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 18:12, 30 September 2012 editMathewTownsend (talk | contribs)14,937 edits →An alternative to backlog drives: ok, i didn't tell the truth← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:11, 27 December 2024 edit undoLunaEclipse (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions7,092 edits →[] and []: new section  
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 |maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 17 |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: ], ], ], ]
== Query about quality of reviewing... ==


Reassessment: ], ], ], ], ], ]
Could someone take a second look at the reviews of ], and ]? One review consists of (in total) "ummm.. just another bookstore, nothing really special, kinda long, try to shorten it, and really boring,". In a similar vein are ] and ]. ] (]) 06:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for bringing these up. All of them are flawed to a degree in the sense that the user is not applying the GA criteria (at least it's not evident in the text of the reviews). ] has a few <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> tags, which arguably is grounds for a quickfail, and ] has some similar citation issues, but the reviewer doesn't seem to be basing pass/fail decisions on any guidelines. I'll leave a friendly note on the user's talk page. --] (]) 08:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
::These reviews are, at best, seriously misguided. I'd support deleting them, allowing a more experienced reviewer to take on the articles. ] (]) 08:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
:::This is probably the best course, under the circumstances. I would support it, while trying not to discourage the original reviewer. It may be a case of the reviewer honestly not knowing/applying the full guidelines. --] (]) 11:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
:::] is another article where this reviewer has made some difficult to understand comments and then seems to have left the review in the air. ] (]) 09:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
::something like sourcing issue as one example is automatically expected to be quickfail according to the guidelines. if someone has a problem with the conclusion of an article, they can just renom it and pass or fail it. deleting comments is a bad idea. i feel my reviews are spectacular.
::as for the "seems to have left the review in the air" -- that's okay, i felt that another reviewer should make a conclusion. you can also see Batard0's talk page for additional comments. i honstly believe this is a non-issue and that assumptions made here are ''incrediably mistaken'', but don't worry about it, i don't hav much time to do much contributing or reviewing anyhow, and pretty much none for chit-chatting on disagreemnts.
::another edit -- and looking quickly back on this talk page, it looks like http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#User:Lucky102_.26.26_Talk:Milan.2FGA1 was passed when it shouldnt have, i had failed it most recently or at least i think i hav, dont remember, since this is the accurate conclusion, as the last editor said, much of the article wasnt even scoured, "am i missing something?" -- it's for the nom to read the guidelines and realize the basics, not for the reviewers to have to menion every single obvious and tedious point.
:moreover just so you understand clearly that this is not onesided (since it seems i have to outline every single thing in this world for fear of every instance of misunderstanding)-- if i was the nom, i would take exactly the same positiion, it's for me to realize tihs isnt ga quality, instead of blaming teh review for not giving a 10page detail law review-like essay. and since i dont haev the time to be checking back on this --that means how you perceive the situation will automatically become popular, even if they're msitaken from the outsider's, and insider's, point of view that you have, nice isnt it?
] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 02:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I'm sorry, but your reviews are not "spectacular", no matter how you feel. They have little to do with the criteria, and some of your suggestions are very odd. If you do not have time to offer a full review or follow up on reviews, so be it, but perhaps you should consider not actually starting them. Further, while it is the job of the nominator to ensure that the article meets the criteria, it is the job of the reviewer to explain why it does not- you can say until you're blue in the face that "it's for to realize tihs isnt ga quality", but if they have nominated the article, they obviously feel that it is. It's then up to the reviewer to explain the issues. If the problems are too numerous to list, then perhaps a general outline explaining the issues and how they may be fixed, rather than a line-by-line analysis, but that would only be for the weakest nominations. On that note, am going to delete these pages to allow a more capable reviewer to take over. ] (]) 09:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
:::I've left the sugar article, as another reviewer has taken it on. That said, with comments like "Remove all redlinks, either by de-linking them or creating stub articles for them" it's perhaps still not getting the kind of attention it warrants... ] (]) 09:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Just a reminder to clean out the "onreview" status and the review page transclusions on the article talk pages when the review pages are deleted. Otherwise, a ghost review appears on the GAN page and these show up as malformed reviews on the daily report. I've just done so for these four. ] (]) 07:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


GA help: ], ]
== Proposed add to FAQ ==


Nominations/Instructions: ]
I propose the following addition, or something like it, to the GAN talk page (i.e. this page) FAQ. I've noticed a couple cases where people have raised concerns with others' reviews and not notified the person whose reviews they're criticizing. It's probably a simple matter of forgetfulness, but I thought perhaps we could have the following in the FAQ:


{{hidden|Search archives|
'''What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process?'''
{{#tag:inputbox|
:You can bring those concerns here for help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in a dispute that you have begun a discussion.
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix={{FULLPAGENAME}}
break=yes
width=22
searchbuttonlabel=Search GAN archives}}


{{vpad|1.5em}}
I don't think this should be too controversial. Any thoughts? --] (]) 06:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
{{#tag:inputbox|
:Sounds good to me. --''']]]''' 06:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Good articles
break=yes
width=22
searchbuttonlabel=Search GA archives}}


{{vpad|1.5em}}
:Seems fine. ] ] 14:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
{{#tag:inputbox|
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Good article criteria
break=yes
width=22
searchbuttonlabel=Search criteria archives}}


{{vpad|1.5em}}
:Fine to me. — ]] 22:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
{{#tag:inputbox|

bgcolor=transparent
::"Here" needs to be a specific page name. ] (]) 03:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
type=fulltext

prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Good article reassessment
:::Since there are no objections, I'll put it in with a link to "here". Edit or revert and discuss if any concerns do arise. --] (]) 06:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
break=yes

width=22
== Transclusion error ==
searchbuttonlabel=Search reassessment archives}}

}}
Hello,
}}

there is an odd error: ] and last section of ] are not the same pages, meaning that the subpage is not correctly transcluded. Could someone fix this please? Regards.--] (]) 20:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

: As far as I can work out, ] has been transcluded into ] and ] has been added (not transcluded) to ]. I can't work out what is what, but the solution is to remove ] from ] and transclude <nowiki>{{Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA2}}</nowiki> into ], where it aught to be, but it might need some cleaning up afterwards. ] (]) ] (]) 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
::Thank you for the explanation. If I did something wrong please correct. Regards.--] (]) 08:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

== Non-free images in video game character GANs ==

There's a dispute over the use of non-free images in my ] of ]. I could just ask for a 3rd opinion on this GAN, but the same nominator has several other waiting GANs with which I have similar concerns. So it would save time in the future if these could be systemically sorted out in one go. Aside from the one linked above:
*] has a poster and an image from a movie, in addition to the main picture, illustrating similar things.
*] actually has a GIF of the character, illustrating "Mai's famous breasts bounce effect". There are 2 other images in the article, all showing the same costume and so forth. Aside from the GIF not really showing anything new (it's clear from the main picture what this character is about, without the need for motion), as her "sex appeal" is the character's main selling point, I'm tempted to run wild and say the GIF in all its glory impinges the holder's commercial rights.
*] only has two images, but illustrating very similar things (same costume again).
There may be more of these concerns (separate images of the same character taken from all of the game, movie and comic; but hopefully no more GIFs) in some of the user's dozen or so character GANs. They look pretty decent otherwise, so I'm willing to review more if I can just get some consensus one way or another on this issue. ] (]) 07:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

] has a huge GIF for years now and no one complained on "commercial rights". Morever, I'd say stuff being on Misplaced Pages is a actually rather a form of free advertisement, when it's not negative that is (the card, in a bigger picture, was shared by Bandai in their advertising blog). If anything, the companies can be just asked about their opinions. (Given that such images are routinely used by countless various other websites, and magazines, I don't think they would suddenly disagree to having a free ad here because of their "commercial rights".) --] (]) 08:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also Ada's costume in RE2 was actually different ("(same costume again)"). This is the full image: (a badly damaged miniskirt dress with dark tights + bandages). --] (]) 08:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:Whether you think the companies would mind having the images here is irrelevant. While the images are non-free, they must meet the ]; importantly, more images are not used if fewer would suffice, and images are not used unless they add significantly to reader understanding. It's quite clear that, for some of these articles, that is not the case. ] (]) 09:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::What if I contact them, would it be "relevant"? And no, SNK never sold, or plans to sell, GIF images. If Bandai planned to sell JPG pictures of this card, they would not publish it (in high-res, which they continue to do, for example was just released) for everyone to see and save for free (they sell actual cards). And images in Ayane's article were also all released precisely for promotional purposes. Also I hardly plaster these images all over these articles anyway, I'm using only between 1-4 (yes, sometimes just 1, like in ]), and I'm using free ones (from Commons) whenever I can (like in ]). --] (]) 09:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::''What if I contact them, would it be "relevant"?'' No, not really. There are two kinds of images; free images, and non-free images. If the images are free, do what you want with them. If they're non-free, they have to meet the NFCC. ] (]) 14:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And getting back to the Ibuki comic cover and concerns regarding sharing it here, too: this picture, along with , was even posted on Omar Dogan's (the UDON artist who drew this series) deviantART account. And in many other websites (absolutely legally). And speaking of which, would be actually better. I just PM-ed Omar, asking about it. --] (]) 10:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

:NFC is not a means of legal defense, though it is structured to hit the main points that come up in the evaluation of US Fair Use law as to, at minimum, assert our images fall within it. But instead, NFC is stricter, to maintain WP's goal of being a free content encyclopedia. We use non-frees only when they are essential for the reader's understanding, and avoid duplication. ''One'' nonfree image of a copyrighted character is usually not a problem in articles about that character to show what that character looks like, but subsequent ones need to demonstrate significant content to be of appropriate use. Typically these end up being facets like original art and concept sketches, or an alternate version of the character in another medium, but they aren't always necessary. --] (]) 14:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

:I also think just one non-free image of the character per article is the standard. I could ''maybe'' see including an image of an actor as the character (e.g. ]), but otherwise, I'd say the extra movie posters and card images, and similar, should go. The crucial point is that they don't add anything to the reader's understanding, since we already know what the character looks like. As for the '']'' gameplay image, I think we've generally agreed that one gameplay picture per video game article is okay. —<B>]</B> <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">]</sub> 14:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::I think Niemti is referring to the fact that it is an animated (And therefore large) gif. Except here, the game's article specifically calls out to the animation being done via a rotoscoping technique and part of the game's reputation, and even moreso than just a screenshot, serves that purpose as well. It's an example that doesn't apply well to here, though - apples and oranges. --] (]) 14:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
'']'' is a start class article; someone might well complain about it if it were brought to GAN or FAC. But again the point has been missed. The Prince of Persia GIF illustrates at a minimum something that isn't illustrated in the cover art, and arguably something that's difficult to describe in words or even illustrate in a still image. The GIF of whatsherface doesn't show anything not in the main image (same character, same costume) and I would assert that the layman will be familiar enough with the effects of motion and gravity on an ample chest, and that an animation is not necessary. ] (]) 14:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:It shows something that "whatsherface" is best know of, which was discussed back then and even remains discussed today nearly 20 years later. It introduced the breasts movement effect to fighting games (something that later became pretty much a defining part of the DOA series), and her boobs move all the time even in the neutral stance when the player does nothing at all (unless in the censored versions, because this was controversial in some places - apparently people in the UK were not allowed to get familiar "with the effects of motion and gravity on an ample chest"). A still image can't properly show this. --] (]) 15:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There are no "extra movie posters" there (or any movie posters). I e-mail the companies asking if the use of their images that they released for promotional purposes "impinges their commercial rights" in any way. --] (]) 15:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:To us, at WP, that doesn't matter at all. The only thing that can change the status of the images is if the company releases them with a license that is compatible with our free ones. --] (]) 15:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::So, "we" are so concerned about the possibility it "impinges the holder's commercial rights" that the actual opinions of holders "doesn't matter at all"? Wow. --] (]) 15:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes. Mind you, it's a feel-good jester if we can get them to say that while it's still their copyright, its use on WP is okay (such as with ]) but that doesn't change how they fit in per NFC policy. The ''license'' has to be free for that to be different. --] (]) 15:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::There's a huge difference between a promotional scan of a card, when they are selling actual cards, and the photo that is an intellectual property all in itself. All you can with a photo is to see it, but you can't actually play a GIF taken from a video game. "Apples and orange", you know. --] (]) 15:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::From what I can tell looking at the Ibuki article and Ayane article, each image has an independent fair-use basis for inclusion and the objection that "the character is wearing the same costume" is totally missing the point of their inclusion as well as ignoring basic aesthetics. Using just two or three images in the article would certainly seem to satisfy minimal use. It is not like there is a good chance of finding freely-licensed images depicting the characters, so I don't really see how the articles fail to comply with the NFCC.--] (]) 16:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::This and I actually take adhering to the non-free user rationales seriously. The comic book images have it very liberal, and so I used them in 2 of these articles above, but regular books have it extremly limited, so I never used any for characters or other works. Two examples from my current GA nominations: ] (where I'd like to use the cover of her Queen's Gate series gamebook, because it's quite empty) and ] (which would use of the novella The Shadow Over Innsmouth, which it is based on) - but in both cases I couldn't do it, because the rationale for books says that the covers can be only used at the top of the articles and the articles should be about the books themselves. I also try to find promotional images, too, if it's only possible. An alternative for Ada would be her in the film (which was just released), and Ibuki's comic cover would be better replaced by this 2-page panel from Omar's dA (showing the duality of the character). --] (]) 16:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::NFC does not consider anything with aesthetics and images. Secondly, the same restriction on book covers applies to comic book covers (why would it not apple?). NFC use is supposed to be exceptional, and while we recognize the need to demonstrate what a character looks like and allow one use, all subsequent uses much involve critical commentary and discussion about the character image. --] (]) 17:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


== Old nomination ==
You're wrong, and there's nothing theoretical about "why would it not apple". I actually studied the rationales, you know, so I know:


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)
{{Non-free book cover}}


: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)
{{Non-free comic}}
::Thanks so much! ] (]) 19:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== Splitting sections ==
You can find the 10 differences. Oh, and "at the top of the article" thing was actually about the copyrighted logos (not books). --] (]) 17:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


===Historical figures: politicians ===
And about ]'s film screenshot (official promotional release):


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)
{{Non-free film screenshot}}


:] 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)
The "critical commentary and discussion about the character" is actually needed, and so it's in the caption, and in more detail in the sections "In film" and "Reception". --] (]) 17:32, 23 September 2012 (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)
:::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)


===Splitting "Historical figures: other"===
:These are licenses, not non-free rationales. But even still, the comic book one talks about the character cover use ''for the issue in question''. A character article is not that. --] (]) 17:40, 23 September 2012 (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)


: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)
::Yes, licenses. How is "the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question" not about Ibuki in ''Ibuki'' #1? They can even illustrate "the scene or storyline depicted" - do you think there are Misplaced Pages articles about SCENES in comic books? Or "the copyrighted character(s) or group(s) depicted on the excerpted panel in question" - are there any articles about single panels? Of course not. Get real. --] (]) 17:54, 23 September 2012 (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)
:::{{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)


====Historical figures: bureaucrats and administrators split?====
:::Certain scenes or panels in comics may be the subject of sourced commentary - not necessarily their own article, but within context; that's satisfying NFCC#8. But focus on here: you have a character - primary from video games, but that happens to have a otherwise non-notable comic series. The look of the character from the video game publication to the comic is not much different. Since this article is ''not'' about the comic but about the character, the use of the cover needs to be the subject of sourced commentary, and not just used to illustrate "here's what her comic looks like". See ]. The comic book license would apply appropriate if the ''comic'' dedicated to that character was the subject of the article, but that's not the case here. --] (]) 18:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::And that's why I said, 2 times already (this is the third): that panel (already shared on dA) would make a better illustration as to show something though an illustration (something more than her genki pesonality). And I never said any "here's what her comic looks like", read again what I actually wrote. The license says nothing about "the ''comic'' dedicated to that character was the subject of the article" neither, you're just imagining things. And "]" pointed nowhere (besides a redirect). You don't even check your won links. --] (]) 18:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::] has no appropriate rationale that explains how it meets NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a. "Use in a section" is nowhere close to a proper statement of rationale. How does this image help the user to comprehend the article, and how does its omission harm the comprehension of the article? ] #9 is the link I meant to write. --] (]) 18:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::"A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. Similarly, a photo of a copyrighted statue (assuming there is no freedom of panorama in the country where the statue is) can only be used to discuss the statue itself, not the subject of it." Okay, aaaaand... whatever it had to do with anything? --] (]) 18:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::That's the ''license'', not the rationale. As per the text of all of those licenses you posted, a non-free rationale is ''still'' required. That's why it's important to recognize the distinction here, just because the license says it may be okay, you still need to write a rationale for its use. While the image does have a rationale template and most of the fields filled in correctly, you need a statement specifically addressing NFCC#8. The fact that there's little discussion about visual aspects of the cover in the article presently, likely means that you probably won't be able to meet NFCC#8 (we don't just use cover art decoratively). --] (]) 19:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::But really, what this stuff about magazine photographs of persons or photographs of statues had to do with ANYTHING? I didn't get it. At all. --] (]) 19:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Hello? --] (]) 21:54, 23 September 2012 (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)
I'll also say again about how I used a film screenshot for ] (which is also a GA nomination), but then replaced it when I found a free alternative, which was the actress photo from a promo event that I found in Misplaced Pages Commons while checking for what they have about Resident Evil (, mostly logos). I really do it right.


: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)
Also, I just emailed: Bandai, UDON, SNK Playmore and Tecmo Koei, let's see how much they care (and in the meantime you can wonder how the Wikia gets away with even scores of pictures per character, all kinds of them and often high-resultion, while nobody cares about having a free advertisement). --] (]) 17:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


== New editor incorrectly starting GANRs ==
:If you're in a dialog with the relevant creative authors, you should ask if they are willing to ''formally'' release limited numbers of images under free licenses that would enable the placement of those images on Commons (emphasize the publicity value of doing so). This would probably need to be formalized via ] for the relevant images, and would bypass the need for fair use criteria. '']''] 18:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::This would be highly unlikely, because that would mean them stripping themselves of at least some of copyrights they have. Making something "free" is an entirely different matter than just having them shared in a website, or in a magazine (be it in actual ad paid by them, or in an article by the publishers, in any case they're still the copyrights holders). --] (]) 18:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::And yet, we ''do'' have some companies that release stills and other works to free licenses. It's not an outside chance to try, though we don't expect them to do that, as you say. But that's the ''only'' thing that can change an image from non-free to free. Anything else less than that that a company can provide doesn't move the image from being covered under NFC. --] (]) 18:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Really? Like, for example, what it would be? Anyway, I did point them out to this discussion, so they can do it if they want. But I never planned to "change an image from non-free to free." I'm just using the licenses (of which this for comic covers and panels is by far most liberal), that's all. I didn't create these licenses, you know. I don't uploaded massive numbers of these images, neither. Usually it's 1 or 2 (including these already existing). I also look for free pictures if there are any available, I actively search for promotionally-released images to use, I'm lowering theeir resolution and sometimes cropping them, all the other stuff I should do I do (and what so many other people do not). --] (]) 18:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Several indie video game developers have allowed us use of their game images as free - they still control the copyright on the overall work and the characters, but the stills are put into free for illustration (See, for example ]). I know the chance of a large scale company willing to do that is low, which is why we ''don't'' require that type of check, but if you happen to have anything more than just a fan relationship with them, then there's a possibly of getting some free images to use. --] (]) 19:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::Regarding my previous post and how I roll: Like, with ] (a GA already) I wanted to post a film screenshot, as she looks entirely different (and yes, there's a critical commentary about it in the article), but I couldn't find anything good enough enough online - and I have this principle that every file should be sourced to a website (I see so many pictures where they just write something to the effect of "promotional image" as a source while posting HUGE hi-res images, like , and they get away with it - I know because I was asking for such images to be deleted, but to no avail). I really know what I'm doing and I do it right. --] (]) 19:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::NFC sourcing does not require being sourced to a website, only enough information that we can validate the original publication. A user-taken screenshot of a film is completely fine as long as its explained in the source where it can be re-validated. (eg "A shot from around 30 min into the film"). Large size images can be tagged {{tl|non-free reduce}} to mark them for reduction. --] (]) 21:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:Generally, I would say cover art for a work discussed in the article easily satisfies NFCC#8. I did notice that an RfC was initiated on the matter at the NFCC talk page where discussion was generally favorable towards allowing cover art in any articles where the work is discussed, but was used to make a change saying it was only allowed on articles about the work. Upon noticing that I restored the previous wording of NFCC.--] (]) 20:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::Sorry, but that added footnote was from a recent discussion. Note: the list in ] is '''not exclusive''' meaning that what is listed is not the ''only'' acceptable use of cover art, just that the only clear allowance for cover art is on articles about the work the cover represents. Any other use requires demonstration of all NFCC points. Ergo, just because a work is mentioned in an article (that is otherwise not about the work) does not give us allowance to use its cover, though if there is critical commentary about the cover, then there cause. --] (]) 21:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Masem is correct- This is the way it has been for many years. Devil's Advocate, merely discussing a work does not magically mean that the cover art of that work is suddenly significant. Equally, merely discussing a person does not mean we need a non-free image of their face or discussing a company does not mean that we need a non-free logo of the company. ] (]) 21:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::I get that neither of you really like any non-free cover art being included without the art itself being the subject of critical commentary and only begrudgingly accepted it for articles on the works themselves, but consensus and the wording of the NFCC does not seem to support that position even in these cases. You are appealing to a consensus view that does not appear to exist.--] (]) 21:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm assuming you're talking to me there, but I have no idea why you believe that I "only begrudgingly accepted it for articles on the works themselves". You're putting words into my mouth, which is not fair. Again, there is a strong consensus in favour of the NFCC, including NFCC#8, and common sense dictates that discussing a work (say, an album) in a related article (say, about a singer) does not automatically mean that the related article is going to be significantly worse-off without the cover of the work. That's what NFCC#8 requires. This isn't as complicated as you're trying to make it. ] (]) 22:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::We're not discussing persons nor companies. ("Apples and oranges", pineapples or hand grenades.) Anyway, would it be cool-er for you two to use this spead showing the dichotomy of the character? --] (]) 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Non-free images are supposed to be '''exceptional'''. That's the '''requirement by the Foundation''', and is not up to consensus. And you need to get your head out of trying to read between the lines and wikilawyer it - it is the ''principles'' behind NFC that are being pointed out. Okay, so you're talking about a video game character and we're making references to people and companies. The same logic '''must''' apply to both, and as noted, the lists on ] are not fully exclusive, and ergo we have to consider how the logic behind them extends to other types of works. So if we don't allow covers of magazines to be used to just illustrate articles on the people themselves, the same applies to fictional characters, unless there is something exceptional about that cover that has critical commentary in the article. --] (]) 22:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::I don't think that was really an answer to my question. Anyway - persons (especially living ones) are actually "exceptional" on Misplaced Pages, with their own set on rules. And the photographs are complete works - unlike parts of comics, which is more like like citing a part of a book (poem, song, article, any written form). A single image is very unlike posting a whole comic (not to mention comic series), or the photo (because a single reproduction of the photo is the entirity of this photo). But that wasn't even what I asked for. --] (]) 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::No, the rules for living persons fit within our overall scheme in the same way; the only reason they are highlighted that if a person is living, it is nearly always possible to get a free image of them, highlighting how NFCC#1, no free replacement, works. And as to your question, you're asking about a spread but I don't see any image link to judge this. But that said, giving the text in the article presently, I would warn there's almost no way a non-free image can be used to show the comic in any form, as the text is perfectly understood without the use of the image, failing NFCC#8. --] (]) 22:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I posted the link earlier in the discussion, it's the fourth one. You even answered this post. --] (]) 22:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Assuming it's , no, that won't work because you've already illustrated the dichotomy between her school life and ninja life by the infobox image and the sketch one; this would duplicate that. --] (]) 22:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::And if I, say, posted the one with (for example), and then moved stuff about how for years it was commonly assumed that SF1 character "Geki" was her father, until the comics addressed this issue by basically creating her as a character with actual backstory (which became canonical from that point on), to the caption of it - would it become fine for you? (Or even use the current image but with this caption.) --] (]) 22:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Given that the character was primarily a video game character to start, using the comic image as the infobox image is somewhat misdirecting, though arguably it could work there. But as a second separate image to show the comic, that's not really a strong reason. You've just explained the fact to us right here - that they fitted her into another character's backstory for the comic. --] (]) 23:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::I just did what? Geki had no backstory before the comic. It was just a character named "Geki" to beat in the original game in 1987, but for some reason there were widespred that it's Ibuki's father after she was introduced in 1997. Alright, check the article now. --] (]) 07:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


{{u|Velthorian}} has opened three GAN reviews in the past 24 hours, and passed and failed one each without any actual review. Can those articles be put back in the queue (especially bcs the upcoming GAN backlog drive encourages the review of older GANs more), and someone help them understand the ] on how to review properly. I have asked them before on one of the review ] and {{u|Remsense}} has also msged them on their talk page. ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*Missed much of this, but no: the comic image does not satisfy NFCC 8. In an article about the comic, yeah, but here the character is already illustrated in the exact same manner (the aesthetics, if they matter, are the same) in the previous image. All this illustrates is that she appeared on the cover of the comic, something the layman would easily understand if stated to him in words: the image does not ''significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic'' and its omission is not ''detrimental to that understanding''. And this further violates point 3.1: ''Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.'' The first and third images are not significantly different. Further, I don't understand all this pontificating over the licence tags (that is licence ''tags'', not licences): these things are informative tags that generally describe the free license under which an image is released; in place of this, for non-free images they just provide a boilerplate rationale because uploaders often don't seem able to provide them. All Niemti's been using to defend the images' inclusion is essentially a non-specific FUR. And if one actually looks at Niemti's (or at least, these articles') FURs one will see they're incredibly weak and inadequate. For the comic image in question, the explanation for why it meets criterion 8: "The other media section", that's it. And for an explanation as to why it doesn't violate no. 3? "All fine." ] (]) 01:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:*Well, I think the image from the comic illustrating Ibuki's claimed duality is a pretty strong NFCC argument so if replacing the cover with that would be satisfactory then I can't see why the matter should be held up. Masem's objection to that image is not very good from my perspective as the concept art and game art together only illustrate that a kick-ass ninja also has comfy clothes. It does not illustrate the character's "fantastic duality, juggling her school and ninja lives in the same way a superhero has their secret identity and super self" that is detailed in the comic book.--] (]) 06:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::I'm not sure if that new image was added before or after my above comment, but the problem now is that the ''second'' image - the one which illustrates she "also has comfy clothes" - is redundant. Inherently, "duality" has only two things to be illustrated, and we don't need three overlapping images to do so. ] (]) 10:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Actually I can agree to this. EOT? --] (]) 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::::The use of the duality image replacing the schoolclothes one is better. However, you dont need to flood the caption with all the stuff that once was in prose; the image just needs to be close to where in the prose you're talking about the duality. --] (]) 13:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
*I think we know have an amenable solution for the Ibuki article. Further input on the others is welcome, otherwise not imperative. ] (]) 12:26, 24 September 2012 (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)
== Review request ==
::@] @], 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 am not sure if submitting requests is discouraged or not, but I am hoping to have the Woodstock Library article reviewed sooner than later. In one week I will be meeting with Multnomah County Library staff to begin planning a local Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries event. One of the goals of the edit-athon is to improve MCL-related stubs. The Woodstock Library (branch within MCL system) article would serve as a model for other branch articles. I seek no special treatment, nor expect any corners to be cut. I just think having a reviewed model would be better than an unreviewed model. Any assistance would be much appreciated. --<font color="navy">]</font> <sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 20:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
: By the way, the article can be found under the "Art and architecture" section. Thanks. --<font color="navy">]</font> <sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 20:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:*I will review it: ]. ] (]) 04:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
:*I don't mean to steal Maclean25's thunder, but I think you've still got quite a bit of work to do before showing this article to the library staff as any kind of a model for anything. I've left a few representative notes on the review page. ] ] 05:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
::: Happy to respond to your feedback ASAP. Thank you both for your assistance--I want to be able to present the best possible article. --<font color="navy">]</font> <sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 13:34, 26 September 2012 (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)
== An alternative to backlog drives ==


:seems like a pretty clearly Chat-GPT generated review. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 22:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I've recently been trying to do one GA review a day, and it strikes me that if 10 or 15 other reviewers tried to do the same thing the backlog would be gone in a month or so. But perhaps the lure of a backlog drive barnstar is too great
:I think we can add ] to that list as well, as it seems to reference a bunch of things that aren't actually in the article. For example:
:* {{tq|Add more inline citations to the "Notable residents" and "Cultural significance" sections, as some claims lack direct sourcing.}} - ] doesn't have sections with either of these names, nor is any of the content lacking direct sourcing.
:* {{tq|- **Cultural Impact:** While the "Cultural significance" section touches on Tudor City's appearances in media, it could delve deeper into how it has influenced perceptions of urban living in New York City.}} - As mentioned above, this article doesn't have a "Cultural significance" section. It does, however, have a "Critical reception" section, which does include some commentary about that exact topic.
:* {{tq|However, certain phrases, such as "masterpiece of urban planning," could be perceived as promotional.}} - That phrase does not appear in the article.
:{{pb}}As such, can someone take a look at this as well? I suspect this may have been an LLM-generated review. &ndash; ] (]) 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I would support banning from the entire GA process editors who use LLMs to generate their reviews. I agree that the claims of unsourced claims in the Swim School review are directly contradicted by a brief look at the article and its history, and the wording of the Tudor City review looks canned and generic. At the least, some explanation here by Infoadder95 would be warranted. Further scrutiny of Infoadder95's other edits beyond GA may also be a good idea. , for instance, looks like others I have seen involving the use of an LLM to copyedit paragraphs, in some cases making the wording more promotional. I note that Infoadder95 has a current GA nomination, for ]. —] (]) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I am sorry if the article does seem like an LLM, but due to me not being to able to code in Wiki-text, and me not being able to use the visual editor in talk pages or when making reviews so I have to take the help of AI to turn my review into wikitext so it can be used in the article talk page. So some of the passages may seem like "Generic" and "AI generated", due to AI despite being given clear instructions to not alter the content.
:::If the majority opinion is against my review, I might be able to revise it, this is my first time reviewing nominees so I might make mistakes. If you have issues with specific portions of my review we can discuss it, or even ask for the consensus of other editors as well ask for a second review.
:::And to reply to the last part of your part of our message, I don't use LLMs for copyediting purposes or editing articles, if you suspect me of such, I am unable to do anything but wait patently. ] (]) 00:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree with David. You have no business reviewing GAs if your ability is so lacking that you must rely on a text generator to do the work for you, especially when you're not even bothering to make sure that it hasn't hallucinated something. &spades;]&spades; ] 00:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Now that the use of LLM for the reviews has been admitted, we should at least cancel both reviews and restore the two articles to the queue with their original nomination dates. —] (]) 00:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for not suggesting exiling me in the barren land of banned accounts ] (]) 00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I thought I could take part in January Backlog drive but this experience has taught me otherwise, thank you for your patience fellow Wikipedians. ] (]) 00:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@], despite these flawed reviews, I wanted to thank you for your honesty. Although editors shouldn't be using large language models for good article reviews (or really, for any kind of content review), hopefully this can be a learning experience so the same mistake isn't repeated in the future. ] (]) 03:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thanks ] (]) 12:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your suggestion, I think refraining from reviews till I get a bit seasoned is the best option for me now, I might as well spend some time time learning wiki-text.
:::If you suspect that I lack the capability to review articles and write quality reviews, you are mistaken but if you think that I lack the ability to use wiki-text and edit the source, then you are absolutely right. ] (]) 00:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Infoadder95}}, please nominate both reviews above for ], to aid cleanup of the errors. Thanks. ] (]) 00:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Ok ] (]) 00:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have deleted them both. You tagged them G11 (the wrong tag), which could have caused a problem if someone else got to them first and didn't understand why they were tagged, but fortunately that didn't happen. —] (]) 01:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


{{ping|Infoadder95}} you just "reviewed" ] in the same manner? May I ask why when you said less than 24 hours ago that you "I think refraining from reviews till I get a bit seasoned is the best option for me now"? ] (]) 17:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
One other thing that strikes me is that many of the older nominations are virtually unreviewable for various reasons, which is why they're among the older nominations. My suggestion is that we become more aggressive in quickfailing such articles, while offering a few suggestions on how to fix the obvious problems such as the relative length of a plot summary in a book or video game article for instance. FAC has the idea that articles nominated there ought to already meet the FA criteria, and I see no reason why GAN should be different. Another problem the backlog presents is that nominators are not infrequently failing to engage with the review, either because they've left, they've lost interest, or they're too busy with other stuff; I've recently twice had to fix an article myself rather than fail it, which really isn't ideal.


:I did not use LLMs this time, I copied the wiki-text from my sandbox and pasted it into the sub talk page. And what is your criticism of my review now, that it does not meet your standards or that it was done by me. Is it wrong according to Good article criteria or you just hate me. Please highlight what did you meant by "same manner".
My fundamental point is that by nominating an article at GAN, nominators are asking "does this article meet the GA criteria?" It should be easier than it is to say "no, it doesn't, and here's why". ] ] 20:55, 29 September 2012 (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)
:I wonder if it is about interactions and the worry that a fail will induce a negative one, so maybe one more about etiquette than criteria ''per se''? Alternatively there is the seven day time period and you can leave some notes and if there is no response over that time just fail it. I agree about being more proactive with older ones - something I should definitely do as well........actually just having a look at the ] I see your point. Is it worthwhile adding a criterion along the lines of - "article is grossly misbalanced contentwise - significant topic areas are either missing or overdetailed." - and/or prosewise "prose requires major rework to be sufficiently smooth enough for GA status" ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


== A streamlining of the GAN review process? ==
::I'd definitely support something along those lines. As I said, there are very good reasons why some nominations languish for months. ] ] 21:40, 29 September 2012 (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)
:::I stopped reviewing articles because I was told having a userbox with the number of "GA reviews" I'd done on my user page was wrong by an editor who said he had done more than 500. Kinda blew the wind out of my sails. So I stopped. I've left <s>three</s> four open. Should just close them as failed? ] (]) 00:03, 30 September 2012 (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.
::::Depends on why they're still on hold. ] ] 00:49, 30 September 2012 (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.
: ] (]) 14:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::True, and I was thinking also a separate page to list the GANRs with these issues- like inactive noms or reviewers are listed on WP:GAN, but it needs to be searched, which while each, could be made more straightforward. ] (]) 20:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Drive by review ==
:::::because I'm not doing GA reviews any more. Can't make myself do them. Became unpleasant for me after your comments to me on another page, pointing out that you were so much more experienced and that I was presumptuous putting the that I had done 189 in a userbox in my page. ] (]) 00:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::I do wonder what you consider "inexperienced" reviewers. I guess I'm in that category even though several I've done have gone on to become FAs. All in the eyes of the beholder I guess. I've been, apparently, determined as incompetent my Malleus, so it be. ] (]) 01:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::I think Malleus's suggestion is a sensible one. It seems that, too frequently, old nominations are picked up by inexperienced reviewers, when, in fact, they have (sometimes, by no means always) been left alone because they are problematic, and reviewing problematic articles is not as rewarding as reviewing strong ones. I also support Casliber's addition to the quickfail criteria, but I can imagine that some would object because of the element of subjectivity. ] (]) 00:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::well, that's not an answer to my question. (None of my reviews are "old nominations ... Picked up by inexperienced reviewer", but I get the message.) Since this has been weighing on me quite a while (what I should do since it has been pointed out that my reviewing is numerically up to par with Malleus and thus he can ridicule me), I'll take the ignoring of my question to mean that I can do as I like then regarding the four open ones. Since I have been determined by Malleus as "inexperienced" although several of my article reviews have gone on to become FAs, I'll bow to Malleus' evaluation and not review more. ] (]) 01:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Not sure why you should care what someone else thinks about your experience, since you must know you're a more-than-competent reviewer, but if you want to wind up the reviews and haven't done anything with them yet there are two better ways than just failing them. One is to find someone (or someones) to take over the reviews, and another is to just up the page numbers in the GA nomination templates by one and remove "onreview" (or "onhold") from the status field. That ends your review and leaves the noms on the GAN page waiting for a new reviewer to arrive. ] (]) 02:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Gotta agree with that. MT, you know your review are good, as do I. If someone whining about a damn userbox is what keeps you from reviewing, then shake it off. We're short on reviewers as it is and that combined with my lack of activity here have definitely stalled things. ] <sub>]</sub> 03:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::MT is not telling the truth. ] ] 03:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::ok, I really stopped because Malleus Fatuorum accused me of intentionally vandalizing his post (no AGF for me) when I was just trying to copy the link to his article in his post for my reply and screwed it up. He characterized my unintentional remove of his ] article in his post as "Puritanical replacement", a slur because he seems to dislike almost all Americans. (Americans are stereotyped as ] on wikipedia.) Malleus Fatuorum said to me "if you took the trouble to look you'd see that I've done more than 500 GA reviews". He checked out my co-FA and decided I've contributed "almost nothing to it" and "you've never written anything worth spit". I don't want to risk such an attack by him again by continuing to review GAs. It'll be only a matter of time before he finds a stupid mistake I make and specifically starts in on my work here. It's not worth the chance of being ridiculed, though I enjoyed the reviewing immensely and always tried to do the right thing. ] (]) 16:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Does it really matter which person is "right" over something so trivial? As long as reviews are getting done and things are progressing little things like boxes or whatever are irrelevant. ] <sub>]</sub> 04:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::I suppose that depends on whether or not you believe the truth to be important, as opposed to the twisted and contorted versions of the truth put forward by your friends. ] ] 04:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Sorry to spot here, but as BlueMoonset and Wizardman said, Mathew is an incredible reviewer and an experienced one. I support Mathew in everything he does and I consider that Malleus attitude is not the irhgt one. Additionally, Mathew, you don't have to take care of what one person thinks of your work if the rest of us know you are good. — ]] 17:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That you, Hah21. But Malleus_Fatuorum is right; I unintentionally didn't tell the truth. It was Nikkimaria who mentioned I had on my userpage "my dyk", "my barnstars", "articles I started". All Malleus_Fatuorum said was "Basically it's OK for him to list "his" articles on his user page, but not for anyone else to list "their" articles anywhere." So I have now removed all "my"s from my user page. Malleus_Fatuorum checked out my co-FA and decided I've contributed "almost nothing to it" and "you've never written anything worth spit", and about a two sentence article I wrote:{{quote| "To choose just one of MatthewTownsend's articles at random, ] had only 165 views last month; even ] managed to put that in the shade with more than 10,000 views, as did ] a mere GA that still had almost ten times the page views of Peter Askin." Your saying about my attempt to copy the link to your article: "I was objecting to was your Puritanical replacement with "::::::::"."}} (so much for AGF), and Malleus_Fatuorum continued: "I've done more than 500 GA reviews, so I've likely got a better idea of what I'm talking about than you have." When someone asked a question, you answered with "That's a question you ought to be addressing to MathewTownsend, whose hypocritical and insulting comments started this mess." etc.<br /> If my other attempts to contribute to wikipedia are ridiculed and I'm valued only for my reviews while my attempts to learn to write articles is ridiculed, then my enjoyment of reviewing is lessened immesurably. ] (]) 18:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:I think quickfails and queue length are inextricably related problems. Since the queue length is ''so'' great most of the time, I have pre-nominated articles based on my projected availability and the length of the queue, only to have someone come along in a backlog drive, review it immediately and fail it. Oookay. And then, they yell at me for renominating it immediately to put it back in the queue. Sigh. People gripe about the queue length, and then gripe about when experienced editors ''rely'' on the queue length. If there were consistently no queue, then there would be no incentive for editors to stack up articles to try and get a place in line. As is, it's also a huge insult to an editor to have a GAN in queue for two or three months, and then be reviewed and failed for something fixable... while it's certainly the prerogative of the reviewer, it's non-collaborative. And, for the record, I see no reason why editors shouldn't proudly display the number of GA's they've reviewed--I do, and have for years, even though the number has been quite stable for a while. ] (]) 02:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::Neither do I see a problem with that, but I do see a problem with lying, as MathewTownsend has done above. I've had a count of the reviews I've done on my user page for as long as I can remember. ] ] 03:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


Curtosy ping {{ping|CapeVerdeWave|12george1}} I stumbled upon ] while looking at older nominations for the January 2025 GAN backlog drive and found this review. There is no evidence that a review took place here and the review was all done within one edit. While I haven't done a thourough read through of the article in question so it may be fine but the review itself does not seem up to standards. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 16:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't agree with your cause and effect, Malleus. I've nominated four articles recently, and so did four reviews - three of which were the oldest entries in the sports and recreation queue, two of them nearly three months old. All of them passed relatively easily, one without even placing on hold. What I have noticed is that since the sports and rec queue was broken out of everyday life - and therefore moved from the top of the page to the bottom - that queue's backlog has nearly doubled from 35ish to 70ish. and I would say the entire reason is the lack of visibility. As that section went farther down the page, it became less frequented by reviwers who tend to grab from the top. Thus, I think the problem is a combination of lack of reviewers, and lack of visibility. We need to find a way to get these queues visible to the people (wikiprojects) most likely to deal with them. Perhaps, encourage the members of various sports and rec projects to step in and clean up that backlog. Same with film and arts. Try to encourage people to take a greater interest in reviewing.
:{{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)
:That being said, I do think montioring new entries for obvious quick fail criteria is not a bad thing. There is probably little more demoralizing for an editor new to this process to wait two months only for a quick fail. If we can catch those right away, we can gently instruct those users on what needs to be fixed for a faster re-list and a better experience. I wonder if we couldn't get a bot programmed to list new entries (akin new article patrol) that checks obvious things - potential copyvios, ratio of sources to article length and the like, that would allow a human reviewer to easily spot such articles and lend advice to the submitters? ]] 05:01, 30 September 2012 (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 ==
::I can think of something more demoralising: to spend hours on a review only to be met with complete silence by the nominator, which often happens with the older nominations. ] ] 05:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Hmm, that hasn't been my experience. Maybe if you're concerned about that you could check the nominator's recent contribs and/or leave 'em a note on their talk page to make sure they're still interested before taking on the review? ] (]) 05:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Please don't try to teach me how to suck eggs. ] ] 05:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::While responding to a helpful suggestion in such a manner certainly doesn't alleviate the problem, it does a rather good job of making me wonder why anyone would ever try and offer aid to you twice, Malleus. Engaging another editor who's trying to brainstorm solutions to ''your'' articulated problem in a positive discussion, even if you think their suggestions ineffective, would be a good way to keep the dialogue going. ] (]) 08:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::Haven't I made it very clear elsewhere that I don't have even the slightest interest in anything you have to say? ] ] 17:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::I can certainly agree with that, but like Jclemens, it has not been my experience to see a lack of response from a nominator. For those three very old nominations I mentioned above, the editors all responded to my review within 24 hours. If your experience is different, and it appears it is, then perhaps we need to look for common threads. i.e.: are you reviewing articles from newish editors, or in certain queues? If we find a pattern to abandoned nominations, we can more effectively find solutions. ]] 15:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


There's a discussion at ] related to good article nominations. ] (]) 22:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
===Right folks, back on topic...===
Right, getting this back on track. How about something along the lines of (to go under criterion 6):


== New reviewer required ==
::7.The article contains ''major'' gaps in coverage, and/or goes into great and unnecessary detail on a particular aspect of the subject. (Note that in this case the <s>nominator</s> reviewer should be able to clearly specify the issues involved to the nominator)


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)
====Support adding this====
#


: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)
====Oppose adding this====
#


== Inactive GAN review ==
====Discussion====
*I consider that we really don't need this one. We can always fail the article if it has major gaps in coverage or goes into unnecessary detail, So why would we re-instate this as a quickfail criteria? — ]] 17:09, 30 September 2012 (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. (]).


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)
::8 (or 7 if the above doesn't pass) .The article's prose is globally poor and needs a complete going-over by a copyeditor to even get to a stage of fine-tuning to good prose.


:I have applied the instructions laid out at ] to the nomination. ] (]) 13:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
====Support adding this====
: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 ] ==
====Oppose adding this====
#


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>
====Discussion====
* I do like the idea of this one as I find you really need a good couple of goes to massage prose sometimes. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:*I agree with Casliber but I don't like how it is written and won't completely support it until it is rewritten. — ]] 17:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:11, 27 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)

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)