the better. If just a couple of new reviewers turn up and decide to stick around it will ease the burden in the long run and help keep the backlog down. ]&nbsp;] 21:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
*:A bit more of a confusing one, probably should be relisted, but I've dropped a note on the reviewer talkpage.
:::*Okay, I'll put a temporary blurb (in brief) in. Please ping me if there is a decision that we should not post it. ] (]) 23:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
*]: 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
::::Also, where is registration? ] (]) 00:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
*:Opened just this month, dropped a note on the user talkpage.
:::::Drive reviewers add their reviews to the ''Running total'' section on the drive page. Looking at past drives, I didn't see any registration pages/sections. ] (]) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
*]: 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)
:::::*Alright, sounds good. And they sign their names on the page too? ] (]) 07:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
*: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.
Just to point out for all here: there is a talk page for the upcoming drive ]. ] (]) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Can something be done about these- either marked as needing another reviewer, or reset, as seems best? ] (]) 07:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for checking all this. I've relisted three obvious cases in line with my understanding of our precedents, other comments above. ] (]) 08:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. There are even more GANRs similar to the above, but they were all started around less than a month ago, so I only mentioned the most egregious ones. Might do a similar check around the middle of next month. ] (]) 08:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:08, 28 December 2024

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQJanuary backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport
Good article nominations
Good article nominations
Shortcut

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)
@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)
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)

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?--Launchballer 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)

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)

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)

Inactive GAN review

Hi! I nominated the page 2024 Men's T20 World Cup for GA on 25 August and User:Vkwiki100 started reviewing it on 1 September 2024. Then, in two days he has gone off-wiki and hasn't returned yet; it's been almost 4 months since his last edit. Can an admin reset the review page, so it could be included in the upcoming backlog drive. (I also posted about this here in October).

Courtesy ping: @IntentionallyDense. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I have applied the instructions laid out at Misplaced Pages:GAN/I#N4a to the nomination. SSSB (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
It has been not quite a month since their last edit overall, but combined with the more than 3 months since the last edit to the GAN I have reset the nomination. CMD (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Haha, looks like I was beaten to the punch. SSSB (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE

Hello. I'm currently reviewing Lift Your Skinny Fists like Antennas to Heaven and I'm unsure if the article is neutral. There are not that much mixed to negative reviews on the album, and I'm unsure if adding them to the reception would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Should I pass, hold, or fail the nom? — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 21:11, 27 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

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)