Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h (talk | contribs) at 23:41, 22 November 2014 (Reverted edits by Jonas Vinther (talk) to last version by Bruce1ee). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Main Criteria Instructions Nominations FAQ January backlog drive Mentorship Review circles Discussion Reassessment Report Shortcut WP:GAFAQ This is the list of Frequently asked questions about nominating and reviewing Good articles. If you cannot find the answer to your question here, you might want to ask for assistance at the GA nominations discussion page. 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 698 nominations listed and 628 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.

Archives

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

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

Dated archives

18 March 2006 – 15 April 2006 15 April 2006 – 3 June 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – August 2006 September 2006 – April 2007 April 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – September 2007 September 2007 – February 2008 February 2008 – May 2008 May 2008 – September 2008 October 2008 – March 2009 March 2009 – August 2009 September 2009 – May 2010 June 2010 – January 2011 January 2011 – December 2011 January 2012 – June 2012 June 2012 – October 2012 October 2012 – March 2013 March 2013 – November 2013 November 2013 –

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

• WT:GAN

Talk:Brian Hill (swimmer)/GA1

Can someone please take over the review at Talk:Brian Hill (swimmer)/GA1. I am really busy currently and don't have time. I am sorry for the problems this may cause. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900) 05:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sungei Road/GA1 nominated in March, awaiting unnecessary second opinion since 10 September

On 10 September, the reviewer, NickGibson3900, requested a second opinion "from someone who knows more about the area than ". The article is not complex (the concerns were easy to deal with) and he is not a new reviewer, so I do not see why the nomination needs a second opinion. I nominated the article on 2 March and although I understand there is a huge backlog, would like someone to follow up on this soon. --Hildanknight (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the GAN report lists Sungei Road as the second oldest nomination. The reviewer, NG39, posted above requesting someone take over another of his reviews. --Hildanknight (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability missing from GA criteria

Did you know that notability is not mentioned in the Good article criteria? Please see the discussion posted at WT:GA?#Notability missing from GA criteria. Prhartcom (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Abandoned nominations

For those who've abandoned GAN's they started reviewing, should there perhaps be a set point at which it's best to close as unsuccessful? The backlog would otherwise be held up for an indeterminate length. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

How would it be fair to the nominator if the nomination was closed as unsuccessful because of an MIA reviewer? Gloss 06:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Beforehand, a note would be left on the review page reminding both nominator and reviewer of review and lack of activity. If it goes unanswered for a certain amount of time, the nomination would be closed. The nominator could renominate afterwards. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations can sit on this page for over half of a year, so telling someone "just renominate it" is much easier said than done. If the nominator goes inactive on the review, it's fair to say to close it as unsuccessful after fair warning, but if a reviewer goes inactive, it's probably better to just ask here for a new reviewer - there's often someone around willing to pick those reviews up. Gloss 06:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If I wait six months for a review, which the reviewer abandons, then my nomination is closed without review and I am asked to renominate, that would discourage me from writing further GAs. I hope that does not happen with Talk:Sungei Road/GA1. --Hildanknight (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

what rules are in place if a reviewer does abandon? It should be cause to block accts in my opinion. Its detrimental to further collaboration.. More so than a simple vandal any day. If you can't do somethin right, you best off not do it at all.David Condrey 21:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@David Condrey: Both nominators and reviewers are humans, who may have busy schedules and may have to abandon nominations (or reviews) due to unforeseen circumstances. I sometimes take two months to fix all issues raised by a reviewer. Since I really appreciate patience from reviewers, I believe reviewers similarly appreciate patience from nominators. "If you can't do somethin right, you best off not do it at all" is not how Misplaced Pages works. --Hildanknight (talk)

Gender inequality in the United States seems to have stalled again, the nominator disappeared back in April and the current review seems to be dead in the water. If I had to pick one to IAR and fail due to lack of activity, that would be it. Ritchie333 14:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: How about I change the GA nominee template at Talk:Sungei Road to point to GA2 (not yet created) instead of GA1, per IAR? --Hildanknight (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that'll help you, I'm afraid. You need someone with a subject knowledge. I've done quite a few geography articles, but I wouldn't know the Sungei Road from the Falls Road from the Old Kent Road. Sorry. Ritchie333 15:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? I review lots of GANs outside my normal areas of interest, and appreciate others taking on mine in the same fashion. In fact, in a recent review I started of Antemoro people I explicitly said I didn't know anything about the subject going in and was only reviewing to learn. A diverse reviewer pool helps reduce the likelihood we'll be speaking to an echo chamber - if nothing else, it increases accessibility. Tezero (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I can certainly appreciate that sentiment, granted, but my point was more than nobody has been prepared to give the requested second opinion on the original review. If you'd like to pick the review up and finish it off, I'm sure that would be very much appreciated. Ritchie333 15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I'd personally rather not with that one specifically, because of my own strong feelings against the way the mainstream social justice movement and academia conceive social inequality, which could cloud my ability to be neutral. I'll gladly take another, though, if you've got any ideas. Tezero (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Current procedure

This is not official by any means, but in my experience we do not fail the nomination if the problem is reviewer abandonment. After suitable notifications establish that the nominator is still interested (if frustrated) and the reviewer has either disappeared or is no longer interested, the nomination is put back in the nominations pool with its seniority intact, and gets picked up sooner rather than later. This is like what we've done when an incompetent reviewer starts up a bunch of reviews, and they need to be unwound without penalizing the nominator. I would be opposed to the proposal that initiated this section to close the nomination as unsuccessful, as the only failure here is on the part of the reviewer. I do agree that at some point the review needs to be considered abandoned, and effectively taken away from the reviewer who abandoned it—we've had to do this many times in the past, and it will continue to happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone seriously started failing articles due to reviewer inactivity, then I'll just revert them, since that's stupid. Either take it up yourself or just place it back in the queue, which takes maybe two minutes. Wizardman 03:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Messed up nom.

Hi, I was trying to nominate Animatronics but I think I did in incorrectly because I mistakenly hit the link to create a page thinking I should do that to complete the nom. and only afterwards realized that it says to do so only when / if I were going to review the article. Could someone help me fix it please. Thx. David Condrey 10:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Adabow (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unsure what the proper action would be. I still want to get this nominated though.. Thx David Condrey 21:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It will remain in the nomination queue. Only the review page which you created will be deleted; potential reviewers will then see that no review has been started, and can then take up the review themselves. Adabow (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What if an IP takes up a GA review?

An IP has taken up the GAN for Sonic the Hedgehog 2. The FAQ here says that such a review is not allowed, but a remedy is not provided. Tezero (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The review page should be speedy deleted and the nominator informed on their talk page that reviewers must have registered accounts (and have experience). I suspect this is someone who just clicked on a link and got a bit more than they bargained for. I've marked the page for deletion; once it has been deleted I'll update the article talk page to show the article isn't under review. (I don't want to do that now, as it could cause a collision if someone tries to open a new review while the old page is extant.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Aplikasi abandoning reviewing process..

Hi, I just want to inform here that the two articles I nominate which have been reviewed by Aplikasi have been abandon by him during the reviewing process. After seven days, when I ask him on Facebook on what suggestions, problems or improvements should be done on the articles to meet the GA status, he did not replied to my message instead deactivating his facebook. I requested if there is any reviewers can continue the reviewing process. ~ Muffin Wizard 00:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean, Facebook? User:Muffin Wizard, why don't you try to communicate to this editor on their Misplaced Pages User Talk page? This editor appears to be taking a short Wikibreak as they have not edited for the past week; be patient; they will probably return soon. What are these articles that you nominated? Prhartcom (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prhartcom, I had email him before and he gives his Facebook link for easy contact, but the facebook has since been deactivated. From his last message, I don't thinks he want to reviewed it anymore. But nevermind, another Wizard already help me to delete the reviewing forms. Anyway, thanks! The articles I nominated is Kuching and Tawau. ~ Muffin Wizard 06:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Bot having trouble marking reviews as passed?

The bot seems to have a problem marking new reviews that have closed as a pass. It blanked Morden tube station once without comment which I assumed was a glitch, then it did it again I then double checked the talk header, which is now this which as far as I know is correct ... and Legobot silently took it off the queue with a summary of maintenance again! What's going on? Ritchie333 11:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Jonas Vinther alphabetization issues

There was no response before this got archived at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive 20#User:Jonas Vinther is insisting it is not his responsibility to list nominations that he passes at WP:GA from what I can tell. From what I recall, User:Jonas Vinther still had a few alphabetization issues to resolve:

1. Rise seems to remain malplaced after your effort

   My last comment: "For some reason you understand where Rise belongs alphabetically, but seem to be challenged in terms of being able to actually move it to the right location in the list. at 21:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)" --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Your effort to correct these edits with these edits leaves Walther von Brauchitsch and Charles Heaphy out of place.

   My last comment: "It seems that these entries are in the W part of the alphabetical listing where the issue is wheather Walter comes before Walther. at 21:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)" --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

3. What gives with this edit?

When you get a chance please respond.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Tony, I will be home very soon. I will respond then. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Poor closure of GA review

An editor has failed the GA review for the Russo-Georgian War article. He cites "NPOV" issues, but has not actually said what these NPOV issues are. He says the article is "unstable", but the "edit war" he referred to was long resolved before the review started, and was merely the product of IP vandalism. He did not give the submitting editor nearly enough time to respond to his concerns. In fact, I fear that the reviewer has a severe bias himself, and has failed the article as a result. This seems unacceptable. A well-meaning editor who has been working on this article for months, who has suffered a five month queue, was not even given the light of day. I'm starting to become quite cynical about this GA process, as it seems that it really is a system that drives editors away, rather than helping them improve articles. RGloucester — ☎ 19:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)