Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:06, 3 September 2013 editPyrotec (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,908 edits →What to do without GA bot?: thanks← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:47, 3 January 2025 edit undoHistory6042 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,099 edits →Former GA: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Tab header}}{{Vpad|0.25em}}
--------------------<br>
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Tab header}} ]
{{shortcut|WT:GAN}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
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.
{{archives
{{tmbox
|style = font-size:88%; width:23em;
|auto = no | type = notice
| image = ]
|editbox= no
| text = See the ]}}
|search = yes
{{central|text=several other GA talk pages redirect here.}}
|prefix = Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive

|bot=MiszaBot II
|age=7

|1=<div class="nowraplinks">
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
</div>
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 500K |maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 19 |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
{{shortcut|WT:GAN}}
|
GA: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]

Criteria: ], ], ], ]

Reassessment: ], ], ], ], ], ]

GA help: ], ]

Nominations/Instructions: ]

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

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

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

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

== Splitting sections ==

===Historical figures: politicians ===

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)

:] 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)
::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"===
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)
::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?====

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 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)
== Million Award? ==
::{{re|Generalissima}} After going through the "other" category (again) I think an "activist, revolutionary, anarchist and suffragette" category would be appropriate. ] (]) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Bit of a mouthful - I think "Activists and revolutionaries" encompasses all four <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{re|Generalissima}} Works for me. ] (]) 15:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have created the "bureaucrats and administrators" category per this discussion. My next step is to go through the "other" category and move biographies to more appropriate categories. ] (]) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== A streamlining of the GAN review process? ==
I'm working on an award for editors who bring high-traffic articles to GA or FA level, which I'm tentatively calling the Million Award. My goal is to create a fun incentive for editors to work on Misplaced Pages's most-read content, which is often neglected because of the difficulties in improving it. (An important inspiration here is "]", which has some good facts and figures about this).


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)
The three tiers of the award would recognize editors who successfully promote articles with an estimated quarter-million, half-million, or million annual views. (Estimated is a key word here, as this award would not be strictly supervised or regimented--it's for editor encouragement only). This would include almost all topics at ] as well as popular contemporary topics. Recent qualifying articles would include ], ], ], ], ], ], and ].


: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.
You can see the full proposal at ], though the graphic design still needs to be done. Since this award would most commonly be given to GAs, I thought I'd ask here for feedback. Any thoughts, objections, or dire warnings before I move this to article space? Is anyone interested in helping to design the award? Thanks to all, -- ] (]) 12:35, 17 August 2013 (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)
:I think that it sounds like a great idea. ] (]) 18:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:*Would it be possible to add a section for review's which haven't be edited for a certain number of days onto the ], again so we can track potentionally abananded reviews. ({{ping|Wugapodes}} who operates the bot which updates this page) Yes, we already have a section for reviews lasting over seven days. But some reviews will legitamtly last over seven days. And this section is also overpopulated with reviews that were temporily abandened. (i.e. the review is now actively ongoing). This makes it difficult to see the wood from the trees.:*I think we should be more aggresive with following up on reviews. I think that if a review has not been touched for (picking these time frames out of thin air) 14 days we provide a message on the review page, tagging the reviewer, with a message where we chase up the review and '''if they have not reaffirmed their commitment within 7 days the review will be considered abananded and reset inline with the recommendations at ]'''. If they reaffirm their commitment and don't follow through we will also just reset the nomination. If we hardcode that into the instructions it will also (hopefully) rectify part of the problem and enbolden nominaters who feel their review has stalled.
::A great idea- I'd certainly be happy to link this award with the WikiCup, which also offers large amounts of points for highly important topics (though we judge importance in a slightly different way). (Might I also suggest that you allow people to remove themselves from the list if they so wish? That's one of the things that caused such problems at the Four Award.) ] (]) 19:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
: ] (]) 14:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Good idea, but I don't think anything less than 1 million annual page (2740 daily) views is high traffic. I don't work in the high traffic area and I have some that probably get a 1/4 million.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 20:14, 17 August 2013 (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)
::::I rarely even review high-traffic articles. However, I know that ] became very difficult due to a lot of outside editors, which discouraged the nominator. ] was one I reviewed and watched. I also watch ]. Those are articles that are difficult to get in shape and keep in shape. Down below 3000 page views, not so much. You should focus on million and multimillion, IMO. Otherwise, you will just be giving out awards to people who do articles. You should be focussing on rewarding the difficult ones.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 20:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:A good idea, and one that can learn lessons from recent controversy by viewing itself as a barnstar and taking itself no more seriously. ]] 20:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
::::Thanks, everybody. I've gotten positive feedback in some other forums, too, and will proceed in some fashion when I design (or get someone else to design) the graphic and userbox for it. I don't know if that'll be a day from now or a month; we'll just have to see.
::::@J Milburn and Resolute, that's definitely my intention; I want this to be as informal as possible. I'll make that explicit in the instructions.
::::@Tony, I agree to an extent, and am still debating that issue with myself. But I'm hoping that awarding a more common lower level will inspire people to go for the elite higher level. ~650 daily views (a quarter million views annually) would still put an article in at least the top 10% of GAs, so far as I can tell. Unscientifically clicking through 20-30 random nominations just now, most had only 20-50 daily views; none had more than 200 daily views. For every ] or ], there seem to be about 10-20 ]s. -- ] (]) 20:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::I don't know which is my most heavily trafficked, but I don't have many. ] (137K page views in last 90 days) is up there and it has few high traffic issues. Neither does ] (120K), ] (105K). Rewarding me for these would be wrong. There are no issues. I watch a lot of high page view articles and understand the issues, but the threshold you want is higher even if the award is infrequent. Maybe creating the award will change the frequency.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 20:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::P.S. I don't know which subsection you were at when you were sampling. Surely more than 10% of TV shows, Celebrities, Politicians and other subjects in the news and on TV meet your threshholds.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 21:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::Thinking of my own, ] and ] are usually good for a quarter-million a year. "]" is over a half-million, and ] nears 700,000. Though yeah, that's four out of about 80 GA/FAs. ]] 21:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I've just been looking through stats of some of my GAs. I think the best one I've got is ] which hits about 750,000 a year. On the theme of roads, ], a pretty well known landmark I'd have thought, gets less than a tenth of that. ] ] ] 21:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Well, looking at the 10 most-recently nominated TV articles, it looks like 2 would potentially qualify. You have to remember that most TV-category articles are about individual episodes, which get only a few views a day. Out of the 10 most recent Politics articles, only 1 would potentially qualify. Out of the 10 most-recently nominated song articles, none qualify. Out of the 10 most recent album nominations, only 1 would potentially qualify. Out of the 10 most recent sports articles, none qualify. Out of the 10 most recent history articles, none qualify. And this is leaving out some categories like Warfare, Transport, Earth Sciences, Geography, and other categories where high-traffic articles are even rarer. So I feel like 10% seems like a fair estimate; if anything it's probably a bit high. -- ] (]) 21:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:I think this an excellent idea. While taking any article to GA status is worthy, as it provides something a reader can trust to be complete and correct, a sense of priority to the general readership cannot be underestimated. I would dearly love to see ] at GA status again (and at FA status even more), but just don't have sufficient sources to do it justice myself. When I've got ] out of the way, I might see if I can tackle some more general-purpose instrument articles - I might be able to give ] a go as some friends work in a dedicated Saxophone warehouse and have books on the subject coming out of their ears (well, nearly). ] ] ] 20:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
::It certainly would provide some sorely needed impetus for someone to work on such important articles as ], ] and ] instead of such elitist drivel as ]s and '']'' or the ]. ] 21:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:::Maunus, can you not imagine a Misplaced Pages where people work on both? Of course there are worthy less-viewed topics and "unworthy" high-traffic topics (though ] easily exceeds the million annual viewers mark, so it might not be the best example to lead off your second list with). Rewarding one kind of article doesn't have to mean deprecating another. -- ] (]) 21:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
::::I think they are working on both already.] 21:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::Don't get me wrong, I enjoy obscure GAs, particularly if one of the "usual suspects" like Eric, Drmies or Dr Blofeld has had a hand in it, but the man in the street won't understand that, or much care. (If they ''did'', ] wouldn't be a redlink, would it?) ] ] ] 21:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::Ditto; I was actually the GA reviewer for Maunus's example of ''Duino Elegies'' and had a great time with it. I also write some ''extremely'' low traffic GAs myself--one or two get fewer than 5 views a day. So I'm not trying to deprecate anybody else's work here, just give an added thanks to people who take on the challenge of editing popular content. -- ] (]) 22:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
*How will you be handling spikes. The day ] and the day after it combined for over . Now, ] might get about .--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 22:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:*I'm just going to leave it up to the discretion of the awarding (or self-awarding) editor. I agree it's a potential issue, but I'm reluctant to make any hard-and-fast rules. Perhaps I'll just add a note to the effect of "common sense should be used in evaluating articles with enormous one-time spikes". With regard to this specific example, I do have a note in there suggesting that main page appearances be discounted; the inauguration article appeared that week in ITN. -- ] (]) 22:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
*Slogging through more of my articles, I continue to find the my 1/4 and 1/2 million ones have none of the high volume issues. Among my FAs, ] (175k last 90), '']'' (103k) and ] (65k) all require almost no extra effort to keep in shape. On rare occaissions ] (165k) takes a lot of time to keep in shape. The only article that has high-volume issues is almost 1 million (], 238k). I continue to think the 1/4 mill and 1/2 mill won't really be recognizing anything, if the point is to note the extra effort for high volume articles.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 17:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
:*I appreciate the input. I'd still argue that improving a popular article like Barry Bonds or ''Cloud Gate'' is an important contribution, regardless of difficulty, but I don't mind that we disagree. Obviously, anyone is welcome to restrict themselves to giving out and accepting whatever tier of the award they feel is worthwhile. -- ] (]) 17:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
::*Well during its 4 GAC attempts, Barry Bonds was a little higher volume article and a lot more contentious article than it is today. I am running out of data points for this discussion, but ] (90K) as a high school athlete, has had few high volume issues and was not a contentious article (except when he was on the '']'' cover). Basicallly, I would not award for less than a million, but at a half million some issues pop up. I still think Michelle Obama is my only high volume issue article and oddly there are enough editors to watch it that I don't really get involved in it that much.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 15:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


== New reviewer required ==


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)
===Alternative criteria===
Determining whether or not an article meets the criteria for the award based on the number of views will be difficult, and many people might not want to do the complicated math. An alternative (and much simpler) criteria is: the article promoted to GA/FA status needs to be listed at ].--] (]) 03:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
:The problem is that a lot of major and popular topics still don't reach Vital Article status (even in the expanded list). Looking just at US History, ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] don't make the cut for the Vital Article list, but these are all the sort of articles I'd want to recognize. -- ] (]) 03:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
:I should add, too, that there's no reason your proposed award and my proposed award couldn't simultaneously exist--that is, an award for high-traffic articles, and an award for Vital Articles. (It's kind of ridiculous that the latter doesn't already exist, actually, though I know the Core Contest and WikiCup both recognize this in their own forms.) The two would overlap sometimes but certainly not always. If you're interested in creating a complementary award, I say go for it. -- ] (]) 03:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
::The expanded vital articles list is a joke. This is a perennial discussion we have at the WikiCup, where we judge article importance on the basis of the quantity of interwiki links; the logic being that if an article has been created on dozens of Misplaced Pages projects, then it must be important. (In practice, this has resulted in a large number of points for articles we would intuitively say are "important" ones- last month saw lots of points for ] and ], Nobel laureates, ], the already-mentioned ] and ].) ] (]) 08:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


*Vital articles is essentially an "importance" ranking; the page-traffic approach is essentially a "popularity" one. They often overlap, but there's a lot of vital articles with low traffic and a lot of "non-vital" articles with high traffic. ] (]) 19:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) :Unfortunately it looks like the reviewer had a bit more of the article to go. I have reset the nomination. If the reviewer returns they are welcome to reopen the old GAN. ] (]) 05:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::No worries. I hope someone else would start this nomination again. Many thanks! ] (]) 15:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== Does a bot fix this? == == Inactive reviews ==


I was checking inactive reviews due to the backlog drive coming up, and I saw the following:
Greetings. I recently passed the ] for ]. I added {{tl|GA}} to ], as advised in ]. But the {{tl|ArticleHistory}} template at the talk page hasn't been updated, and it's not clear how to do this. Will a bot take care of it, or it is something I should fix manually? Thanks, &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 13:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
*<s>]: I think the reviewer said they are fine with a second reviewer, but haven't marked it as such. Plus the nom has been inactive for 24 days.</s>
*:Relisted.
*]: The reviewer has been inactive for more than a month, but it does look almost finished, so maybe it should be marked as needing a second opinion?
*:Luckily this review seems substantially complete, unlike a couple of others from the same reviewer, and the reviewer seemed broadly positive on it. If there are no objections, this one might take a light lookover and pass.
*<s>]: Have had no review despite being open for more than 3 months</s>
*:Relisted.
*]: Also have had no review even after being open for three months
*:Reviewer has not edited since the ping three days ago, giving this one a bit more time.
*::Reviewer has returned.
*<s>]: The reviewer barely started and have been inactive for more than a month</s>
*:Relisted.
*]: Had no edits for a month, then had a week of reviewing, and then again has no edits for a month
*:A bit more of a confusing one, probably should be relisted, but I've dropped a note on the reviewer talkpage.
*::Reviewer has not replied despite editing again, relisted.
*<s>]: The reviewer had filled out a review template, but has said nothing, or failed it (as they marked in the template), maybe they are inexperienced</s>
*:Opened just this month, dropped a note on the user talkpage.
*::Reset.
*]: New reviewer did not review, just marked it GA on the talk page, and has not been editing for two weeks (after having not edited for 3.5 months)
*:This one is a bit weird, usually I'd wait longer given the review just opened, but, given the talkpage action, the lack of activity in general, and the upcoming drive, not opposed to relisting sooner.
*::Failed.
Can something be done about these- either marked as needing another reviewer, or reset, as seems best? ] (]) 07:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for checking all this. I've relisted three obvious cases in line with my understanding of our precedents, other comments above. ] (]) 08:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. There are even more GANRs similar to the above, but they were all started around less than a month ago, so I only mentioned the most egregious ones. Might do a similar check around the middle of next month. ] (]) 08:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Reviewer came back for Andhra Pradesh, I'm going to try and second opinion Jonna Adlerteg. This is the second time Mating of yeast has been relisted, which is a bit of a shame. Otherwise the rest are handled. ] (]) 16:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== Inactive nominations ==
:The bot should take care of it. It may not happen right away though.--] (]) 17:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


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


To streamline our nomination process and take out articles which won't ever have their reviews addressed, could we maybe get the bot to ping users after, say 30 days, of their last edit and confirm they still want the review. If they don't return to editing by 45 days (or whatever), then the nomination is pulled.
A suspected sockpuppet ] has hijacked a ]. This user’s sole contributions to Misplaced Pages have been to conduct this and to start conducting another GA review. To date 90% of his review has been good, but I suspect that his ultimate plan is to spoil the article by sabotaging the review which I believe are borne out by the more recent comments that he is making in his review.


The resources of reviews are low enough to not have to address reviews of inactive nominators. An example of this happening manually can be found here: . '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 15:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Although he was ] three weeks ago and ten days ago an SPI clerk endorsed CheckUser request, FishGF’s account has not been blocked and he continues to conduct the review in a manner that looks increasing as if he is trying to spoil it. Is there any way that I can get the review completed without his help?<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:Lee, are you thinking of the same approach as suggested ]? Or just for nominations where the review has not yet been started? ] (] - ] - ]) 15:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:My suggestion would be to simply close the review as a fail and renominate. If you've gotten to the point in the review where you believe the reviewer is a malicious sock (whether or not this turns out to be true), you've passed the point where you can work well together to finish the process out. Since this is an odd situation, I personally wouldn't object to your keeping the same time stamp on the re-nomination so it can keep its place in the queue. -- ] (]) 04:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
::Not yet started. Whilst I appreciate it's hard when doing a review for a non-active nominator, I'd like to avoid it before we get that far. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 15:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== Million Award rollout == == Inactive reviewer ==


I have already asked for a review in ], and the reviewer previously has gone AWOL. See discussion. ] (]) 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I've now begun the rollout for the ]. If you complete a review for an article with an estimated annual readership of 250,000 or higher, you can now give the appropriate level of the Million Award and a userbox in addition to a regular barnstar. If an article hits the highest level (a million views/year), you can add it to the Hall of Fame.


== Second opinion on review ==
I'll make some effort to track down editors that qualify for the top tier of the award based on past contributions, but my method isn't comprehensive. If you know of anyone who deserves any level of the award--including yourself--please feel free to award/claim it. It'd be a big help! Cheers to all, -- ] (]) 16:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


Can I get a second opinion on ] to confirm that nothing was missed? I ask because {{u|History6042}} has already had their reviewing scrutinized at ], and since then they have passed ], ], ], ], ], and now this one without taking the feedback on board. ] (]) 04:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== How to withdraw a GAN? ==


:What was wrong with Serbia Against Violence (coalition), Charles Brenton Fisk, National Gathering (Serbia), and Branislav Djurdjev, no issues were brought up about those. ] '''(])''' 04:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
How can I withdraw a GAN nomination if I decide an article is not ready after all? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 16:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
:If it's not being reviewed yet, just delete the nomination from the article's talk page. If it is being reviewed, ask the reviewer to close it as a "fail" so that any comments so far are preserved in the historical record. -- ] (]) 16:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC) ::Also, I might not be fully sure what a spot check is, the only thing I could find just said see if the sources are good and say what they are. Am I wrong? If so someone please explain to me what a source spot check is. ] '''(])''' 04:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::If necessary I can go back and do one one Hilda Heine once I understand what a spot check is. ] '''(])''' 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Not long ago, I walked away from a GA review which just wasn't going anywhere. I just removed the GA review notice on the talk page and (iirc) a bot picked it up and marked it as failed. There's no real shame in doing this as long as you've made the article better. ] ] ] 16:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
:::I did that now. ] '''(])''' 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, the GA bot is likely to regard it as a "fail", simple because it is not a "pass", and list it as a "fail" in both its edit summaries (it takes two operations). If there is an already opened review then this closed review will be itemised in the {{tl|articlehistory}} at some future date as a GAN result = "not listed", but if no review exists this event won't be recorded in the article's {{tl|articlehistory}}. ] (]) 20:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


== ] ==
== What to do without GA bot? ==


In the context of the backlog drive this one could do with a little help to get over the line. It has been on the list since July 2024 and in review for a month now. Mea Culpa it used to have issues with overly close paraphrasing of sources but it should be sorted now. {{user|AirshipJungleman29}} is doing a source check. {{User|IntentionallyDense}} did check in at Christmas and there was some objective points raised that are now all resolved. What would be really great is if another editor or editors could have a look and give additional feedback/comments. ] (]) 09:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
According to ], Chris is taking a wikibreak and has turned off his bots for the duration, including GA bot. This means that, for an undetermined yet extended period, the nominations page is effectively stuck in time: no new nominations will show up, no closed ones will disappear, no reviews or holds or requests for second opinions will show up. I discovered this by accident when a FailedGA template I added did not cause the nomination to be removed from the GAN page.
:As I have said, the review is in progress. I am waiting to gain access to a couple of books. Of course, {{green|"Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article"}}, especially with regard to source-text integrity. ] (]) 10:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::That's good to hear. ] (]) 12:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:My impression was that Airship had this review handled. An article of this size is bound to take awhile. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 19:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Former GA ==
I have no idea what might be done—he does give a link to the source code in his message—but I thought it was important to notify everyone here right away. Managing over 400 active nominations strikes me as an impossible task without some sort of automated processes. Best of luck! ] (]) 16:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


Is there a list of all delisted GAs by when they were delisted? I want to see the newly delisted articles. ] '''(])''' 23:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
: The project was run sucessfully without a bot for quite a few years, longer than the bot has been in use, so if we can't rely of the continuity of the bot perhaps we should just dump it. Looking at the bot's user contribution list, it seems to have been started at 06:18 on the 4th January 2010, but there was a longish period of parallel running and dicussions regarding this will be found at various places in the archive of this talkpage. Again, from the bot's user contribution list it last ran at 10:19 this morning. From memory (I started reviewing in September 2008), it was easy enough to run the system without a bot: the hardest job would be the change over back to a manual system. Without the bot the nominator has to nominate the article on the GAN page, using standard templates: which is easy enough. The reviewer (when someone decides to review a nomination) has to create the /GAx page and manually update the GAN page (to "on review") and do this every time there is a change of status (such as "On Hold"), including removing the nomination from the GAN page when it is passed or failed. I also assume that the GA-star ){{tl|good article}}) will need to be manually added to newly listed aticles. The bot updates a lot of pages that where not used in the manual system, so there were no ] nor Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Topic lists. ] (]) 19:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
::Going on that idea, of running WP:GAN without the bot, I would suggest enabling ] functions so that users may perform this on a semi-automated basis, if indeed consensus reveals the bot is too unreliable. ''']]]''' 02:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
::: Thanks for that suggestion. I've never used Twinkle, so that causes me problems, such do I need to learn how to use it and how to enable it for this function? Note: At an unsustainable maximum I've completed 58 reviews on one month (back in the 2010 backlog review drive), which meant 58 change of status (to "on review") on both the relevant article's talkpage and the GAN page, and 58 deletions from the GAN list (and 58 GA stars to add). Nowadays, I'm not likely to do more than one or two reviews per weeks, but sometimes its a low as one or two reviews per month. So, for that quantity is it worth me learning to use Twinkle? To return to the last point: the bot has generally been reliable, but the problem for this project is that the bot operator (for good reasons, I beleive) has walked away and turned off the bot, for an unknown time, without any notice to this project. ] (]) 07:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:47, 3 January 2025

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.

Archiving icon
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33

GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4

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

GA help: 1, 2

Nominations/Instructions: 1

Search archives




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

Splitting sections

Historical figures: politicians

In Historical figures: politicians at WP:GA, I have spun out American figures into "Historical figures: politicians - United States". Considering that over half of the articles were American figures, this seemed to be the logical split. There were some Hawaiian and pre-American Revolution figures that I made judgement calls on where to place, so a second look is appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

George S. Armstrong and Irene Parlby seem to be Canadian, Mabel Philipson British, aside from that the rest seem reasonably placed. If the pre-US figures on the East coast are included, it doesn't seem misleading to include pre-US Hawaiian figures. Are there other Robert Whites we could promote? CMD (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I moved Armstrong, Parlby and Philipson to the general section. I included pre-US figures on the east coast if the majority of their biography concerns their governance of the colonies. Hawaii was its own civilization and if it wasn't a US state it would probably be considered part of Polynesia/Oceania. I moved Hawaiian figures to US politicians if a significant part of their governance took place when the US controlled the area. I am still open to moving some figures if consensus is otherwise. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Nothing stopping anyone considering Hawaii part of Polynesia/Oceania now! Anyway, from a casual reader POV, I would expect them to expect Hawaiian figures in the United States subsection. Anachronism has its place in navigation, and history was what it was, and now is what it is. CMD (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Splitting "Historical figures: other"

I have spun out European figures from "Historical figures: other", which was about half of the listings in that category. I invite editors to take a look and fix any errors I have made. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! I wanted to bring up the historical figures other category - I feel like the vast majority of entries are inproperly placed there. I scanned through and there were lots of political activists and officials that I feel are better placed somewhere else. Additionally, I think there's some which could be spun off into their own category - "Criminals and assassins" def. seems like it could be its own category of historical person, for instance. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
If you want to shift historical figures within that page (ie, not to another GA list) I encourage you to be bold, it's not the most curated structure. (Same for anything in Music.) CMD (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
@Generalissima: Steve Irwin was someone who I think should be moved, though I do not know which section to put him in (his talk page has him listed in Sports and Rec, but I think he was mostly known for being a conservationist and entertainer). As for new history sections: I agree with CMD. I think criminals is a good idea as it makes the section smaller. I also agree with music, but that might be a discussion for a new section below. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Historical figures: bureaucrats and administrators split?

After looking at the articles left over in Historical figures: other, another split might be bureaucrats and administrators. This could be defined as government officials who were never elected to their position (and are therefore not politicians). Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that'd be a good idea. One final category of "sort-of-politicians-but-not" could be activists, which I've seen a lot of in that category. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
@Generalissima: After going through the "other" category (again) I think an "activist, revolutionary, anarchist and suffragette" category would be appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Bit of a mouthful - I think "Activists and revolutionaries" encompasses all four Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@Generalissima: Works for me. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I have created the "bureaucrats and administrators" category per this discussion. My next step is to go through the "other" category and move biographies to more appropriate categories. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

A streamlining of the GAN review process?

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

There seem to be two issues here. I'm not quite yet sure how to tackle "substandard reviews", but here are my thoughts on abananded reviews.
  • I certainly agree that we need a better way to track apparently abananded reviews. Currently, Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations shows where the reviewer is inactive for a certain number of days. (I don't know anything about bots but) I suspect it would be fairly easy to change this to number of days without an edit on review page, which will make it easier to track editors who have abandened reviews but are still active (which is a much bigger problem; and no point having both). (@Mike Christie: who operates the bot which updates this page)
  • Would it be possible to add a section for review's which haven't be edited for a certain number of days onto the Good article nominations report page, again so we can track potentionally abananded reviews. (@Wugapodes: who operates the bot which updates this page) Yes, we already have a section for reviews lasting over seven days. But some reviews will legitamtly last over seven days. And this section is also overpopulated with reviews that were temporily abandened. (i.e. the review is now actively ongoing). This makes it difficult to see the wood from the trees.:*I think we should be more aggresive with following up on reviews. I think that if a review has not been touched for (picking these time frames out of thin air) 14 days we provide a message on the review page, tagging the reviewer, with a message where we chase up the review and if they have not reaffirmed their commitment within 7 days the review will be considered abananded and reset inline with the recommendations at WP:GAN/I#N4a. If they reaffirm their commitment and don't follow through we will also just reset the nomination. If we hardcode that into the instructions it will also (hopefully) rectify part of the problem and enbolden nominaters who feel their review has stalled.
SSSB (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
True, and I was thinking also a separate page to list the GANRs with these issues- like inactive noms or reviewers are listed on WP:GAN, but it needs to be searched, which while each, could be made more straightforward. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

New reviewer required

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

Unfortunately it looks like the reviewer had a bit more of the article to go. I have reset the nomination. If the reviewer returns they are welcome to reopen the old GAN. CMD (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
No worries. I hope someone else would start this nomination again. Many thanks! Pangalau (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Inactive reviews

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

  • Talk:Sleeping Beauty (1959 film)/GA3: I think the reviewer said they are fine with a second reviewer, but haven't marked it as such. Plus the nom has been inactive for 24 days.
    Relisted.
  • Talk:Jonna Adlerteg/GA1: The reviewer has been inactive for more than a month, but it does look almost finished, so maybe it should be marked as needing a second opinion?
    Luckily this review seems substantially complete, unlike a couple of others from the same reviewer, and the reviewer seemed broadly positive on it. If there are no objections, this one might take a light lookover and pass.
  • Talk:IMac (Apple silicon)/GA1: Have had no review despite being open for more than 3 months
    Relisted.
  • Talk:Andhra Pradesh/GA3: Also have had no review even after being open for three months
    Reviewer has not edited since the ping three days ago, giving this one a bit more time.
    Reviewer has returned.
  • Talk:Amos Yee/GA1: The reviewer barely started and have been inactive for more than a month
    Relisted.
  • Talk:Mating of yeast/GA2: Had no edits for a month, then had a week of reviewing, and then again has no edits for a month
    A bit more of a confusing one, probably should be relisted, but I've dropped a note on the reviewer talkpage.
    Reviewer has not replied despite editing again, relisted.
  • Talk:June/GA2: The reviewer had filled out a review template, but has said nothing, or failed it (as they marked in the template), maybe they are inexperienced
    Opened just this month, dropped a note on the user talkpage.
    Reset.
  • Talk:Yang Youlin/GA1: New reviewer did not review, just marked it GA on the talk page, and has not been editing for two weeks (after having not edited for 3.5 months)
    This one is a bit weird, usually I'd wait longer given the review just opened, but, given the talkpage action, the lack of activity in general, and the upcoming drive, not opposed to relisting sooner.
    Failed.

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

Thanks for checking all this. I've relisted three obvious cases in line with my understanding of our precedents, other comments above. CMD (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. There are even more GANRs similar to the above, but they were all started around less than a month ago, so I only mentioned the most egregious ones. Might do a similar check around the middle of next month. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer came back for Andhra Pradesh, I'm going to try and second opinion Jonna Adlerteg. This is the second time Mating of yeast has been relisted, which is a bit of a shame. Otherwise the rest are handled. CMD (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Inactive nominations

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

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

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

Lee, are you thinking of the same approach as suggested here? Or just for nominations where the review has not yet been started? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Not yet started. Whilst I appreciate it's hard when doing a review for a non-active nominator, I'd like to avoid it before we get that far. Lee Vilenski 15:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Inactive reviewer

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

Second opinion on review

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

What was wrong with Serbia Against Violence (coalition), Charles Brenton Fisk, National Gathering (Serbia), and Branislav Djurdjev, no issues were brought up about those. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, I might not be fully sure what a spot check is, the only thing I could find just said see if the sources are good and say what they are. Am I wrong? If so someone please explain to me what a source spot check is. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
If necessary I can go back and do one one Hilda Heine once I understand what a spot check is. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I did that now. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Crusading_movement/GA5

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

As I have said, the review is in progress. I am waiting to gain access to a couple of books. Of course, "Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article", especially with regard to source-text integrity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
That's good to hear. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
My impression was that Airship had this review handled. An article of this size is bound to take awhile. IntentionallyDense 19:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Former GA

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