Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DoctorWhoFan91 (talk | contribs) at 18:38, 25 December 2024 (→Nonsensical review: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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.

Old nomination

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

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

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

Splitting sections

Historical figures: politicians

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

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

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

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

Splitting "Historical figures: other"

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

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

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

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

Historical figures: bureaucrats and administrators split?

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

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

New editor incorrectly starting GANRs

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsensical review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Infoadder95: you just "reviewed" Talk:Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)/GA1 in the same manner? May I ask why when you said less than 24 hours ago that you "I think refraining from reviews till I get a bit seasoned is the best option for me now"? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I did not use LLMs this time, I copied the wiki-text from my sandbox and pasted it into the sub talk page. And what is your criticism of my review now, that it does not meet your standards or that it was done by me. Is it wrong according to Good article criteria or you just hate me. Please highlight what did you meant by "same manner".

And how am I supposed to get seasoned without reviewing, if the people on the talk page don't object and nominator/s don't object what is the problem I may ask. And do you think I am rubber stamper or someone just afraid to fail a nominee after my last encounter, If so you should read the good article criteria and also don't forget to read the instructions and come and tell me If I violated something and also read this, and tell me if there is something from here present in my review. If the nominators/s have a problem or two I am obliged to listen and reopen the review.

And lastly, what is your purpose to stalk me? Infoadder95 (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is stalking you, but when someone publicly says "I'm not going to do " and then immediately goes back to doing the thing, it's not a great look. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos Great, so what should I do, should I never do a review again in my life? I have a question; what is wrong with my review on Alvin and the Chipmunks, please I need your opinion so I can improve reviews next in line if I get any Infoadder95 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You have really got to stop putting words in peoples' mouths. No one has said you can never do another review ever in your life. You yourself said you would be refraining until you were "seasoned", yet you immediately did another review! There is a lot of space between "review again immediately" and "never review again", and waiting even a few weeks would have put you in a position of much less judgement. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Infoadder95, all editors are supposed to asssume good faith - which you are not, by asking me why "I hate you" and "am stalking you", which seems to be casting WP:Aspersions. And you also said you would not review before learning, and try to understand what the issues with your reviews were. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I have been issued a warning on my talk page for using LLMs on Talk:Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)/GA1 which I did not, yes I did use them on the 2 reviews before but I completely wrote this one myself, what seems to be the issue. Infoadder95 (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I have replied to that below.

As for why you have warned of LLM usage- even in the case you didn't (which seems weird, as some of the links are missing, which seems unlikely to be done by a human hand), you have copied the format of your last two reviews, which is why they seem LLM generated, even if they might or might not be. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok I quit reviewing, this is probably not a task for me. Infoadder95 (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll tell you how the review does not meet the criteria in some time if you want, but I would like to address the other points. "or you just hate me."- I do not, I just brought it up bcs it's wrong according to the criteria- you list issues in the review which very much mean that the article does not meet the criteria yet, or would be if some, if not all, of them were not incorrect. You get seasoned by reading the criteria and instructions properly and seeing other's people reviews.

I'm not stalking you, I was just checking what reviews have been passed/failed today till now as there has many incorrect reviews the past few weeks. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 Ok please tell me what is wrong with my review, me listing issues does not mean that the article does not qualify, instead they are the areas of improvement. Let me ask you, if you deem that one citation from one section of the whole article is unreliable or does not support the claim it is next to, will you fail the whole well written article or just bring it up so it can be addressed. Or another example; if the lead section is good but it can be a bit shorter, will you just fail the whole article.

And please don't forget to tell me that what is wrong with my review. Infoadder95 (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Minor-ish issues: you do not need to explain the GA criteria, just have to say they pass or fail bcs of this or that reason. And you should not highlight your reviews with a background colour, it's distracting.

Major issues- you have passed it despite you saying there are issues. (added after your reply) yes, bring it up, let it be fixed, do not just pass the article, as it very clearly states in the instructions, and what you would know if you had checked other reviews.

major issue 2: travolta is mentioned in ref 2 for the first sentence. The garfield cite is Variety- which is reliable, (and which you have also misplaced from the review, as its blank there). I might be able to find more, but the review is written badly, and it's hard to check what is and what isn't a problem. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Drive by review

Curtosy ping @CapeVerdeWave and 12george1: I stumbled upon Talk:1873 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1 while looking at older nominations for the January 2025 GAN backlog drive and found this review. There is no evidence that a review took place here and the review was all done within one edit. While I haven't done a thourough read through of the article in question so it may be fine but the review itself does not seem up to standards. IntentionallyDense 16:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense: So you think I should provide more detail to justify the GA? In what areas, if so? I thought the summary seemed sufficient. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@CapeVerdeWave Per Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Instructions Read the whole article. Understand its sources. Based on the Good article criteria, determine whether the article should be quick failed. An in-depth review must be provided in all other cases. This must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers, and that no copyrighted material has been added to the article from the source.

The part that is missing in your review is the in depth part. Sometimes there is articles where nothing or very little has to be changed. In this case it is more helpful to say something along the lines of "This article passes criteria 1 because xyz, I know this because I checked xyz" (modify as needed ofc). This is especially important when it comes to the sources. For example I would usually write something along the lines of "this article uses reliable sources without plagerising content, I checked sources 2, 4, 8, 19, and 20 and found no issues".

However it is very rare for an article to have absolutely no issues. For example the article in question has some overlinking which while not technically in the GA criteria, can reduce readibility and make it look overly technical. For example, countries are linked which is generally not needed. IntentionallyDense 17:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)