Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations

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 703 nominations listed and 629 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

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

Shortcut

WT:GAN

Requesting a second opinion at Paulo Francis

I'm looking for a second opinion (or third, or fourth) at Talk:Paulo Francis/GA4. If you are willing to help, please do! Wugapodes (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wyangala GA?

Wyangala was assessed on October 19, 2014 by User:JSwho, 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. MSJapan (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional - Wyangala was heavily edited by User:Fvalzano, who in an SPI seems to have the same two articles in common with JSwho. One is Wyangala. This article really needs to be delisted and reassessed. MSJapan (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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): Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JSwho. 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 WP:GAR, which will require some commitment on your part. If you have any other comments or findings, feel free to post them below. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarification's sake, the relationship between JSwho and Fvalzano is possible (actually bordering

Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)), rather than inconclusive. Yunshui _水 13:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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. MSJapan (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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. Prhartcom (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

MSJapan, 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 WP:GAR page under individual reassessments, 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@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? MSJapan (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

MSJapan, 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 GA criteria. 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. Prhartcom (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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. MSJapan (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The remainder of this discussion has been moved to it's proper place in ~~Talk:Wyangala/GA2~~

Since this is a community reassessment, the reassessment page has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Wyangala/1. Comments should be made there; it may not show up at WP:GAR 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Bulk reviews and nominations by new editor

Between 03:57 and 08:25, new Misplaced Pages editor Tortle 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:

Talk:Ayrshire cattle/GA1: 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
Talk:Boeing 717/GA1: opened at 05:28; listed at 05:45 without any comments on the review page
Talk:IPhone 5S/GA1: opened at 05:28; objected to the lead length (only criterion discussed), then back-and-forth with nominator
Talk:Agar.io/GA1: 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 Czar has subsequently made some suggestions.
Talk:Bernie Sanders/GA1: opened at 05:31; objected at 06:29 to some lead issues (prepared to list article as GA otherwise unless someone else raised issues).

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 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 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 Microsoft, Apple Inc. and Misplaced Pages.

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.

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. BlueMoonset (talk) 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. – czar 17:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Czar, 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 WP:WIAGA requirements have been examined and correctly evaluated. BlueMoonset (talk) 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) – czar 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the GA status of Agar.io - the review was wholly improper (there should be really some requirements for GA reviewing, like AfC). Esquivalience 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset and czar. 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. Tortle (talk) 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.

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. Tortle (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2015 (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.. Esquivalience 18:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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. Tortle (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please sign because I dont know who wrote the comment above mine above. Tortle (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Tortle, 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tortle, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. The seasoned editors above, BlueMoonset, Czar, and 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 instructions. 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? Prhartcom (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The Ayrshire cattle article is NOT a good article. It is, as pointed out on the reviewers talk page, C-class at best. Cassianto 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, enough people have given their opinions so I am going to stay off GA, theres no place for me here. Tortle (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't take it too hard, 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, Prhartcom (talk) 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Prhartcom, I think I will work on improving and nominating one, I appreciate it and I am sorry for the disruption I caused. Tortle (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE- I worked hard to improve Lego 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. Tortle (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

On Hold

Hi. I have a couple of articles I began reviews on, but have put on hold. How long do they stay on hold? Onel5969 02:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Onel5969, 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks 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. Onel5969 11:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Main Page (2015 redesign)

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 WP:FAC in general, and 2. Many people are less than happy with the quality of the WP:DYK 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 WP:TFA runs pretty smoothly, which gives me hope that a hypothetical WP:TGA 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 (push to talk) 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 (push to talk) 19:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: It's been discussed before, looking through the archives, but I could see something like this working better with new design. I made an example 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 TFL). 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? 23W 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 (push to talk) 12:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The last discussion I'm seeing was one I already knew about, at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_171#GA Main Page slot proposal. 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 (push to talk) 12:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: Started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Main Page (2015 redesign). 23W 17:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Posting comments on already-finished GA nomination pages -- allowed or not?

Hey, User:Hijiri88 here. Posting logged-out because I'm afraid of yet more harassment if I post this logged-in.

I recently posted 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.

I was reverted 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 posted in an overdue-to-be-closed ANI thread. Twice.)

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

180.221.235.82 (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Hijiri88, 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 here. We're not going to take sides on the discussion.

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. Prhartcom (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)