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 23:37, 30 August 2015 editPrhartcom (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,561 edits →Misplaced Pages talk:Main Page (2015 redesign): Reply.← 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.
{{tmbox
| type = notice
| image = ]
| text = See the ]}}
{{central|text=several other GA talk pages redirect here.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 500K |maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 21 |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|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=7}} {{archives|bot=MiszaBot II|age=7 |auto=short |search=no
|
{{archives
GA: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
|style = font-size:88%;
|auto = no
|editbox= no
|collapsed=yes
|prefix = Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive
|title = Dated archives
|1=<div class="nowraplinks">
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
</div>
}}
{{shortcut|WT:GAN}}


Criteria: ], ], ], ]
__TOC__
== Requesting a second opinion at ] ==


Reassessment: ], ], ], ], ], ]
I'm looking for a second opinion (or third, or fourth) at ]. If you are willing to help, please do! ] (]) 02:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


GA help: ], ]
== Wyangala GA? ==


Nominations/Instructions: ]
] was assessed on October 19, 2014 by ], a user apparently created for that purpose, given an almost total lack of edit history other than the review. He made no other edits, and yet reviewed and passed an article on his first "day" here. He indicated he was not a new user, but did not disclose who he was. The account then went dormant until yesterday. This could be "good hand bad hand"-type editing, so I think in all fairness, an established reviewer needs to reassess this article. ] (]) 22:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


{{hidden|Search archives|
:Additional - Wyangala was heavily edited by ], who in an ] seems to have the same two articles in common with JSwho. One is Wyangala. This article really needs to be delisted and reassessed. ] (]) 13:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
{{#tag:inputbox|
::I saw that; before you posted immediately above I did some digging and found the sock puppet investigation on the reviewer/nominator/contributors (it would have helped if you had saved us some time and told us about it): ]. Currently the checkuser is coming up inconclusive. However, I agree that this looks fishy. On the other hand, the Wyangala article, even if it turns out to be reviewed illegitimately, appears to legitimately be a well-written, well-researched, good article. In any case, you are welcome to initiate an individual reassessment at ], which will require some commitment on your part. If you have any other comments or findings, feel free to post them below. Best, ] (]) 13:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
bgcolor=transparent
:::<small>Just for clarification's sake, the relationship between JSwho and Fvalzano is possible (actually bordering {{Possilikely}}), rather than inconclusive. ]&nbsp;]] 13:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)</small>
type=fulltext
prefix={{FULLPAGENAME}}
break=yes
width=22
searchbuttonlabel=Search GAN archives}}


{{vpad|1.5em}}
:::I'm not sure why you had to hunt for it; "SPI" in my statement is wikilinked to the investigation. Also, I'm not really qualified to GAR, and as I'm an involved editor, I don't want to touch the review myself. ] (]) 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
{{#tag:inputbox|
::::Because you hadn't mentioned it in your first message above, during which time I did my digging. I posted my results five minutes after your fourteen-hours later second note. ] (]) 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
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 ==
::::], if you feel strongly that the article should be reassessed, then there's no reason you can't initiate a community reassessment. As it says on the ] page under individual reassessments, {{tq|If you have delisted the same article before, are a major contributor, or delisting could be seen as controversial consider requesting a community reassessment.}} Basically, someone who is "involved" (such as a major contributor) or unable/unwilling to do the review leaves it to the community to make the determination. ] (]) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


===Historical figures: politicians ===
:::::@BlueMoonset: I prefer that route, but I've had a terrible time trying to navigate GAR to even get this thing set up as far as it has. I had to post on help because I can't even get the discussion to transclude. Would you be able to set up the section for community reassessment? ] (]) 15:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


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)
::::::], you are welcome to do this, however I wish to state at this point that the reason to initiate a GAR is if you have read the article and believe that it does not merit its good article (GA) status according to the ]. It truly has nothing to do with sock puppets. I am absolutely cheering what you've done for this SPI, don't get me wrong, but I must admit that it is possible for sock puppets to follow the GA criteria. If all you can say in the GAR is that the article could have been reviewed by its nominator, as much as other editors despise the sound of that, they will still judge the article solely on the GA criteria. ] (]) 16:53, 17 August 2015 (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)
{{od}} Well, a cursory lookover indicates it is missing citations in several places where GA claims they are needed. There's a lot of "paragraph-level" citation that might as well be copied verbatim from the books if it's really only from one page. ] (]) 17:15, 17 August 2015 (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"===
:Did you check to see whether the citations at the end of the paragraph actually covered the full paragraph (as is allowed in the citation rules), or did you simply add "citation needed" tags after particular facts without checking? For that matter, did you check those sources to see how closely paraphrased the article is, instead of assuming it must be? You're as much as saying the article is approaching copyvio, and I'd want examples of the places where at least close paraphrasing exists. If you want me to set up a community reassessment for you—which basically means I'd have to start it myself and put my name on it—I'll need to feel more comfortable with what you believe is wrong with the article. My initial inclination was to support the doing of a reassessment, since the circumstances of the original passage were clearly irregular, but you haven't helped your cause here. ] (]) 18:06, 17 August 2015 (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)
:''The remainder of this discussion has been moved to it's proper place in <s>]</s>''
::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?====
::Since this is a community reassessment, the reassessment page has been moved to ]. Comments should be made there; it may not show up at ] immediately, but should be there in an hour or so (it might take longer since I've had to do most of the moving and updating by hand). The /GA2-style page name under the article talk page is only for individual reassessments, and since MSJapan started the process it can't be an individual assessment for the reasons noted previously. ] (]) 16:46, 18 August 2015 (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)
== Bulk reviews and nominations by new editor ==


: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)
Between 03:57 and 08:25, new Misplaced Pages editor ] nominated 18 articles for GAN (one of which was later rescinded), and opened five GA reviews, three of which were listed (two without any comment whatever). The reviews are:
::{{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)
* ]: opened at 04:20; listed at 04:42. It's a pretty short article for a GA candidate, yet there was no discussion of the "broad in its coverage" criteria
:::Bit of a mouthful - I think "Activists and revolutionaries" encompasses all four <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
* ]: opened at 05:28; listed at 05:45 without any comments on the review page
::::{{re|Generalissima}} Works for me. ] (]) 15:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
* ]: opened at 05:28; objected to the lead length (only criterion discussed), then back-and-forth with nominator
::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)
* ]: opened at 05:31; listed at 06:31 without any comments on the review page. The lack was noted by the nominator eight hours later, and ] has subsequently made some suggestions.
* ]: opened at 05:31; objected at 06:29 to some lead issues (prepared to list article as GA otherwise unless someone else raised issues).


== A streamlining of the GAN review process? ==
Tortle's first two edits were eight days ago, on August 18; it was as user Eheu!, requesting to usurp the Tortle username (first edit was on the Tortle username's talk page, since usurped, and the second edit was to formally submit that request, saying {{tq|I would like to change my username because I dont like having the exclamation point in mine now and want a more simple one.}} This despite the fact that the account had been created mere hours before. The usurpation was processed late on August 22, and edits recommenced on August 23. The flood of nominations and reviews started three days later.


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 have reverted all the GANs that Tortle submitted: Tortle had not edited any of them, nor contacted significant editors on any of them. While the bulk were technical, they also included ], ] 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.
I will be pre-emptively reverting the Boeing717 GA listing: no comment at all, nothing from the nominator, no reason not to. I'll request that the review page be speedy deleted. My inclination would be to revert the other two GA listings, Ayrshire cattle and Agar.io, since it's clear this editor is not yet equipped to give a valid review, and put the nominations back in the reviewing pool without a loss of seniority. If this had been an isolated review, then perhaps a reassessment would have been in order, but this was too extensive for that; we've generally reverted in the past when this level of damage has been done. The remaining incomplete reviews, iPhone 5S and Bernie Sanders, would be terminated and also put back into the reviewing pool with the same retention of seniority.
:* 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)


== New reviewer required ==
This has been a severe disruption to the GA process, even if not intended. I would like to propose that Tortle be required to refrain from nominating any articles for GA and opening any GA reviews for at least three months, and only allowed to resume reviewing and nominating one article at a time thereafter, and only with a mentor in place. Further loosening of the restrictions can certainly happen once Tortle has demonstrated competence in these areas. ] (]) 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
: Barring a reply from Tortle with the reasonable intention to add full reviews, I think it makes sense to revert their closures and relist the lot. Tortle, reviews should have text, even if it's just to say which points passed and which didn't and your thoughts on each. Otherwise how is anyone to know that any substantial review actually happened? I hope you'll be willing to do this. –&nbsp;] 17:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
::], Tortle has been actively editing for four days. Given that lack of experience, it would be extraordinary indeed if we had someone with the qualifications to properly judge all the criteria. Tortle may be willing to add text as you ask, but even with all the good faith in the world, I don't believe there should be listing or other closure without someone to first double check that all the ] requirements have been examined and correctly evaluated. ] (]) 17:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
::: If Tortle can turn one of their sparse reviews into a solid review in the next 48 hours (or so), then great. If not, let's revert the lot. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt (though I think the hesitancy is not unwarranted) –&nbsp;] 17:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
::::As noted above, I pre-emptively reverted the Boeing 717 listing. I'll wait on the other four per your suggestion. ] (]) 17:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
:::*I've reverted the ] of ] - the review was wholly improper (there should be really some requirements for GA reviewing, like AfC). '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::Hi ] and ]. First of all, I have edited on wikipedia before, maybe 5 or 6 years back so I just jumped right into it this time. And secondly, I didnt realize that there was an issue with nominating the articles if I didnt contribute. I had started my reviews and decided that some other articles should probably be assesed due to their importance but didnt understand that there were rules for nomination so I apologise. And thank you both for handling this with some rhyme and reason. But anyway as far as reviewing them, the ones that I passed passed all of the criteria and I believed that posting the new template was enough. I did post a closing comment for the cattle one though with future suggestions that couldnt be requirements due to them not fitting into the criteria. I judged all by the criteria and just failed to post a closing comment which isnt even a requirement so how would I have known to do that? I will post the closing comments as czar suggested if my reviews werent already relisted. But I did review these nominations with experience (which isnt required anyway), with competence, and by following the criteria. ] (]) 18:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::*Ok so the ayrshire cattle review was conducted properly and still stands.
:::::*The iPhone 5s review is pending, and awaiting suggested changes.
:::::*Bernie Sanders is awaiting changes and conversation is ongoing.
::::*Boeing 717 is relisted and another reviewer can take it.
::::*Agar.io is relisted and another reviewer can take it.


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)
I think a good compromise would be to watch me close the iphone and bernie sanders requests with the new input you have all given me and lets see how I handle these. If you think I am handling them wrong, give input as the process progresses and you can always relist it if things get extremely out of hand which they most likely wont. ] (]) 18:18, 26 August 2015 (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)
:::::*Don't review or continue to review until you gain experience with Misplaced Pages content; only editors who have experienced good content (i.e. written or even read good content) know what to expect in good content.. '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 18:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
::No worries. I hope someone else would start this nomination again. Many thanks! ] (]) 15:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== Inactive reviews ==
::::::*I have experience with good content from a few years ago and I didnt loose it, its like riding a bike, I still understand the majority of it. I would like an opinion from the others involved in this conversation too before I stop the ongoing reviews. ] (]) 18:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


I was checking inactive reviews due to the backlog drive coming up, and I saw the following:
::::::*Can you please sign because I dont know who wrote the comment above mine above. ] (]) 18:27, 26 August 2015 (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>
:::::::*], the signature was there before you deleted it during one of your edits. It would be courteous of you to restore it yourself rather than asking for it to be done again, and it's an unfortunate reflection of your abilities as a Wikipedian that you didn't realize your error to begin with. As for your proposed compromise, I don't believe you should actually close the iPhone 5S or Bernie Sanders articles, but just post that you believe they are ready to be closed and why. Then we can judge how well you're doing without again having to revert things if there are issues with your review. ] (]) 18:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
*:Relisted.
::::::::*Hi ], and welcome to Misplaced Pages. The seasoned editors above, {{u|BlueMoonset}}, {{u|Czar}}, and {{u|Esquivalience}} are handling this correctly: Nearly all of your GA nominating and reviewing work needs to be immediately reverted. Your enthusiasm is terrific, don't get us wrong. But your inexperience is showing. You don't have enough experience, not after a few days. There is no "experience from a few years ago". Look above; you can't even format a reply to a discussion correctly; you have trampled the comments of Esquivalience. As these wise editors above said you to: Watch and learn for awhile, see how it's done, look before you leap, read the ]. Let's let BlueMoonset make the final call here. Please listen to this one editor in particular and follow what they have to say. OK? ] (]) 18:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
*]: The reviewer has been inactive for more than a month, but it does look almost finished, so maybe it should be marked as needing a second opinion?
::::::::*The ] article is NOT a good article. It is, as pointed out on the reviewers talk page, C-class at best. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
*:Luckily this review seems substantially complete, unlike a couple of others from the same reviewer, and the reviewer seemed broadly positive on it. If there are no objections, this one might take a light lookover and pass.
*<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 ==
:::::::::Ok, enough people have given their opinions so I am going to stay off GA, theres no place for me here. ] (]) 20:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Don't take it too hard, {{u|Tortle}}. I can tell you are a good person, a mature individual, and you are willing to learn from your mistakes: all good qualities. And remember, all of us started at the beginning, just like you. Don't lose that enthusiasm! Why not try to improve an article of your choosing and bring it to GA next? You could be awesome at it! You are welcome to come to me for questions any time. All the best, ] (]) 20:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Since Tortle is leaving GA, I'll be reverting the Ayrshire listing (I agree with Cassianto's assessment that it is not ready to be listed) and putting it and the iPhone 5S and Bernie Sanders nominations back into the reviewing pool without loss of seniority. ] (]) 21:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks ], I think I will work on improving and nominating one, I appreciate it and I am sorry for the disruption I caused. ] (]) 21:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
*UPDATE- I worked hard to improve ] and nominated it for GA status. I think I will work on more of these in the future. If any of you want to take the review, I would appreciate it because I could get working on any suggested improvements sooner. Thanks for all of the input as I tried to take what I could to help me move on. ] (]) 23:55, 26 August 2015 (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.
== On Hold ==


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.
Hi. I have a couple of articles I began reviews on, but have put on hold. How long do they stay on hold? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
:], it's up to you, but you should mention how long in your review comments. A typical length of time is seven days, but you can certainly allow longer if you think the work might take longer, or if the nominator seems to be away for a bit (or has announced an absence, as happens frequently due to summer vacations or the like). And, of course, you can extend the time if progress is being made, or if the nominator asks for more time to complete the changes you're requesting. ] (]) 06:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
:: Thanks {{u|BlueMoonset}} - That's exactly what's happening. In the one case, the editor is slowly making changes, but only edits the GA nominee about 1x a week; in the other case, the editor hasn't been on Wiki since I began the review. I'll definitely give them more time. Again, thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


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)
== ] ==
: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)
::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)


== Inactive reviewer ==
There's a serious discussion about redesigning the Main Page at the link. Two things I take away from this discussion: 1. People have no problems with the Today's Featured Article segment or with its position in the first slot, which means TFA is probably creating some good publicity for ] in general, and 2. Many people are less than happy with the quality of the ] articles. So, couldn't we kill 4 or 5 birds with one stone by creating a Today's Good Article section? I'd be happy to try to get a team together that would work on the daily text, if that would help. There are lots of potential problems ... but ] runs pretty smoothly, which gives me hope that a hypothetical ] would run smoothly too. If anyone wants to discuss this ... now would be the time, we haven't had a big redesign of the Main Page in many years. Thoughts? - Dank (]) 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
:FWIW, I'm volunteering to help only as one of the guys working on the daily text, and only if you guys want me to. I assume you'd want to come up with some process to select the articles to run. - Dank (]) 19:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
::: {{Ping|Dank}} It's been discussed before, looking through the archives, but I could see something like this working better with new design. I made ] of what it could look like.
::: Most people don't know (or care) about the criteria behind "good" and "featured", so I made room for three articles. This would replace DYK for certain days of the week (similar to ]). I think it could help expose well-written content ineligible for DYK (due to age, or the author didn't want to nom) on the front page, catering to potential or budding contributors who might overlook DYK as the "funnies".
::: All this might still be too arbitrary though, but it's fun to design and think about it. Whatcha think? ] 04:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
::::I didn't get any hits on "today's good" in the archives; do you know where it was discussed before? I'd like to see what people thought. - Dank (]) 12:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
::::The last discussion I'm seeing was one I already knew about, at ]. It got a lot of support, but it failed for all the reasons that big RfCs usually fail ... it was asked at the wrong time (when there were already multiple RfCs going) and in the wrong place (at DYK), it was seen as a form of competition with DYK and maybe TFA as well, and it was launched without any preparation by the supporters to deal with the expected and reasonable objections. A hypothetical TGA would probably take a little more effort than TFA (particularly at first), and TFA isn't trivial. So the first step, if people are interested, would be to get started, to demonstrate that it's doable and that the community is behind it. - Dank (]) 12:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
::::: {{Ping|Dank}} Started a discussion at ]. ] 17:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::: {{u|Dank}}, that is nothing less than a brilliant idea. {{u|23W}}, great layout plan. I have just replied over at the discussion 23W links to above, but I can tell you I believe that this is a tremendously positive step in the right direction. ] (]) 23:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


I have already asked for a review in ], and the reviewer previously has gone AWOL. See discussion. ] (]) 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== Posting comments on already-finished GA nomination pages -- allowed or not? ==


== Second opinion on review ==
Hey, ] here. Posting logged-out because I'm afraid of if I post this logged-in.


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)
I recently a comment on a GA review that had passed a few days earlier, but in my opinion had failed to adequately analyze the article's sourcing (it is presently classified as a GA, but has obvious sourcing problems, in at least one case obviously misrepresents its source, and also contains at least one instance of SYNTH). I was under the impression that pages/sections in the Talk namespace that don't specifically state either that they are closed or that posting is forbidden were still open for comment.


: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)
I was shortly thereafter. I am not sure how to deal with this: if my somewhat-too-late comment was a violation of some guideline of which I am not aware, then I guess reverting me was acceptable, but if my comment was allowed, then the other user removing it was a violation of talk page etiquette. (Ironically enough, the same user in an overdue-to-be-closed ANI thread. )
::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)
:::I did that now. ] '''(])''' 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
Was my comment a violation? Should I have just put in a reassessment request instead?


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)
] (]) 17:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
: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 ==
:], we appreciate your transparency, admitting that this question of yours is part of an enormous ANI discussion that has been going on for days without getting anywhere, and has been submitted for closure . We're not going to take sides on the discussion.


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)
:To quickly answer your questions though, if the situation were less contentious, no, it is no violation to post a polite comment to the GA review page. In this case, your comment was inflammatory and therefore, less likely to achieve what you wanted and more likely to perpetuate the disagreement documented at the ANI. Yes, a reassessment is the established procedure for users to follow when they believe an article no longer deserves its GA. However, the goal of a reassessment is to not to punish those responsible as you may be hoping, but rather to improve Misplaced Pages by helping the article deserve its GA status. If you would like to commit to resolving the issues you believe are in the article, then you may nominate it, but I suggest waiting until well after the ANI discussion has closed. ] (]) 23:16, 30 August 2015 (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)