Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:45, 25 December 2024

• WT:GAN

This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN) and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

See the Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, several other GA talk pages redirect here.

Archives

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

GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4 Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 GA help: 1, 2 Nominations/Instructions: 1 Search archives

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

The next GAN backlog drive

Is scheduled for the coming January. As in, two-and-a-half weeks from now. I'm happy to pitch in as a co-co-ordinator, but I'm pretty swamped right now and would strongly prefer not to be Responsible for it - anyone want to pitch in? -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering My availability for mid January is limited due to finals but I’m able to pitch in during the second half and early days of January if the offer still stands. IntentionallyDense 20:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense please do! It's the before-January stuff that is most important - setting up the drive, putting out notices, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I should be able to help out with that aspect as well. Let me know what you need help with and when. IntentionallyDense 23:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The answer to that is "all of it" and "whenever you think it's appropriate"! I don't plan on having much to do with it if I don't have to. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to help- the previous drive had made me realise I really like seeing more and more GANs reviewed. I think I would be available enough from now throughout January, so time shouldn't really be a problem for me. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Both of you, see Misplaced Pages:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024 for the most recent similar drive (every article counts, every reviewer equal, bonus points for reviewing older articles). You may want to dig back through the archives of this talk page to see if there are any suggestions you can pick up from March of this year, when we had that big discussion about how we might do backlog drives differently. I've substituted the old way of giving bonus points for word count with the method we used in the last drive, which I think worked really well, but if you hate that or anything else, change it! -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added an emphasis on older articles as it was proposal 6 in that discussion, by adding a progress table for it in the progress section (which is commented out for the time being). @IntentionallyDense: feel free to message me here or on my talk page (or WP:Discord) for co-ordination reasons anytime. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

DoctorWhoFan91, I hope you don't mind, but I've set up the Progress section as it has been for past all-nomination drives (with emphasis on old ones). The GAN changes template isn't going to work properly with only a single "Old nominations" column; it's built for two columns, though the "changes from yesterday" and "changes from start" columns only work against a one of those first two columns. It's important that people know the total outstanding nominations. If you do want, in addition to that, the number of unreviewed old nominations rather than the number of unreviewed nominations regardless of age, that isn't available from the stats at the top of the GAN Report page, and has to be counted each day at midnight by some other methodology. (It's easier to backtime the Report page to midnight UTC by checking the history of the GAN page itself; you don't have to be there at midnight. I expect tracking the old noms will be more labor intensive.) In addition to the progress table, last March I also took care of the old noms table, but it looks like you have that under control. If you'd like to be the one in charge of all this, just say the word and I'll step back. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I can probably calculate the total change in old nominations by checking the changes in the table for old qualifying articles, or by checking this page- might be a bit harder, but very manageable. Thanks for telling me all this- I, and the other co-ord, can do it, but you can help if you find any other change that we should make. (Unless you would like to be a co-ord this time around too?) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you avoid giving yourself extra work that has to be done manually. Don't give yourself extra work until you have some experience with what normal levels of work looks like! Speaking of, @Ganesha811, @Vacant0, any interest in helping co-ord this January? -- asilvering (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It's fine- just need to check the number that remain unopened, and add the ones that have been opened but not finished, which should be 7-8 articles at the peak of the backlog, so just 8 small clicks. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to help again! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Ganesha811! (go add your name!) -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 is there a way to add a "There is going to be GAN backlog drive in January, sign up here" (or something like that) header to the WP:GAN or WP:GA page? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

There is, I can take care of that. In a little bit (maybe starting the 26th?) we can also put up a watchlist notice. Do you want to make the request for that at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of that too, though starting on the 28th, as it only runs for one week, and people might edit, and notice, less between Christmas and the New Year. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been very inactive for some time already and I'm unsure whether I'd be able to help with coordinating the next GAN Backlog Drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks so much for all your help with the previous ones! -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article mentorship

Just a heads up that there are three pending requests at Misplaced Pages:Good article mentorship. There are also three that were recently archived without a response at Misplaced Pages:Good article mentorship/Archive 1 which should really get looked at since the new reviewers went in on their own without guidance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for bringing these up! I responded to two of the archived reviews: one I thought did a good review and had valid reasons for failing the article; the other I had to provide a lot of notes for, as the review was too short and lacking in any detail to be sufficient (this one really should have gotten an earlier response). The other archived one I held off on, as I notice the review already had a second opinion provided, which I think served as de facto mentorship. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Old nomination

I nominated Atlanta Braves in February and now it's the oldest nominee that hasn't been reviewed. I realize it's a pretty big article. Does anyone want to split up the review to make it easier to digest? When I started this process I didn't realize it would take so long. Nemov (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I am planning to start it on Sunday. The only reason I'm starting it on Sunday and not now (or 4 weeks ago) is that I don't have time to start until Sunday and it seemed unfair for me to "start" a review and not actually start it for a few weeks when someone might pick have picked it up in the interim. SSSB (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Nemov (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Splitting sections

Historical figures: politicians

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

George S. Armstrong and Irene Parlby seem to be Canadian, Mabel Philipson British, aside from that the rest seem reasonably placed. If the pre-US figures on the East coast are included, it doesn't seem misleading to include pre-US Hawaiian figures. Are there other Robert Whites we could promote? CMD (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I moved Armstrong, Parlby and Philipson to the general section. I included pre-US figures on the east coast if the majority of their biography concerns their governance of the colonies. Hawaii was its own civilization and if it wasn't a US state it would probably be considered part of Polynesia/Oceania. I moved Hawaiian figures to US politicians if a significant part of their governance took place when the US controlled the area. I am still open to moving some figures if consensus is otherwise. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing stopping anyone considering Hawaii part of Polynesia/Oceania now! Anyway, from a casual reader POV, I would expect them to expect Hawaiian figures in the United States subsection. Anachronism has its place in navigation, and history was what it was, and now is what it is. CMD (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Splitting "Historical figures: other"

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

Oh, thank you! I wanted to bring up the historical figures other category - I feel like the vast majority of entries are inproperly placed there. I scanned through and there were lots of political activists and officials that I feel are better placed somewhere else. Additionally, I think there's some which could be spun off into their own category - "Criminals and assassins" def. seems like it could be its own category of historical person, for instance. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to shift historical figures within that page (ie, not to another GA list) I encourage you to be bold, it's not the most curated structure. (Same for anything in Music.) CMD (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Steve Irwin was someone who I think should be moved, though I do not know which section to put him in (his talk page has him listed in Sports and Rec, but I think he was mostly known for being a conservationist and entertainer). As for new history sections: I agree with CMD. I think criminals is a good idea as it makes the section smaller. I also agree with music, but that might be a discussion for a new section below. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Historical figures: bureaucrats and administrators split?

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

I think that'd be a good idea. One final category of "sort-of-politicians-but-not" could be activists, which I've seen a lot of in that category. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

New editor incorrectly starting GANRs

Velthorian has opened three GAN reviews in the past 24 hours, and passed and failed one each without any actual review. Can those articles be put back in the queue (especially bcs the upcoming GAN backlog drive encourages the review of older GANs more), and someone help them understand the instructions on how to review properly. I have asked them before on one of the review page and Remsense has also msged them on their talk page. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Given discussion has already been opened, I have reset Talk:UNICEF club/GA1. Of course, if Velthorian reopens that GAN it can be taken out of the queue again. Talk:Darren Moore/GA1 has already been reset. Talk:Chennai Super Kings/GA4 has not started, so let's see, it can be G7ed. CMD (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 @Chipmunkdavis, Thank you for bringing this up! My nomination for UNICEF has been active since March 2024, and has been in the "oldest unreviewed good article nominations" box for a number of weeks now. Is there any way that this article could not go through the whole queue again? I understand if that's not possible, its just really unfortunate because of how long the nom had waited. Cheers! Johnson524 14:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It has been reinserted in its old position in the "queue" (in effect, it never left the queue) SSSB (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@SSSB Thank You! 🙂 Johnson524 15:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Nonsensical review

I believe @Infoadder95:'s recent review of Swim School to be nonsensical. Despite the review claiming otherwise, every single claim in the article is backed up. The review's Lack of Neutrality section accuses the article of containing several quotes that it simply doesn't have. Could someone else have a look?--Launchballer 22:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

seems like a pretty clearly Chat-GPT generated review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we can add Talk:Tudor City/GA1 to that list as well, as it seems to reference a bunch of things that aren't actually in the article. For example:

• Add more inline citations to the "Notable residents" and "Cultural significance" sections, as some claims lack direct sourcing. - Tudor City doesn't have sections with either of these names, nor is any of the content lacking direct sourcing.
• - **Cultural Impact:** While the "Cultural significance" section touches on Tudor City's appearances in media, it could delve deeper into how it has influenced perceptions of urban living in New York City. - As mentioned above, this article doesn't have a "Cultural significance" section. It does, however, have a "Critical reception" section, which does include some commentary about that exact topic.
• However, certain phrases, such as "masterpiece of urban planning," could be perceived as promotional. - That phrase does not appear in the article.

As such, can someone take a look at this as well? I suspect this may have been an LLM-generated review. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I would support banning from the entire GA process editors who use LLMs to generate their reviews. I agree that the claims of unsourced claims in the Swim School review are directly contradicted by a brief look at the article and its history, and the wording of the Tudor City review looks canned and generic. At the least, some explanation here by Infoadder95 would be warranted. Further scrutiny of Infoadder95's other edits beyond GA may also be a good idea. This diff, for instance, looks like others I have seen involving the use of an LLM to copyedit paragraphs, in some cases making the wording more promotional. I note that Infoadder95 has a current GA nomination, for Pakistani 75 Rupee Commemoration Notes. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry if the article does seem like an LLM, but due to me not being to able to code in Wiki-text, and me not being able to use the visual editor in talk pages or when making reviews so I have to take the help of AI to turn my review into wikitext so it can be used in the article talk page. So some of the passages may seem like "Generic" and "AI generated", due to AI despite being given clear instructions to not alter the content.

If the majority opinion is against my review, I might be able to revise it, this is my first time reviewing nominees so I might make mistakes. If you have issues with specific portions of my review we can discuss it, or even ask for the consensus of other editors as well ask for a second review.

And to reply to the last part of your part of our message, I don't use LLMs for copyediting purposes or editing articles, if you suspect me of such, I am unable to do anything but wait patently. Infoadder95 (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with David. You have no business reviewing GAs if your ability is so lacking that you must rely on a text generator to do the work for you, especially when you're not even bothering to make sure that it hasn't hallucinated something. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that the use of LLM for the reviews has been admitted, we should at least cancel both reviews and restore the two articles to the queue with their original nomination dates. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for not suggesting exiling me in the barren land of banned accounts Infoadder95 (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought I could take part in January Backlog drive but this experience has taught me otherwise, thank you for your patience fellow Wikipedians. Infoadder95 (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Infoadder95, despite these flawed reviews, I wanted to thank you for your honesty. Although editors shouldn't be using large language models for good article reviews (or really, for any kind of content review), hopefully this can be a learning experience so the same mistake isn't repeated in the future. Epicgenius (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Infoadder95 (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, I think refraining from reviews till I get a bit seasoned is the best option for me now, I might as well spend some time time learning wiki-text.

If you suspect that I lack the capability to review articles and write quality reviews, you are mistaken but if you think that I lack the ability to use wiki-text and edit the source, then you are absolutely right. Infoadder95 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Infoadder95, please nominate both reviews above for G7 speedy deletion, to aid cleanup of the errors. Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok Infoadder95 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted them both. You tagged them G11 (the wrong tag), which could have caused a problem if someone else got to them first and didn't understand why they were tagged, but fortunately that didn't happen. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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)