Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:38, 3 January 2011 editImzadi1979 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors151,547 edits →Review issue: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:22, 3 January 2011 edit undoRschen7754 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits →Review issue Next edit →
Line 78:		Line 78:

	I nominated ] for GAN. {{user\|Racepacket}} selected the article for review. I found that odd, and somewhat hypocritical, because he earlier proposed that no reviewer review more than five nominated articles from a single editor/nominator. This article would be the sixth nomination of mine that he's reviewed. The review had some valid feedback, but the last series of comments centered on a content dispute over the status of ] in relation to how it might impact US 223 in the future. In dealing with this reviewer, it was my feeling that to further continue the review process would be fruitless, that unless I gave in and inserted misleading and less than relevant information not supported by pertinent source, that the review could not come to a satisfactory conclusion. I closed and withdrew the nomination. I renominated the article to gain a fresh, second opinion. The second review was opened by Racepacket, against my explicit request that he no longer review my nominations. I have since withdrawn that review and brought the situation here. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" >'''] ] ]'''</span> 07:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)		I nominated ] for GAN. {{user\|Racepacket}} selected the article for review. I found that odd, and somewhat hypocritical, because he earlier proposed that no reviewer review more than five nominated articles from a single editor/nominator. This article would be the sixth nomination of mine that he's reviewed. The review had some valid feedback, but the last series of comments centered on a content dispute over the status of ] in relation to how it might impact US 223 in the future. In dealing with this reviewer, it was my feeling that to further continue the review process would be fruitless, that unless I gave in and inserted misleading and less than relevant information not supported by pertinent source, that the review could not come to a satisfactory conclusion. I closed and withdrew the nomination. I renominated the article to gain a fresh, second opinion. The second review was opened by Racepacket, against my explicit request that he no longer review my nominations. I have since withdrawn that review and brought the situation here. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" >'''] ] ]'''</span> 07:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			:Why not just let Imzadi1979 get the second review from another editor that he wants? I don't see why Racepacket feels the need to keep rereviewing the article so it doesn't get a second opinion. --''']]]''' 08:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:22, 3 January 2011

Template:FixBunching

Featured content dispatch workshop view edit hist
2014 Oct 1: Let's get serious about plagiarism 2013 Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look? 2010 Nov 15: A guide to the Good Article Review Process Oct 18: Common issues seen in Peer review Oct 11: Editing tools, part 3 Sep 20: Editing tools, part 2 Sep 6: Editing tools, part 1 Mar 15: GA Sweeps end Feb 8: Content reviewers and standards 2009 Nov 2: Inner German border Oct 12: Sounds May 11: WP Birds May 4: Featured lists Apr 20: Valued pictures Apr 13: Plagiarism Apr 6: New FAC/FAR nominations Mar 16: New FAC/FAR delegates Mar 9: 100 Featured sounds Mar 2: WP Ships FT and GT Feb 23: 100 FS approaches Feb 16: How busy was 2008? Feb 8: April Fools 2009 Jan 31: In the News Jan 24: Reviewing featured picture candidates Jan 17: FA writers—the 2008 leaders Jan 10: December themed page Jan 3: Featured list writers 2008 Nov 24: Featured article writers Nov 10: Historic election on Main Page Nov 8: Halloween Main Page contest Oct 13: Latest on featured articles Oct 6: Matthewedwards interview Sep 22: Reviewing non-free images Sep 15: Interview with Ruhrfisch Sep 8: Style guide and policy changes, August Sep 1: Featured topics Aug 25: Interview with Mav Aug 18: Choosing Today's Featured Article Aug 11: Reviewing free images Aug 9 (late): Style guide and policy changes, July Jul 28: Find reliable sources online Jul 21: History of the FA process Jul 14: Rick Block interview Jul 7: Style guide and policy changes for June Jun 30: Sources in biology and medicine Jun 23 (26): Reliable sources Jun 16 (23): Assessment scale Jun 9: Main page day Jun 2: Styleguide and policy changes, April and May May 26: Featured sounds May 19: Good article milestone May 12: Changes at Featured lists May 9 (late): FC from schools and universities May 2 (late): Did You Know Apr 21: Styleguide and policy changes Apr 14: FA milestone Apr 7: Reviewers achieving excellence Mar 31: Featured content overview Mar 24: Taming talk page clutter Mar 17: Changes at peer review Mar 13 (late): Vintage image restoration Mar 3: April Fools mainpage Feb 25: Snapshot of FA categories Feb 18: FA promotion despite adversity Feb 11: Great saves at FAR Feb 4: New methods to find FACs Jan 28: Banner year for Featured articles

Nomination process

The backlog is huge! Is there something we can do to restrict nominations?: There have been complaints about the perceived backlog in reviewing since the Good article status was created in 2006. Generally speaking, we don't want to restrict nominations along their path to GA. In the beginning, as many as 100 nominations were waiting for a reviewer to volunteer. By 2011, each day typically listed 330 nominated articles, of which 260 were waiting. By 2016, 580 were listed, 460 waiting; by 2021, 470 were listed, 300 were waiting. For comparison, today there are currently 696 nominations listed and 606 waiting for a reviewer.; While it may seem overwhelming, a large backlog isn't a bad thing. It shows that many nominators want to use GA as a tool to improve the encyclopedia. It also allows reviewers to choose from a wide selection of articles that interest them. From a nominator's perspective, the main concern is the expected wait time before receiving a review, not the number of articles on the nominations page.
Can't we force nominators to review articles?: Quid pro quo reviewing (editors must review an article before nominating, perhaps after a grace period) was regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to lower quality reviews and fewer nominations from excellent content creators who may not wish to review another person's work.
What order do nominations appear on the Good article nominations page?: One advantage of reviewing articles to help the Misplaced Pages community is the GAN appearance order: the more articles you have reviewed relative to articles you have nominated, the higher up in the queue your nomination will appear on the GAN page. Note that above this, order preference is given to nominators who are new to GA.
What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic) IP address?: Any editor with significant contributions to the article may nominate an article for GA status (while only registered users may review), so significant-contributor IP nominators are permitted. Non-significant contributors should follow the advice above for editors who have not significantly contributed to the article. Dynamically changing IP nominators may want to clarify to the reviewer that, despite their signature, they remain the same person.
Can I nominate an article I haven't significantly contributed to?: No. Nominations from editors who have not substantially contributed will be removed unless the nomination shows that the article's regular editors were consulted on its talk page alongside a note on the GAN template showing their commitment to the process, e.g., |note=Adopted following extensive improvement by another editor. In the past, many drive-by nominators did not know the article or its sources and did not respond to questions by the reviewer.

Review process

I want to review an article. Do I have to review the oldest unreviewed nomination first?: Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. You may review any nominated article you are not involved in, regardless of the nomination's age or position in the queue.
As a reviewer, I want to help the nominator improve the article, but it already meets the criteria. What am I supposed to do now?: The purpose of a GA review is to determine whether the article meets the GA criteria. Article-improvement discussions are intended to prevent near-misses in nominated articles that almost meet the criteria. If the article already meets the criteria when you first review it, then explain exactly what you've checked in each of the main criteria (e.g., "I have verified there is no original research, copyright violations, plagiarism, unreliable sources, bias, edit wars, or untagged images.") and list it as a Good article. "Quick passes" are as legitimate as quick fails, although they are less common. Please do not make a list of nitpicky details or exceed the written requirements of the Good article criteria in an effort to make the review look rigorous. Instead, thank the nominator for presenting such a polished article, and encourage them to submit another.
Who can respond to the review?: The nominator is expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article, while everyone interested in the article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. Nominators have no special privileges over other editors except that they can withdraw the nomination.
Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't?: The nominator has an interest in seeing the article become GA, so the nominator will likely want to respond to the reviewer to improve the article. In fact, all editors interested in the article are encouraged to respond to reviewers' concerns. However, nobody, including the nominator, is required to. If the reviewer identifies concerns directly related to the good article criteria and no one addresses the concerns, then no one should be surprised if the reviewer declines to list the article. If the article does not meet the Good article criteria after the reviewer has waited a reasonable amount of time for the nominator to make improvements, the reviewer is sure to fail the nomination. Future article editors may benefit from review comments on how to improve the article.
The nominator disagrees with the reviewer. Can another reviewer take over?: If your GAN experience is not going well or if you are disagreeing with the reviewer's decisions, then you may allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer). If the reviewer has not yet failed the nomination, you may try asking them to ask for a second opinion. Other than these, another reviewer does not normally take over an active review. To prevent avoidable disputes, reviewers should either not make comments unrelated to the Good article criteria, or they should carefully label those suggestions as optional (e.g., "I know that citation formatting is not required by the Good article criteria, and I will not consider this when making my decision, but if you might send this to Misplaced Pages:Featured articles later, then that process requires consistent citation formatting").
Does an article have to be on hold for exactly seven days?: No. Whether to place the nomination on hold at all, and the length of any such hold, is for the reviewer to decide. Depending on the quality of the article and the responsiveness of the nominator, a hold may not be necessary. If the reviewer decides that it is, they may choose longer or shorter periods of hold time. The reviewer may even modify the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page to include a "time" parameter, for example, "time=fourteen days", and the {{GANotice}} template used to convey messages to the GA nominator to include a "days" parameter, for example "days=fourteen". Keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GA nominations report page.
What should I do if a review page becomes inactive?: This can happen for a number of reasons. Review pages should only be started by reviewers who are willing to take an active interest in the article and are committed to completing their review of the article in a timely manner. Sometimes another editor (such as the nominator) starts the review page by mistake. A reviewer can fix this by placing their signature after "Reviewer:" towards the top of the review page, but if no reviewer is forthcoming, it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions may be posted at the discussion page. If a new reviewer is truly needed, follow the instructions page under "If a review seems abandoned". Do not use this process to void a review you disagree with.
I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified!: That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your comments while independently deciding on their assessment. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and also decline to list the article as GA. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the good article criteria, you can initiate a reassessment.
How can GA be reliable when a single reviewer decides?: The quality of a Good article is only as reliable as the most recent review and articles may deteriorate if unattended. The GA process deals with both of these issues by allowing repeat reviews by any registered user at any time. The process aims to encourage article improvement and build consensus on quality through multiple reviews—even though a single reviewer makes the decision whether to list the article according to the GA criteria. Any editor may contribute to any review discussion and reassessment is available when the "one reviewer decides" model breaks down.
What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process?: You can bring those concerns to the GA nominations discussion page to get help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in any dispute that you have.

Shortcut

WT:GAN

Second opinion on Talk:Joseph J. Romm/GA1

I would appreciate second opinions on the citations to potential copyright violations on the Joseph J. Romm. The nominator claims that they are fair use by the Climate Progress web site that hosts them. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Still looking for imput on this. Cheers! Jezhotwells (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, two clarifications. First, I believe that there is only one link at issue now. Second, I am not the nominator of this article. I am just the guy doing all the work after someone else nominated it who has never contributed to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

And still seeking a second opinion on a sourcing issue. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look today or tomorrow, Jez. Ping me on my talk if I forget. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, this has been resolved now. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Second reviewer needed

The Most Hated Family in America

The first reviewer has become "semi-retired", and the bulk of the recommendations from the initial review (pending at Talk:The Most Hated Family in America/GA1), were responded to. Would be appreciated if another reviewer could come by and see if the article is now satisfactory to be promoted to GA status. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll jump in. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to Binksternet (talk · contribs), for helping out with this. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Image review

We have been patiently waiting for an image review so that we can wind up Talk:Bobby Orr/GA1. There are two images that I consider borderline in the article. One is an iconic image that is closely associated with the subject of the article. The other is a picture of a display at a museum. The author is willing to remove either or both, but I need an image specialist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Does the BOT take a Christmas holiday?

I nominated Robert Latham Owen (a deceased US politician) for GA review under North American History (a sub-category of World History) back on the 24th, on the understanding that the BOT would promptly post it on this page automatically. Three days on there's still no sign of the BOT doing so. I tried posting it manually here under World History, but someone or something moved it to Miscellaneous. I've done a fair bit of work on Misplaced Pages, but have not previously grappled with the GA machinery. Advice from Old Hands? Nandt1 (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The subtopic you want is "World history". I fixed that in your nomination (on the article talkpage). Fixing things on the page manually often doesn't work or is reverted by the bot. You also seem to have had "North American History" in your timestamp which seems to be unreadable by the bot.--Beloved Freak 22:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks ok now. --Beloved Freak 23:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this!Nandt1 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem! --Beloved Freak 00:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion box

I think that it would be better if the reviewer would add a discussion box to mark the closing of the GA discussion on GA subpage. At present the reviewer can close the discussion on the talk page, and editors focused on the GA subpage might not notice what has happened on the talk page. I think that an instruction should be added that tells reviewer to add a discussion box to mark the closing of a GA review (pass or fail) on the GA review subpage. Snowman (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Review issue

I nominated U.S. Route 223 for GAN. Racepacket (talk · contribs) selected the article for review. I found that odd, and somewhat hypocritical, because he earlier proposed that no reviewer review more than five nominated articles from a single editor/nominator. This article would be the sixth nomination of mine that he's reviewed. The review had some valid feedback, but the last series of comments centered on a content dispute over the status of Interstate 73 in relation to how it might impact US 223 in the future. In dealing with this reviewer, it was my feeling that to further continue the review process would be fruitless, that unless I gave in and inserted misleading and less than relevant information not supported by pertinent source, that the review could not come to a satisfactory conclusion. I closed and withdrew the nomination. I renominated the article to gain a fresh, second opinion. The second review was opened by Racepacket, against my explicit request that he no longer review my nominations. I have since withdrawn that review and brought the situation here. Imzadi 1979 → 07:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not just let Imzadi1979 get the second review from another editor that he wants? I don't see why Racepacket feels the need to keep rereviewing the article so it doesn't get a second opinion. --Rs chen 7754 08:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:38, 3 January 2011 editImzadi1979 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors151,547 edits →Review issue: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:22, 3 January 2011 edit undoRschen7754 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits →Review issue Next edit →
Line 78:		Line 78:

	I nominated ] for GAN. {{user\|Racepacket}} selected the article for review. I found that odd, and somewhat hypocritical, because he earlier proposed that no reviewer review more than five nominated articles from a single editor/nominator. This article would be the sixth nomination of mine that he's reviewed. The review had some valid feedback, but the last series of comments centered on a content dispute over the status of ] in relation to how it might impact US 223 in the future. In dealing with this reviewer, it was my feeling that to further continue the review process would be fruitless, that unless I gave in and inserted misleading and less than relevant information not supported by pertinent source, that the review could not come to a satisfactory conclusion. I closed and withdrew the nomination. I renominated the article to gain a fresh, second opinion. The second review was opened by Racepacket, against my explicit request that he no longer review my nominations. I have since withdrawn that review and brought the situation here. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" >'''] ] ]'''</span> 07:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)		I nominated ] for GAN. {{user\|Racepacket}} selected the article for review. I found that odd, and somewhat hypocritical, because he earlier proposed that no reviewer review more than five nominated articles from a single editor/nominator. This article would be the sixth nomination of mine that he's reviewed. The review had some valid feedback, but the last series of comments centered on a content dispute over the status of ] in relation to how it might impact US 223 in the future. In dealing with this reviewer, it was my feeling that to further continue the review process would be fruitless, that unless I gave in and inserted misleading and less than relevant information not supported by pertinent source, that the review could not come to a satisfactory conclusion. I closed and withdrew the nomination. I renominated the article to gain a fresh, second opinion. The second review was opened by Racepacket, against my explicit request that he no longer review my nominations. I have since withdrawn that review and brought the situation here. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" >'''] ] ]'''</span> 07:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			:Why not just let Imzadi1979 get the second review from another editor that he wants? I don't see why Racepacket feels the need to keep rereviewing the article so it doesn't get a second opinion. --''']]]''' 08:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)