Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Ratio of Good articles passed to reviews made

I see there was a snow close recently for limiting the number of nominations recently (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Limiting the number of GA nominations per editor). I would have opposed that too but I do agree there has been a constant issue with the backlog. I have felt that a major cause of this is editors nominating a disproportionate amount of articles relative to the number they review. Thanks to the development of a tool that can tell us how many good articles someone has we can now work out a rough ratio of reviews to nominations. There are some issues with obtaining both numbers, but it should at least give us a good idea of the scope of these ratios.

Here is link a list of editors that have over 50 good articles as of 17 November 2020, but have reviewed less than half as many nominations according to User:GA bot/Stats. User names are not included. This does not take into account failed nominations, co noms, or editors that have taken over an abandoned review. At least one name on this list contributes to the GA process in other important ways. On the flip side out of the 121 editors with over 50 Good articles 17 have reviewed twice as many as they have nominated (one ten times as many).

There seems to be a consensus that we need more reviewers and I would think that these editors would be prime candidates. At the least I think we should leave notes on the talk pages of active editors pointing out the discrepancy and encourage them to contribute more to reviewing. This might be more impactful coming from the GA community than an individual editor (before this list was possible I approached editors I suspected were not reviewing as much as they could and tried to encourage them to review more with limited success). Maybe more should be done to encourage if that doesn't have the desired effect. Maybe we should just ignore it and be happy editors are contributing lots of quality content. I don't really know the best approach, but I do feel this is a major cause of our persistent backlog issues. Aircorn (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

How many of these users are actively contributing to GAs? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The backlog has already increased drasticly since the last GA backlove drive (from 383 to 418), so 35 articles in 13 days. I don't think major changes will happen by "encouraging" people to review articles that never reviewd in the first place or only did it once. Major changes only happen when new rules are applied. However, if something in the vein of "you nominated 100 articles, you need to review 50 or you can't nominate again" is applied it will stear some people away from it. It's a complicated situation you can't force someone to review something, I mean you can, but I'm not sure if its the best policie. Nevertheless, the amount of artiles they nominated and were passed/failed shouled be a resenoble amount so that if a person is new to the "GA topics" and has no idea what they are doing in the first place and need to go trough some GA reviews. This is just my opinion, you guys are the coordenators and I'm sure you are far more experience and perhaps can come up with something better, the backlogs reviews for a month help a lot but the problem is that in the end of the backlog there is still almost 400 articles to review. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

How about a polite suggestion for nominators - a reminder that their participation in reviewing older articles would be welcome? I think overall having lots of articles waiting to be passed is a good thing. Regardless of whether or not articles are passing fast enough, the fact that many will have been worked on and improved is ultimately a good thing for the community. To be honest, there's a similar issue with not enough DYK co-ordinators to prepare the hooks. This probably needs a bit more thought into how we can incentivise people to get involved or attract reviewers to the process. I do think reaching out to people who have over 100 GAs could be good so long as its voluntary. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, this is simple. Some people like creating content and not reviewing others. Some people like reviewing content but not creating it. Some people like to do both. And there's nothing we can do about that, nor should we. However if there is any appetite to enforce a more rigid QPQ here then that should be proposed, otherwise things will definitely not change. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

My argument (I've made a few times), is to get the ratio above (reviews to nominations), and have that be shown next to the review amount on WP:GAN. That way, there's nothing stopping you from nominating 50 articles and only reviewing 10, but users will at least know who is actively working on reviews, and who isn't... Which they can then choose to review their articles or not.

Want your article to be reviewed quicker? Increase your ratio. There's a no loss solution. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see why someone who writes lots of content but doesn’t review in turn needs to be able to participate in the ga process. Reviewing should be expected when you are substantially contributing to the backlog. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That's called QPQ. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the QPQ doesn't work that well. Lil-unique 1 got me thinking, how about, in a similar manner to the GAN backlog drive medals, medals are given for those who have reviwed 50, 100, 200...aricles? A medal for the reviwer of the month? Its an incetive and you can achieve those medals over time and there is one for the month. The only problem would be the review stamps. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Incentives like that are fine I suppose. But it would constant overall management, we'd need GA directors and delegates etc to keep it all running with these awards, review checking etc. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That's called QPQ.. No kidding... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Then propose a QPQ scheme which is reasonable for people and workable (i.e. we can dynamically track how many nominations and reviews each person participating has). It might not need to be as prescriptive as DYK, but it could be as simple as you have to have done as many reviews as you have nominations or something. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I only see three solutions to this problem. All of them is an option as well.

• 1) Medals for reviewing certain amounts, however I can see that would require some man power in order to keep everything up to date.
• 2) A very strict QPQ, "If you have nominated five reviewed articles, you need to start reviewing articles or you can't nominate anything else for a review", or something in this vein
• 3) Limit the amount of nominations per user, each user can only nominate 2/3 articles at the same time. The GOCE started to do this and they still have a huge amount of work, however it is manageable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A limit per user within a certain category may help with the backlog, without limiting actual review speed. There might be users interested in reviewing one sort of article or not reviewing one sort of article, so there might be benefit to multiple nominations if they are spread across categories. Within a category however, I suspect there won't be such variation. CMD (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I find the "don't create so many GANs" arguments to be a bit poor. If you nominate 30 articles in one go, but review 50, then you've made a significant inroad to the backlog. I reviewed 25 articles last month, so why would I need to be limited to 3 concurrent ones? Surely if we got a bot to say what the ratio of reviews/nomination was, if they have better than 1, it's fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is why I suggested it may work per category, rather than overall. I don't think nominating 30 articles in a single category is likely to get you faster reviews that 5 or 10, and I feel there may be a small psychological incentive to help 'clear out' a smaller category. CMD (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any particular benefit to that, other than to give people a reason to work on a different subject. It isn't all that beneficial, other than to stop people working on WP:GTs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No that's not reasonable and prejudices against people who predominantly work in a single category. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't really follow that line of thought. It doesn't at all inhibit working on a category, and there will always be multiple items running. If it encourages that category to empty faster they might even see more reviews. FAC and FAR already have such limits partly in order to focus attention on the items already on the page. CMD (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Late reply, but "there will always be multiple items running" is false. My primary interest in GA is in the mathematics and mathematicians category, although I also sometimes nominate on the more theoretical end of Computing and engineering (with one in each currently). It is often the case that there are no nominations of this type other than mine. The strong suggestion that we perform 2-for-1 QPQ reviews, my inability to find enough articles that interest me in performing QPQ reviews, and the much slower time it takes me to perform full reviews in other areas is the limiting factor in my GA participation — if I weren't trying to maintain the QPQ I would already have more nominations, and if there were more nominations in the areas I care about I would have more reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

FAC has no such requirement on a category, just per user. I really don't see how lowering the amount a person nominates if they are actively reviewing makes a difference, but even more so if we are strictly doing this against the category systems we have at GAN. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've reviewed something like 500 GANs and have probably no more than 250 GAs of my own, I don't feel like I should have to review anything in order to get my nominations plucked from the queue. Moreover, as there's literally no connection between what I review and what I nominate, there's no causal link between me doing a review and someone reviewing one of mine. It's either the implementation of a formal QPQ process or nothing. Anything else will simply not be practical and will increase complexity of what is supposed to be a simple system and will decrease reviews rather than increase them. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with TRM, and would suggest some clause on quality if QPQ was to be implemented (which I'm not necessarily advocating for). I've been credited with 100s of reviews, and have many more including abandoned reviews I've completed and not received bot credit. I have, I think, 34 GAs of my own; I'm here for improvement, and part of that is knowing humans editing will happen in waves - I would expect being in a position to nominate 10 articles in a day is more likely than some kind of consistent slow progress. I've also reviewed 10 noms in a day before, and as long as there are people willing to keep that up (I'm still more than happy to review a high factor more than I nominate), restrictions are counterintuitive to the GA project's stated goal. For a long while I've been considering proposing changes to how reviews are carried out to make it a more review/improvement-centric system than check-and-reward-centric, but that would require more review effort so I haven't, but I think even that would be a better step than limiting noms. Kingsif (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A good writer does not necessarily make a good reviewer, and even then, it would be incorrect to assume that everybody making copious amounts of good article nominations is a good writer. I know that I would prefer that I have a reviewer who enjoys the process looking at my nominations. What no one has mentioned so far is that I know at least a few users who would be willing to help out with the review process, but they are afraid of doing something wrong. Having a system in place for experienced reviewers to help newcomers with their first or second reviews would make the process less intimidating, and would encourage more to try their hand. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 05:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. We should have a list of experienced reviewers willing to advise on GANs, put somewhere that it will be noticed. I would add my name there. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor exists and is linked from step 1 of the reviewing instructions... I went there before my first review, and have recently been messaged by a first-time reviewer because of it, so I think it works/is visible. Kingsif (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added my name there a long time ago. Is that page visable for people to find? However, that won't help much with the current backlog problem. A QPQ more rigid would do wonders around here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you had many requests for help. I have been on it since 2012 and can count on one hand ediotrs asking for assistance. Aircorn (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

None so far. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Eddie: What do you mean by actively contributing to GA's? They have all contributed to the GA's they nominated (I don't know how much, but they have at least nominated it for GA). I think it is safe to assume that they are making the improvements necessary as the ones I recognise are good editors and these have all passed. As to the one editor on the list who contributes to the process in other ways, they do a lot of behind the scenes work (prodding old reviews, tidying up malformed nomes etc).
• I am not advocating for a QPQ type system as such, but when an editor has 100 Good Articles to there name and has not returned one review it is starting to take the piss on an already overburdoned system. My thinking is more to take a graduated approach. There are 49 editors on this list, not a substantial amount. If we can then start with a polite note to each of the editors along the lines of

Hi Username. We are looking to encourage editors to review more articles at WP:GAN. As you are probably aware there is a large backlog. This means you and other editors may have to wait months before your articles are reviewed. According to [page] you have reviewed # articles and helped promote # articles to GA status. This suggests that you are familiar with the criteria and able to contribute more reviews. Without editors reviewing articles the process falls apart. If you need some help with reviewing feel free to ask a mentor or leave a note at WT:GAN.

I tried this previously with some and all the editors are still on the list, but maybe it would have a better effect if we could link to a consensus here to do something about it. Or even bring them to this board for discussion. One did say that they didn't feel confident in evaluating prose, but I think if you can write close to 100 GAs and a few FAs to boot you should be able to evaluate the prose to GA level.

Publishing this somewhere, ideally having it automatically updated, might motivate editors to get off it more than a note that is easily ignored. The nominations page would be great, but unlikely until legobots issues get fixed.

Also some sort of stricter measure could be applied. There is nothing stopping us having a blacklist of sorts, i.e. leaving them out of backlog drives etc. Personally I won't review any of these editors nominations (which isn't a major disincentive since I am not active much anymore). Maybe something through the wikicup if this is a major motivator for some and they agree. Enforcing a QPQ on editors that have 50 good articles with less than 25 reviews is not unreasonable in my opinion, but these should probably be the final options as they are in most other aspects good editors. Aircorn (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Another option might be limiting these editors to one nomination at a time until they get there ratio better. I found them previously because they had multiple nominations going at once. Aircorn (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what nomninator said "they don't feel confident in reviewing the prose" is pure BS. So they can do everything but the prose? They nominate over 100 articles, I'm sure they have a good grasp of the prose. Fine, ask a second opinion, submit it to GOCE... there are solutions. Its not university level. Talk won't work, a thighter QPQ is a must. But of course give new people time to learn they could nomiante ten articles after those ten are reviewed they start to review others. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Man, I never like these conversations much. I think I'm still tracking at more reviews than nominations, but I am not good at (or at least do not perceive myself as good at; people I've reviewed haven't criticised it, but would they?) and do not enjoy reviews, and I tend to end up apologising to people for leaving them hanging forever. I'm active at DYK too, I don't enjoy DYK reviews either, I do them because 1. they're obligated and 2. there are far, far fewer moving parts. I cannot see a formalized QPQ for GAN as anything but disastrous; it works for DYK because most DYK reviews are no-brainers, and even then they get screwed up not-infrequently (as an active promoter, I'd like people to be quicker to reject boring hooks). Performing a DYK review takes looking at three links (article, hook cite, QPQ) and writing one sentence. QPQing at GAN would demand reducing GANs to this level. I do not consider that an acceptable solution, and I don't think the people proposing formalizing QPQ have thought through the implications. Vaticidalprophet 17:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Warsaw radio mast/GA1

A new editor's very first edit has been to start reviewing the above-linked GAN. While there's probably more to the story (some form of sockpuppetry seems probable), all that's clear is that this reviewer is not going to be able to complete an adequate review. G6 deletion is probably appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Just leave it for a bit. WP:AGF and all that jazz. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Nah, reviewer Localrussan is almost certainly the same person as Albertan Oil Sands, who didn't nominate it but is a main editor. (And as said, the reviewer has made all of 7 edits: opening the review, making an acid trip of a user page, and this at Teahouse. They seem to think their It is very informatve, and is the definition of good article material. is a satisfactory review so I am almost certain nothing more there will happen.) Though both main editors (AOS and nominator BasedMises) could also be socks of each other - none of the accounts is more than a few months old and almost entirely focus on this article. Kingsif (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Jolly good. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You're certainly right about the acid trip user page  Looks like a duck to me --Whiteguru (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI, the "reviewer" has now passed the article (with no further comments), and the "nominator" has now nominated it for DYK. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I went to review the DYK nomination and noticed the lack of a review for the GA as well. I will go ahead and mark the DYK nomination as ineligible. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 02:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

What is the procedure for getting a proper review of this done? Is it to just ignore the 1 line "review" and someone else to take it on? Or delete the non-review? Because this article is currently being listed as a GA without having been checked properly, and that doesn't seem right to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it will just stall out there forever. Woodrow Wilson is listed as a GA following a short review by a new editor who had previously nominated it. CMD (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

We have done the WP:AGF and the sand has been kicked in our face. My sense is that the review should be removed and the article delisted, and the reviewer given a warning for blatant disregard of the criteria. Possible sockpupptery should also be investigated. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I've started an SPI on all three of them. The review page needs to be G6-deleted as obviously non-compliant. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Page tagged CSD G6 non-compliant, linked to SPI. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Second Opinion

I'd like to express my concern about how a 2nd opinion on a GA review was obtained, here. I am not sure if this is the right way to go about getting a second opinion. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Deadmau5 reassessment not showing up here?

I could not find the GA reassessment for Deadmau5 when I looked at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment; I believe a mistake may have been made when the page was initially created. As such very few editors have had the chance to chime in. Would anyone care to take another look (and, if possible, fix?) Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Previous GA review was passed on 13 May 2019; Talk:Deadmau5: Revision history from the GA pass entry does not show any history for a {{GAR request}} being added to the page. On 20 December 2020 GhostP. added the GAR/link to the talk page. It seems the the reassessment page was created as an individual reassessment page by GhostP., and not as a community reassessment page. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • GhostP. (who set up the GA Review (as nominator) (without a proper nomination tag) today has delisted this article as GA. BlueMoonset you may be interested in this action. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Whiteguru, for some reason your ping did not reach me. However, it appears that GhostP. followed the process at WP:GAR for individual reassessments, something they are perfectly allowed to do, which includes the delisting, though it's unusual that one would take quite so long to complete. (In an individual reassessment, the decision is made by the editor who opens it. The community can comment, but like in a regular GA review, it's up to the person conducting the reassessment to make the final decision.) Only community reassessments show up on the GAR page; individual reassessments just show up on the article's talk page. There is never a requirement for a {{GAR request}}; anyone can open an individual or community reassessment at any time, though you shouldn't if you don't understand the process or haven't identified ways in the which article fails to meet the GA criteria. The purpose for {{GAR request}} is to get someone to take a look and see whether a reassessment is needed when the person submitting the request isn't sure or doesn't have the time to formally check the article against the criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Process integrity

How we deal with suspected review process mishandling, and/or deliberate outright fail?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99, Bring it up here is the best way we've got. (t · c) buidhe 19:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača/GA1 I agree this is unsatisfactory as the review doesn't make any concrete suggestions for improving the article so it can meet the criteria. I would put the GAN tag back and increment the page counter so you can get another review. (t · c) buidhe 19:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That review baffles me. There's certainly no basis for failing on the basis of stability: only an "edit war or content dispute" qualifies. ("Good faith improvements" are specifically exempted.) And a quick fail is clearly inappropriate for minor, easily corrected language issues. At a minimum, renomination would be appropriate. I'll ping the reviewer, whom I know to be a solid contributor, just to encourage them to be a bit more thorough with their reviews. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for finally a ping @Extraordinary Writ: - What baffles me right now is the way this discussion here is started - instead of pinging me directly and asking about the review @Santasa99: and @Buidhe: prefer to start a talk directly here. There is no need to make any improvement suggestion for a GA Review if it quick fails because it is not stable. If one of the GA Criterias is not fulfilled the GA Nomination has failed. Not stable does not only refer to EW if not also to several edits recently made like it is the case in this article. Assuming "process mishandling and/or deliberate outright fail" is completely out of line and unacceptable! I would be careful with such insinuations. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That, uh... how do you expect someone to improve an article to GA-level if not by editing it? The recent edits don't show instability here - they're by the nominator. There isn't a rule against improving an article you've nominated while waiting for a review. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Precisely. Although WP:GANOT isn't policy, it's a solid summary of the general consensus, and it's correct when it says that Good article reviews are not supposed to interfere with normal editing. The "edit war or content dispute" phrasing I mentioned above is a verbatim quote from the criterion; it is the only basis on which a stability fail is appropriate. The article certainly has some issues, and failing it might ultimately be appropriate. But it does not meet the stringent criteria required to deprive the nominator of a full review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The last Edit was a CE Edit 2 days ago by an Editor which is clearly not the nominator of the GA. Before there were dozens of edits in the last 2 weeks of the Nominator itself - IMHO this cannot be called stable but I am totally fine if someone of the contributors here do want to reestablish the nomination and do the GA Review by themselves. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A large number of consecutive edits over the time period given there is very normal for GANs. In fact, many GANs are nominated within days of creation. Ordinary expansion work and a guy running AWB is not at all quickfail instability. Vaticidalprophet 21:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit from two days ago is literally an automated typo fix using AWB... what are you talking about? jp×g 21:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the word "stable": You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The definition at WP:GACR names two things that constitute instability: edit wars and content disputes. This article doesn't come anywhere near either of those, and so I (and plenty of others, evidently) have a very hard time understanding why you quickfailed it on that basis. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This does not make sense to me at all; looking at the history of the article in question shows that the only person who's edited it at all this month (aside from two minor spelling fixes) was Santasa99, whose edits seem to have improved it greatly. There is no controversy I can find in the history of this article (there's a talk page discussion about a requested move..... from 2009). A quickfail based on stability does not at all seem appropriate to me here. jp×g 21:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that of my last 40 GANs, all of them had a large volume of edits within the week preceding nomination. I'm expanding articles, and meeting the fivefold expansion requirement. If that makes them unstable, well.... shoot. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I have experienced the same situation: a flurry of editing and cleanup, either at the time of nomination or immediately after. I have no problems with that; this tells me the nominator or editor at work is around to do any needful corrections. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

On the topic of process integrity and CommanderWaterford -- this particular review merits some examination. There are no instructions - that if you find errors, you abandon the remainder of the review process. Straight out failing a review when not giving the editor seven days to make corrections is not a good faith review. GA Reviews are not the same as Articles for Creation. The Good Article Review process is - by design - interactive with other editors. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That Bianca Devins review is particularly bad in the context the previous review was also a quickfail, and the 'instability' in question was people working to get it up to the GA standard. Vaticidalprophet 22:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: On the GA2 page, I requested a clarification on the article's 'instability', to no avail. I understand Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača/GA1 has been redacted. Should a similar occurrence happen for this one? DMT biscuit (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I will second this; most of the GA reviews I've done have involved making a large number of suggestions to the author (which necessitated them editing it a lot), and most of my own GA submissions have required me to substantially edit the article based on reviewer suggestions (hell, Bradford Island ended up being expanded 2x). I can't really think of any other way for the process to function usefully (i.e. actually cause articles to become good). jp×g 22:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, to all. The expedience of the response took me by surprise, so I apologize not to participate, I really didn't expect such prompt reaction. At this point I have nothing to add, except that CommanderWaterford restored nomination via revert, so I wish to thank them for that (should I strike through their review discussion or remove it altogether, or leave it as it is - someone could get confused ?). Also I would like to thank to all participants, especially buidhe for their willingness to immediately look up and assess the situation, I really appreciate that, buidhe. Also, thanks Whiteguru for your elaboration on process integrity, which is important (it was exactly what I had in mind). I am around on daily basis, and I will be available for the review when it gets going - also, I filed copy-edit request some time prior to nomination, so I am expecting that as well. Thanks to all, and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Is reversion the technically accurate way to reopen that GAN? It still appears as being under review by CW. I thought the protocol for invalid GANs was to delete the review page. Vaticidalprophet 00:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing CW's name mentioned anywhere - it just gives the link to start the review. The review page certainly can be deleted, although that's generally only done in very obvious cases, like when a review is abandoned or when an IP starts a review. In this case, the review is just erroneous, so that's probably not a reason to delete it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Aha. I was seeing it in my watchlist as "on review by CommanderWaterford", but it doesn't appear as such on WP:GAN itself. Must be Legobot being Legobot. Vaticidalprophet 00:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Detecting Plagiarism

I have been reviewing Diaphragmatic rupture at Talk:Diaphragmatic rupture/GA2. Using free online software available to me, I identified some sections of prose copied verbatim from academic journals without a reference. Obviously, this does not comply with criterion 2d. Whilst this particular plagiarism has been highlighted and can be resolved, I am now concerned that I may not have identified all of the plagiarism in the article. Does anyone have advice on how I can "double-check", or does anyone know of more powerful free software for detecting plagiarism? Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Bibeyjj, Earwig's tool works well, though I'm not sure it accesses academic journals. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

You need to be careful to check dates to see which direction the plagiarism happened in. The text in question has been in our article since 2008 and the review article you're complaining about it being copied from was only published in 2017. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice - I will certainly use Earwig's Tool in the future. Thank you for pointing out the plagiarism in the review article - I've asked Delldot, the author of the original text in question, whether they want to follow the ISP non-compliance procedure, and I have passed the article for 2d. Bibeyjj (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The bot seems to be struggling again, will that affect things

I've noticed that the bot seems to be down again (or its now running at a lower frequency). I've recently conducted a GA review, and the bot has yet to pick up that it has a reviewer and it's been several hours. If the article gets to the stage of passing before the bot comes to life again, will it mess things up for me to pass the article before it processes me as reviewer? Hog Farm _Talk 01:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I used to do this manually, and left off before our last drive. For some reason - I also noted the bot was slow - I have started doing all this again, manually. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, The main issue is that it won't get added to your GA tally. (t · c) buidhe 04:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe - I've got 283 according to the GA tally, so I'm not really concerned with the tally counting to me. I went ahead and left a note at the talk page of the nominator that I'd done the review, since they likely won't be getting the bot notification in a timely manner. Hog Farm _Talk 04:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this will also prevent my GA nomination of Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862) from appearing for quite some time. Would it be worthwhile for me to manually add that nomination? Hog Farm _Talk 06:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to manually add the article to the list, when legobot is back up, it will do "maintenance" and add it to the other pages. If you close the review you are doing now, it won't credit you at User:GA bot/Stats, but you could probably update this yourself and reference this chat. Bare in mind, it won't do any of the regular closing things either until it's back online, like listing as recently promoted, or adding the GA icon to the page etc. It should catch up with us, but all the intermediate steps during the review won't happen, as it'll act as if the article has not gone under review and just been passed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Always post on User talk:Legobot if it's not working. It has now been fixed thanks to the great efforts of Legoktm. (t · c) buidhe 09:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have had similar issues regarding Talk:Edward Lazear/GA1. I was able to "do the bot's work" manually, but my review count still seats happily at 1. Would there any way to add it to my GA tally? I am of course ready to live with it if that's not the case. JBchrch (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch, I manually incremented your tally at User:GA bot/Stats; hopefully it will work. (t · c) buidhe 11:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Buidhe. JBchrch (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Miranda Kerr/GA1 stalled

@LM150 and Trillfendi: Talk:Miranda Kerr/GA1 appears to be going nowhere. I've pinged both the author and the reviewer a few days ago, but while both are still actively editing, neither has responded. What's the right thing to do here?

Thanks for the nudge, I've left a message on Trillfendi's talk page. They said they'll get back to the review shortly. LM150 17:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu

A recently-passed GA, Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu, has been DYK nominated, which is where I found it. I have some major concerns with the article, first of which is that it has an official English title but the reviewer, @Some Dude From North Carolina: (hi!), didn't request that the article be moved to that title. The other, main, concern is that large parts are almost incomprehensible the English is that poor, and what you can understand still (physically, or maybe I'm dehydrated) hurts to read because of this lack of fluency. Courtesy ping to the nominator (of both), Limorina, even though their userpage says retired. It seems like a machine translation, and a bad one, no joke. Some Dude, how did this pass? You only made three comments on the prose/grammar in your review, and also quoted something poorly-written only to say it was unnecessary. I'd say one only has to read the first four prose sentences of the article body – The series has been noted to draw attention with its actors, costumes, historical locations and story. Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu is written by Serdar Özönalan, directed by Sedat İnci and produced by Emre Konuk. After three years of scenario work for the series, every detail was meticulously prepared over 13-months. 350 décor employees, 100 carpenters and a team of 60 people took part in two separate sets, in which many locations in the series were built on. – to get a headache and be asking what the hell does half of that mean. Kingsif (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI: the core contest

Hi all, Wikipedia:The Core Contest is running again from June 1 to July 15. Enter at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Hope to get some important articles in the GAN pipeline :). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by review at Talk:The Ghost Inside (album)/GA1

Hey all, I'm a little concerned at the drive-by review for my nomination of the album The Ghost Inside. I finally got a chance to look at it and was dismayed to see that there were only three comments, of which one was vague and unhelpful ("Kind of awkward to read but it's fine") and the other two directly contradict my other album GAs, A Black Mile to the Surface and Painting of a Panic Attack. Namely, on both Black Mile and Painting, critical reviews and commercial response are under a "Reception" head, not split into separate sections, and, more importantly, there are no individual production credits per song. This is because, unlike rap, hip-hop, and pop, rock and metal albums tend to have 1-2 producers for the entire album, not separate writers and producers for each song.

I recognize that for most people, such a quick review would be a breeze, but it feels disingenuous to accept this review as is. I'm sure there are other areas for improvement on the article, as nitpicky as they may be. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 18:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Kncny11 Ask for a second opinion, someone will help. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kncny11: well the thing is...you never actually responded to me on the page. If you disagree with one of my comments you should say that so we could discuss it. That's kind of the whole point. There were only three comments because the article is quite good as written. I can certainly get more nitpicky if you want me to. Is that what you would like? versacespaceleave a message! 11:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: There is some finalisation - for this review - to be undertaken by your good self. See here for some guidance. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Whiteguru: not sure i follow versacespaceleave a message! 11:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: The steps you take to close off a review. You say you have finished on the review page, this is fine. You have to make edits to the talk page to finish this off. Hence the link to the earlier review which suggested how you might proceed. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Whiteguru: isn't it supposed to be on hold though? i've marked it as such on the talk page. versacespaceleave a message! 11:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: We are all going on what you have written: just so you know i've finished this which tells us all that you have finished. If this is not the case, then you need to be clearer. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Whiteguru: finished as in...finished the review. Hence why it's on hold. To allow the nominator to tend to my concerns versacespaceleave a message! 11:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Six nominations from now indef blocked editor

Hello, if a passing admin has a spare fix minutes, please pop round and "un-nominate" all six of CommanderWaterford's nominations as they have just been indef blocked at ANI. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

On a similar note, given the issues raised in that ANI thread, perhaps Margery Wolf should be procedural delisted if that's a thing. Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The Wolf GA is being reassessed here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I confess that I had extreme reservations with regard to this editor's actions (in many places, not just GA. After coming back from an earlier block, this editor had 14,000 edits in three weeks ... ) , and I was not enamoured - particularly with regard to quick fails. Nonetheless, I was aware of the previous block so it was wait, wait, wait. Some leopards never change their spots. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Not an admin but I just removed all these noms. (t · c) buidhe 03:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Did they get closed as failed? I was suggesting their nom pages be deleted so it was as if nothing had happened. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, They were all unreviewed noms without any pages to delete. Unfortunately, it looks like Legobot is down again, as the GAN page has not updated at all today. (t · c) buidhe 06:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, of course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Abandoned review

Hi, the reviewer at Talk:Emmanuël Sérusiaux/GA1 hasn't edited for 5 weeks and it appears as if this review has been abandoned. What's the standard protocol in situations like this? Esculenta (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• See here     --Whiteguru (talk)`
• This has been sorted and passed. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

GA reviews inaccurate number

Hello. According to GA bot, I have reviewed 26 GANs. However, looking through my Talk page contributions, I've reviewed 34 of them (including quickfails). Can my number be updated? I have a list of reviews if someone needs to verify this count. The 34 GANs doesn't include my 1 GA. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You can manually update this at User:GA bot/Stats -- I had to myself once, as the bot isn't always great at quickfails. Vaticidalprophet 17:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but I wanted to ask first. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to adjust out of the blue ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• The above linked list has at least two vanished users on it - one specifically saying so, and the other just had the name redlinked. Should those be removed, and would the bot put them back? — Maile (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

GAN of "Tolkien's legendarium" and GAR of "Women in The Lord of the Rings"

An editor who has made under 100 edits and never carried out a GA review before has taken on the GAN of Tolkien's legendarium as reviewer. The review comments do not seem to me to have anything to do with the GA criteria. Tkbrett has commented on the GA review page. The same editor has immediately and spontaneously (before I replied) launched a GAR of Women in The Lord of the Rings, also seemingly without knowledge of the GA criteria or the meaning of policy terms such as "neutrality" and "original research". I'm not sure how to proceed and would welcome inputs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that an editor has never conducted a GA or how many edits someone has contributed is irrelevant to the process. Everyone has a 1st time for everything. Your request for inputs bordered on a call for Meat Puppetry (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry ), and given the hostile comments left below and on the other article page, your request has seriously derailed a legitimate proposal for discussion. Please refrain from making further personal comments and limit your discussions to the subjects of the proposals.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've incremented the review counter for the Tolkien's legendarium so that you can get another review. (t · c) buidhe 11:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe: many thanks, but do we not need to close the review in some way and explain things to nom so that he is on board with the procedure? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I don't think it's necessary to formally close a GA review. For instance, the increment-and-redo is often used when a reviewer becomes inactive and doesn't respond. For reviewing GAs, the requirement is the same for all editors: to follow the GA criteria when reviewing. I also think it would be beneficial for Michael Martinez to seek out the advice of experienced editors when reviewing GAs. (t · c) buidhe 11:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the not-closed GAN for the next day or two in case anything strange happens. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Closed the GAR as kept. (t · c) buidhe 11:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I realized the above issue have been resolved over the weekend when I was unavailable to comment or contribute to the above discussions, as I had made a lot of edits to one of the articles. It's one thing to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies on the criteria for good article content and the nature of contributions to an article. But I can't help but be disturbed by the casting of aspersions made by Michael Martinez against Chiswick Chap and his uncivil accusations about a "disruptive" editing pattern, several of which were called out by other editors during GAR as blatantly false. I think we need the perspective of an administrator(s) to determine whether his conduct is fit and proper for this project. I should point out that this editor's insistence of a lack of neutrality in the articles where Chiswick Chap is the primary contributor is ironic, as he is also a published author on Tolkien topics as shown on his user page. Instead of starting a civil discussion in the relevant talk pages to articulate his concerns about article content of questionable quality, he made personal attacks against an editor in good standing by attempting to discredit his motivations for contributing to Tolkien subjects on Wikipedia. I wonder whether his grievance is derived from the fact that his writings aren't featured or promoted enough on articles within the Tolkien wikiproject? Either way, his belligerent behavior should at least be addressed and not be excused in my opinion. Haleth (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, Michael Martinez has certainly published on the legendarium; and in 2008 on Talk:Tolkien's legendarium he expressed his personal opinion, which was that all of Wikipedia's coverage of Tolkien at that time was "fannish speculation", a phrase he used 4 times in one paragraph. His writings, although long available to scholars, are rarely cited by them; this may be because of what Colin Duriez wrote in 2003 in his Survey of Tolkien Literature about Martinez, viz that it is a "people's commentary" in a "popular context", and that at that time Martinez had "a loyal following". Duriez writes that "Amid the chatty, hip style are flashes of powerful insight, born out of many attentive readings of the whole corpus of Tolkien's work", giving as example Martinez's discussion of the lack of sharing of knowledge by the Valar and Maiar of the 'forbidden arts' that Sauron taught the Elves for the Rings of Power. Duriez classifies studies of Tolkien into 3 categories, namely "people's commentary" like Martinez's, with basically no citations; commentaries for the general reader, with brief notes and "reduced bibliography"; and "scholarly criticism". He adds that when Martinez does provide references, they are "largely to URLs rather than other books", except for links to Tolkien himself. (Duriez, Colin (2003). "Journal Article Review: Survey of Tolkien Literature". VII: Journal of the Marion E. Wade Center. 20: 105–114. JSTOR 45296990.; quotations are from p. 108.) It seems to me (if an opinion be permitted) a curious reflection on a person who accuses other editors (from 2008 to the present) of original research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I got no further than his user page, formatted like a BLP article and with an acid complaint against Wikipedia's notability policy for removing him. But piece it all together, Martinez looks like a writer who considers himself the authority on Tolkien, but is largely ignored by the academic canon of Tolkien's works and of little note. I would suggest a TBAN, frankly. Kingsif (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears my hunch may be correct then based on my initial impression of the content and tone of his posts, even though I lack Chiswick Chap's insight into the discourse of the world of Tolkien studies. Since it is quite likely that he has decided to return to Wikipedia after extended periods of inactivity to push an agenda within the Tolkien wikiproject rather then build this aspect of the encyclopedia with the rest of us lowly unpublished amateurs in a civil and collegiate manner, I would support the Topic ban proposed by Kingsif, or at the very least a firm warning from an administrator: @Hog Farm: @Carcharoth: Haleth (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, it appears that Mr Martinez has unilaterally reverted your close, hijacked the GAR thread, and labelled your actions as vandalism. There's little doubt in my opinion that his behaviour constitutes WP:NOTHERE. Haleth (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Haleth, Kingsif, Unless this area is under general sanctions or has been the subject of an Arbcom case, it would be necessary to go to ANI (bleh) to get a topic ban. (t · c) buidhe 14:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I'd rather Arbcom than ANI, but while subject experts are usually welcome, those pushing agendas and with a clear ax to grind cannot be productive contributors. If he continues to give his own oversight at the GAR, it needs to be addressed, so ANI it will have to be. Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The above comments are hardly in keeping with Wikipedia's principle of assuming good faith. These articles do not meet criteria for Good Article status and the rushing through of these proposals is serious breach of Wikipedia protocol.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

We stop AGF when you revert admin actions to your own review. And the rest of your comment here is nonsense. Kingsif (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You also have a lot of nerve crying foul over bad faith or personal attacks when your opening salvos against Chiswick Chap across numerous talk pages the past week have been exactly that. Regardless of buidhe's admin status, it is clear to us that you are misusing the GAR and GA review processes to pursue an agenda of content dispute and attempt to steer the Wikiproject's discourse to your particular specifications. As noted, there is an emerging consensus where we all agree that your actions are very ill-advised, and you have already been warned by an administrator. Haleth (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've never seen anything like this in all my years of editing. I can go along with Michael Martinez's GA2, provided it is friendly, unbiased, and in keeping with the intentionally light-touch GA criteria. If not, I'll report back here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(Just seen today's additions to the already-closed GAR) On the GAR, it seems to me that Michael Martinez's action is unacceptable and will require immediate admin action. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm just said he is not free at the moment, and I don't know of any other administrators who take an interest in the Middle Earth wikiproject besides the ones I pinged. If I had been the primary target of the casting of aspersions and incivility as you have, I would not have hesitated reporting him to ANI myself. But it's your call. Haleth (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

SDZeroBot tab

I notice that someone has set up a new tab at the top of the page linked to SDZeroBot's GAN readout and labeled "Nominations [Alt GAN Sorting]".

1. Should SDZeroBot get its own tab?
2. If so, what's a good label for it?

The main distinction between it and the regular GAN page is that 1) SDZeroBot only lists unreviewed nominations and 2) they are annotated with additional information that is not on the regular GAN page. I don't have strong opinions over whether this tab should exist, but if so I think that the current wording is not a concise or easily understood way to label it, and suggest something like "Unreviewed nominations". (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Prhartcom made this change earlier today without any kind of consensus or discussion.[1] (t · c) buidhe 04:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by good article nominations

Earlier discussions: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 24#List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles?, Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 24#List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles, as of 17 November 2020

Opened a bot task approval request for this at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 11. – SD0001 (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice -- it's a popular idea, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Vaticidalprophet 16:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Bot task was approved. Link just turned blue. You can see the list of GAs attributed to a given user using https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans. (The bot considers the nominator to be the person who added {{GA nominee}} to the talk page. In rare cases, this may not give the right nominator – such as when the template is re-added to get a new review after a previous review was considered invalid. If you find any misattributions due to reasons like this, please use the table on the talk page.) – SD0001 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice, nice. Just made the WP:WBGAN redirect to match WP:WBFAN. I'm four short of the bottom of the top-500 list, but it'll be three short soon, and it's just a matter of time from there. Vaticidalprophet 23:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The same issue as at FAN, this is the number of successful GANs, not GANs in total. Otherwise, this is fantastic work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice work. However, I see that I come out with 288 (successful) GANs; it seems that not only does it (very reasonably) not count unsuccessful ones (so "Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by good article nominations" would seem to be mistitled?), but per User:Chiswick Chap/Good articles I think I have around 344 successful GAs, not counting those that made it to FA but which obviously had got through GAN before that, not sure whether that affects your count? - if you included those it'd be 359... The discrepancy might be historical, i.e. you may not be counting GAs before a certain date? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I've just found one of the offending items: Sea Urchin. The prickly beast was co-nominated, and on that occasion I wasn't the nominating author, so it seems the list may not include co-noms either. Probably accounts for much of the discrepancy in totals. It would be lovely if co-nominations could be included in the listing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've got 150 GAs documented at User:Ritchie333/GA, but the tool only reports 148. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The 148 vs 150 difference is rather expected, but 288 vs 344 is quite concerning and I'll look into this. As for co-noms, in case of FAs and DYKs, all nominators are identified on the nomination page, but unfortunately this isn't done for GANs. So there's just about no way any script/bot can detect co-noms. Going forward, I'd suggest having it done for GAs as well for better record-keeping. – SD0001 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I expect that the co-nom issue explains most if not all of the discrepancy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Very cool list, thank you for putting it together! Part of the discrepancies appear to be attributable to the bot not counting good articles that have subsequently become featured articles. For instance, I'm listed with 18 GAs. This is the correct number of current GAs, but there are another 15 articles which I nominated here, and then subsequently successfully nominated at FAC. As such, I think a more accurate tally would be 33. (Or 34, since I also have one pending nomination here; but I understand the sense in not counting unreviewed nominations.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I've made a change to the algorithm so that now the bot will try to parse the nom's signature from the {{GA nominee}} template rather than try to find the user who added the template. With this approach, talk pages were the template was removed and later re-added get correctly attributed. @Chiswick Chap's tally went up to 294, rest of the difference seems to be due to the co-nom issue (looks like you are prolific collaborator with Cwmhiraeth!). – SD0001 (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That's very good of you. I think the rest of the discrepancy is a combination of a) co-nomination - if you can parse one signature, maybe you can parse a second one? and b) GAs that went on to become FAs, it seems a pity not to count those also but it would require parsing the history from the article's talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Review request

I currently have two GANs, Politics of the Philippines and Political history of the Philippines. The upcoming 4 July represents the 75th anniversary of Philippine independence (although for quite interesting reasons it is not celebrated as such, 12 June is), so I thought it might be nice to list an interesting fact from them at DYK on that day. I didn't plan to finish around these dates (if I did I might have aimed for the 12 June date), but since the timing ended up as it has, I thought it would be worth mentioning here in case anyone was interested in reviewing one of them. Best, CMD (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Garry Kasparov

This article was passed as a GA by EasyTitle19 just now, this version, after a quick pass review with no real feedback (Talk:Garry Kasparov/GA1). There are entire unsourced paragraphs in the article, I just added 42 {{cn}} tags. And I see at least one unresolved dead link, too. EasyTitle19 has a total of 22 edits, all of them today. I think we need to disqualify that review. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

According to my review of the article against the Good Article criteria, it seemed to meet all the points. And I took my time with the review to make sure I understood what each criteria calls for. EasyTitle19 (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As a page watcher of the Kasparov article I agree with Muboshgu, I am sure EasyTitle19 reviewed it in good faith but I think EasyTitle19 needs to further familiarise themselves with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines before continuing reviewing as EasyTitle19 is a new user. Have a look of the cn tags applied by Muboshgu, articles need to have reliable sourcing cited to statements in the article, for example: Kasparov's win as Black in the 16th game has been recognized as one of the all-time masterpieces in chess history. This claim for example absolutely needs a reliable secondary source cited here. See WP:V, WP:RS and GA crieria 2 (Verifiable with no original research). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

EasyTitle19, the timestamps of when you accepted the review and passed the article are less than three hours apart, and this is an article with 57 kb readable prose. That's a lot of prose to review in that short of a time. There's no way any editor could review that article thoroughly in that period of time. I suggest you reopen the review and give it a deeper look, or perhaps allow someone with more experience to review it if you think it's too much. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

In light of this conversation and rereading the article, I realize now that I was probably too hasty with my review and promotion yesterday. I'd like to be involved in this process but maybe I need to start with shorter articles and really read them carefully. And I think having someone else review this article might be a good idea. How do I reopen the review and ask someone else to review it? And do I have to "demote" the article until after the second review? EasyTitle19 (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

EasyTitle19 has now been indefinitely blocked as a sock.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Garry Kasparov/GA1 has now been G5'd, I've removed the GA template from the article, and I've restored the open nomination tag to the talk page. Perhaps an easy one to take on, if there are multiple opinions that the article is not GA ready. CMD (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I've done a GA review now. It's an immediate fail on prose grounds as well as on lack of cites. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

They have also nominated World Chess Championship 2014 despite having no involvement in that article. Obviously they will not be able to participate in a review if it is taken up.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed, no review had been started so it was just the tag. CMD (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed Garry Kaparov listing at Recent GAs page and Sports and recreation page [2] [3]. Are there any other pages or counters/categories that need adjusting now? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all! – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

James Mueller (mayor)

James Mueller (mayor), at some point, was taken off of "Good Article Nominations" list, or had somehow failed to be ever added by the bot. It should be listed. SecretName101 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

SecretName101, this is because you put the template inside the WikiProject shell banner. Per the instructions, always put the template at the very top of the talk page. (The bot is very finicky, for reasons beyond my understanding.) I've fixed this; the bot has now added the article to the list. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Can I start a review?

I guess I've been lurking around Wikipedia, mainly editing as an IP when I have time to kill. Just created an account (3 or so days ago; not sure exactly when), and I understand all of the different criteria (^see above)

Should I wait a bit longer before reviewing or can I already start (the backlog is pretty huge, so I kind of want to start before the July drive)? Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Card Carrying Parrot, you should feel free to dive in. I would just recommend tackling a shorter article first, to ease yourself into it. If you have any questions or want to solicit extra feedback as you're going through it, you can post them here. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Would you recommend I take a look at successful GA nominations (and then judge based on those) + the criteria? Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Card Carrying Parrot, I would just start with any article you're interested in, although it would likely be easier to start with a shorter article. I (or other editors on the mentoring list) would be happy to look over your first review if you'd like. (t · c) buidhe 00:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I'll probably find something a bit older, within my interests, and one that is fairly easy to review (in terms of length). Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Tom Brady

Sometimes we need to deflate an editor's over enthusiasm

A user named Modern NFL Historian has attempted to nominate Tom Brady for GA-status three times, despite not being a major contributor to the article, has few edits to their name and hasn't edited in almost a year. The user even asked a fellow football aficionado to nominate the article and in return, would help him during the editing process and get some advice during said process, before going on to nominate the article three hours after sending that message [4]. DepressedPer (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Just revert it per GAN instructions. (t · c) buidhe 05:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe I have done that the previous times (even leaving a message after each reedit) and I'm certain it will happen again, and even a DM on their talk page will go ignored and they will do it again. DepressedPer (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@DepressedPer: What do you mean, even leaving a message after each reedit? I can't see any messages from you on that talk page (ever, for that matter), and as you say, you haven't discussed it with them on their own talk either. I've alerted them wrt to edit warring; while you, of course, don't need the template, it's probably worth a gentle reminder that reverting a misplaced GAN is not an exemption to the rules on edit-warring. Be mindful. ——Serial 12:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 The view history of the talk page is where I left a message for the user to see. DepressedPer (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, an edit summary. No replacement for good old fashioned communication I'm afraid; the problem is, one can never be sure that another party has actually seen it! Per WP:REVTALK: Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content... This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!. So remember: talk pages are to discuss the page in question (e.g., whether there shou;d be a GAN template on it), and user talk pages are for notifying other users that they may be edit-warring over aforesaid GAN templates. All the best! ——Serial 19:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Metroid Dread - GA

For those unfamiliar: Metroid Dread was previously a rumoured game in the said franchise. Emphasis on was, as Nintendo just announced it to be released this year. I bring this to your attention as our article is GA. However with it soon to be released I wonder how that status shall be. Should we leave it unchanged, revoke it due to imminent expansion or schedule a reassessment? I previously don't feel strongly either way. Thanks, anyway. DMT biscuit (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Just demote it on the day of release as by the failing criterion 3A. In fact, I'm kind of surprised to find it passed in spite of that in the first place, but.——Serial 16:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@DMT Biscuit: Apologies if I acted rashly, but I've started a GAR about it. I was the one who passed it initially in 2016, so the fact it's causing this problem at all is partially on me. First time I've tried this, so I may have messed up somewhere. I thought it the proper thing to do considering. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: No need for apology, the ostensible blitz spirit of Wikipedia is rashness. And this is all uncharted water for us - very likely being the first occurrence. At least the article has a good foundation. DMT biscuit (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Demoting an article immediately on release seems a bit drastic to me. We have a grace period for Good Topics which seem like a similar deal to this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you demote it now as having been promoted in error, rather than wait until the game is released in nearly four months? Then, after the game has been released (assuming it does get released per the announcement) and the article updated to reflect the actual game and reviews of it and revenues, etc., a new GAN could be made. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It was promoted five years ago, so I don't think this was an error. It's an interesting question about what happens when the scope of an article significantly changes. The GAR seems to be trending heavily towards delist. CMD (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't an error. Unreleased games can be GAs or even FAs. It's just that the game was thought to never be released, and now is going to be released. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A replacement for Legobot, and a call for feature requests

Hello all,

Given that Legoktm has said that they would prefer not to do any feature or non-critical bugfix work relating to Legobot's GA(N) maintenance tasks, I think it's time we replaced the bot with a new one. This is in no way a criticism of Legoktm, who has diligently kept the bot running for years.

I have (mostly) reimplemented Legobot's GAN tasks, and am getting ready to run some live userspace tests as the first step on the path to BRFA. Alongside this I wanted to consult with those involved in the GA process to (a) ensure that I've not missed any potential bugs, and (b) assess any feature requests we may have for the new bot. For instance, I'm aware that there may be a desire to reshuffle the nomination categories that has been blocked as depending on ensuring the bot can handle them properly. My initial thought is to run this task under a discrete account rather than one of my FireflyBots, purely so that it's easier to add other maintainers to the project, and the edits made by the bot are clearly signposted as GAN-related. If people feel this is unnecessary or undesirable, that is fine, I can run it under FireflyBot. I intend to have a Phabricator project for the task either way, so the community can file bugs and feature requests after the initial specification-gathering/approval period.

In the interests of keeping things clear and ensuring I don't miss anything, I would ask that bugs, feature requests and general comments go in whichever section you feel is best below. Thanks for your thoughts, firefly ( t · c ) 13:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Bugs

• Bot parses an old {{FailedGA}} and a new {{GA}}/{{GA nominee}} template on a Talk page incorrectly.
  •  Fixed

• Bot expects subtopics to be capitalised exactly as in the documentation and chokes otherwise.
  •  Fixed

• Bot expects all fields to be present in GA nominee template, and chokes otherwise. Could bot add in a missing field, typically |status= or |note=, rather than choke? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC) (Belated correction: the |time= field is optional and almost never used by reviewers, so it should not be added in by the bot; it is not included when the {{GAN}} template is substituted to create the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC))

• When the bot gives its Edit summary on the WP:GAN page, it should not list those entries where the only change is to the number of reviews, since that isn't a real change. For example, in this one, the only new review is for Get Carter, but there is an enormous Edit summary list. The only changes should be New, On review, On hold, 2nd opinion (which is not currently listed), Passed, and Failed, plus a "Miscellaneous" when there is some sort of change that isn't any of the above, so there is something in the Edit summary. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• If the bot chokes on a new review and doesn't list it, it frequently increments the reviewer's review number anyway. The number shouldn't be incremented if the review isn't listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Bot will sometimes list a nomination as having Failed, and notify the nominator on their talk page that this happened (also include it in the WP:GAN edit summary), when what actually happened was that the nomination was removed—either withdrawn or reverted. This should not be considered a failure. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• A nomination field in GA nominee is not considered complete unless there is a link to the nominator's talk page (for bot notifications, etc.): the /Report notes this as an issue, and perhaps the bot should as well? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Feature requests

• Various changes to subtopic categorisation - this may require wider discussion, and I am entirely happy to tweak the bot to handle new subtopics on an ongoing basis. Ideally this config would be stored on-wiki (e.g. in a JSON file) so that those with suitable permissions (e.g. IAdmin) can just edit it without any code change required. That is the model I'm currently working with. Personally I would recommend this be done using subpages, but I am aware that this may prevent people from easily watching for new GA nominations (do people do this - I don't know?).
  • That's a great idea. The main change I would suggest is separating art and architecture into separate sections, as it's currently one of the the longest sections on the GAN page. (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• The request that was most recently made (though years back now) was to have the GAN page mirror the subtopics on the WP:GA page. That wasn't possible; indeed, we haven't had a new subtopic in many years. Making this change would also make it easier when the reviewer goes to add a listed article to the proper subtopic area at GA. "Art" and "Architecture" are already subtopics at GA, and I agree with buidhe that the topic should have the two subtopics here at GAN. Sports and recreation has long been incredibly long (it's almost twice as long as Art and architecture) with no subtopics, and splitting it into the nine subtopics used at GA would be very helpful. It probably makes sense to have the list of subtopics editable by admins rather than hardcoded; it might allow the subtopics (and topics as well) to have allowable variations in spelling, capitalization and abbreviation. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Collect user talk page messages under one section heading. Prolific GA editors' talk pages are quite a mess, and if it's not too difficult it would be an improvement if the new bot would use subsections for follow-up messages about a single GA. (So 'start review', 'on hold' and hopefully 'pass' would all be under one section). FemkeMilene (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  Femkemilene, this should be possible. Might be worth giving users an opt-out - not sure. firefly ( t · c ) 15:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

General discussion

• Those bug fixes are extremely welcome. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)It's been brought up before as a bug, but currently, if you open a GAN review, and then close the review quickly (in between Legobot updates), it does not update the review counter. I'm not sure of the solution to this, as it's a little difficult to realise something being closed as failed/passed, or being removed from the talk page. Might be worth looking into.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Noted - thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 16:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    • This is a multi-layered thing: sometimes the unreviewed nomination disappears between bot runs because it's been removed/withdrawn prior to review, and sometimes because it's been reviewed and immediately failed or immediately passed between bot runs, which means the reviewer should have removed the GA nominee template and replaced it with a GA or FailedGA template. This should result in a notification to the nominator's talk page, but the bot doesn't always notice, particularly when the pass or fail is added to an existing or new Article history template, which is another way the bot might not know that something actually happened. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Good call on using a separate bot account (though a phab project seems overkill?). Feel free to add me as co-maintainer if you're looking for one. I'm familiar with python (which I presume is what you're using) and have done bot work involving GAs (WP:GANSORT & WP:WBGAN). – SD0001 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • A phab project may well be overkill - I suppose we can have bugs filed on the bot's talk page. I was just thinking that if we had multiple maintainers (thank you for volunteering - I shall add you to the tool account, the bot is indeed written in python+pywikibot+mwparserfromhell) a phab may assist with keeping track of things, but I am probably overestimating the number of issues! firefly ( t · c )
    • Just on the off-chance this is helpful – wanted to note that the (publicly visible) s54328__goodarticles_p database on toolforge has the nominator name and promotion date for every current GA, and it's updated in real-time (used for WP:WBGAN). – SD0001 (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks so much for your work on revamping our bots! (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you so much for your work! Would a proper way to handle co nominations be possible? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Eddie891: Possibly - we could add a second parameter to the template for that. firefly ( t · c ) 13:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• firefly, thank you for taking this on. There have been past discussions on both this page and the Bot request board when we've previously tried to fid someone to take over from Legoktm, who stepped in to keep the bot functionality running when the previous bot owner retired (and they'd taken over from the original bot writer, so it wasn't their code to begin with). I was wondering whether you'd be keeping a subpage where errors would be reported—issues with GA nominee templates, for example, or with parsing review pages—reviewers sometimes mess with the top portion of the page so the bot can't parse it for reviewer information, and while those problems sometimes show up on the daily Report page, generated by WugBot, it would be helpful to have a page we can add to our watchlist that gets added to when there's a problem that could be fixed by manual intervention. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: yes, I can absolutely have the bot log errors somewhere for us (or just me!) to fix. firefly ( t · c ) 13:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Add me to the choir of people happy to see this work. One of the issues occasionally coming up with the old bot was odd hiccups involving nominations for articles whose titles used a nonstandard character set; see as an example this pair of diffs, where the second diff is the hiccup (note the mojibake in the article title and the incorrect notification that a nomination had failed). This seems unlikely to be problematic for modern methods of coding involving strings, but still, It might be worth making sure some examples of this are included in your test set. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @David Eppstein: Thanks, will definitely have some non-ASCII titles in the test sets. firefly ( t · c ) 13:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• I've been talking about this with Firefly offwiki (I might like to take a little credit for giving him the idea...) and am happy to see this come to the point of announcement. I've been feeding him suggestions, such as the prior-mentioned subtopic division (we've discussed e.g. rendering "Biology and medicine" as separate "Biology" and "Medicine" topics -- it feels a little odd to have a mix of birds and genetic disorders). I'm looking forward to seeing this go. Vaticidalprophet 05:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Vaticidalprophet: Haha, I suppose you did! Perhaps you could draft a new improved list of subtopics for people to consider here? firefly ( t · c ) 13:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • firefly, Vaticidalprophet, as I noted in the Feature requests section above, rather than come up with our own subtopic divisions, I think it would be better if we followed the the GA subtopics, which are the divisions we have to use when the articles needed to be listed/added there after passage. If dividing Biology and Medicine seems a good idea, it makes sense that it should be done for GA in general, rather than just the nominations. A note on the WT:GA page is probably the best place to start for any desired further adjustments to the current subtopics there. (Topics which have more/different subtopics at GA compared to GAN are Art and architecture, Music, Philosophy and religion, Sports and recreation, and Warfare.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

      BlueMoonset, that seems eminently sensible. I can start that discussion at WT:GA if you wish. firefly ( t · c ) 18:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks all for your ideas and suggestions - I'll finalise the code and we can then run some userspace tests for "acceptance testing". firefly ( t · c ) 13:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Interesting confusion. Bot has promoted the wrong article to [5] ... the article promoted is Tolkien's Legendarium: Essays on The History of Middle-earth; bot should have promoted Tolkien's legendarium. Confusing, no? --Whiteguru (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

    Whiteguru, that's a different bot (LivingBot), and what it seems to have done is add Tolkien's Legendarium (capital L) rather than Tolkien's legendarium (lower case L). The former redirects to the article you mention. I'm not sure how the title got mangled along the way, but more pertinently I don't think we should have an alternate capitalisation go somewhere completely different, and so have redirected it to Tolkien's legendarium. firefly ( t · c ) 07:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

    Firefly, thanks for your courtesy in reply here. I didn't make the distinction and assumed Legobot did all the hard labour here. Thanks for your help.

David Duke 1988 presidential campaign - GAN

I have reviewed David Duke 1988 presidential campaign. As it is my first GA review, I have requested for a second opinion particularly for Grammar and MOS, and also to specify if I missed something. Although the Review is on hold as I recently gave my second set of comments, I would appreciate if any other reviewer can take a look and suggest. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll take care of this. (t · c) buidhe 05:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

July backlog drive?

(Update: See WP:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021)

There are currently 514 nominations, 429 of which are unreviewed. In the two months since the March backlog drive ended, then, we've lost almost exactly half of the gains from the drive; at this rate, by the end of July we'll be back to where we started. How does a July 1 to July 31 backlog drive sound? Perhaps we could work in a point-based system (rather than the current one article = one point) to incentivize reviews of older and longer articles. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Count me in. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Why not, people love a competition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thirding. I need to get back into reviews. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. I'd probably be up for helping coordinate it. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

As for points per size/age of nom, I'm good with that too. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear there's interest. Buidhe, thanks for offering to help coordinate it. I can help to at least set it up, and, time permitting, help coordinate it also. Harrias, Eddie891, Lee Vilenski, and BlueMoonset, given your previous help in the previous backlog drives, any interest (and capacity) to help out again?

As for scoring, how about something like one point per review, plus an extra point per every 100,000 bytes worth of articles reviewed, plus half a point for every old (90+ days) nomination reviewed? With quickfails capped at one point total. So if I reviewed a 75,000 byte article that was nominated 100 days ago, and a 25,000 byte article that was nominated 10 days ago, I would receive 3.5 points (2 articles = 2 points, plus 1 point for 100,000 bytes, plus .5 points for the review of the old nomination). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That seems feasible, but is the bytes prose size or total article volume? Would make more sense to count prose size. (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It would have to be prose size – total article size is a fairly meaningless figure. The GOCE gives extra credit in their drives for articles longer than 5000 words: that would seem to be a reasonable (and pretty easy to implement) threshold. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The thinking behind total article volume was primarily that a) a good-article review entails looking at sources (which are responsible for much of the non-prose-related article size) as well as prose, and b) determining the number is straight forward. But I'm happy to base it by prose, if others think that best—we'd just need to come up with a cumulative prose size (number of words?) that equals a point. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, will be around helping out before and after, but I'm out of town for most of July and off-wiki for about two of those weeks, so not in a great spot to formally co-ordinate. Echoing sentiments I've expressed in the past that a better solution than drives should be sought, but I don't have any better ideas atm. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help out - although for various reasons I'm on a semi-wikibreak, so I'm unlikely to offer much in terms of reviews. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy to continue helping with the Progress section. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. More broadly, I think it would be great to schedule these once every four to six months. As for scoring, it would probably be good to award points based on age and prose size, though I fear smaller pages might get overlooked in that case. Epicgenius (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The backlog page is now live, at WP:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021. It still has a number of placeholders, in particular:

• It still needs instructions for how an article's word count is calculated
• It still needs the number of points needed to qualify for most of the barnstars
• I'm open to suggestions for changing the "running total" setup, in case my version is deemed too complicated

--Usernameunique (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Signed myself up. Thoughts on those points: is there any particular reason not to use the same points-per-barnstar as we had reviews-per-barnstar last round? Vaticidalprophet 01:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm in. jp×g 02:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, the reason is that this time, the same number of base points will be awarded (1 review = 1 point), but there will be additional "bonus" points. So 50 reviews would equal 50 points in the last drive, but 50 reviews might equal 75 points in this drive. Thus, to the extent barnstars provide motivation, it makes sense to raise the benchmarks slightly. My general sense is that it would make sense to raise them by about 25%, but I'm open to other ideas too. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be worth running this with points = reviews last round and seeing if the distribution of barnstars changes sharply (I'd be happy to run the stats) before realigning. As it stands, we don't know yet what impact the points have on what people review, and so we don't know how to translate those numbers. Vaticidalprophet 03:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, I agree. Would you mind running the stats, namely the number of prose words per article? Or even just a subset would work, since it would probably be a lot of work to run it for all articles. That should give us a sense of both how many words it should take to get an extra point, and how many points it should take to get each barnstar. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I ran the numbers for twenty randomly selected articles in the March drive. (Selection method: I put them all in a list, had random.org randomise the list, and picked the twenty at the top.) I used Prosesize to calculate the current length of the articles -- some could have been expanded or contracted significantly in the intervening period, but I sanity-checked a couple for it and didn't find any reason to suspect my numbers would be systematically off. In this sample, I found a median length of 1805 words with an interquartile range of 1445 (25th percentile) to 4255 (75th percentile). The mean was quite a bit bigger than the median due to the effect of one particularly long article, at 2584 words. The total range was from 693 words (Charles A. Cheever) to 8094 words (2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)) -- the latter being over three thousand words longer than the next longest article, with no other articles in the sample being above 5000 words. From the totally unscientific method of "looking at the full list", I think my sample may underrepresent articles that were failed during the drive -- not sure what effect that'd have, but worth noting the shortest article was a quickfail. The next decision from here is, I suppose, how often we want people to get bonus points; I'm no GOCE expert, but I do their drives when they run, and I have the impression very few participants get the 5k words bonuses. Vaticidalprophet 23:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Thanks, Vaticidalprophet, that’s very helpful—and I wasn't aware of prosesize, so that solves the issue of how to calculate the number of words per article. Given that the average (however defined) is in the ballpark of 2,000 words, how about awarding an extra point per every 4,000 words, and upping the points by 150% (from 2 reviews for the first barnstar to 3 points, etc.)? I think that would provide a decent incentive to review larger articles, given that it would take only two average-sized articles (or one particularly large article) to get an extra point. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable for the lower barnstars, although I worry for the higher ones it may result in unreachably high point totals compared to last round (although few people went for the higher ones in the first place). Bumping Multiple GA Barnstar from 20 to 30, for instance, sounds like a much bigger increase in the workload required to get it than bumping Invisible from 2 to 3. (There's also the matter that they're not all simple round numbers that get a nice-looking 1.5x.) Vaticidalprophet 23:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, fair enough. How about 3/7/15/20/30/40/60? Although that retains the 20->30 bump, it doesn't have such large gaps between the numbers. Also open to other suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

(Quick note: I have WT:GAN watchlisted and so don't need pings.) That scale sounds mostly fine, although I might round 7.5 up rather than down. The higher barnstars are a bit tricky no matter what -- I might be inclined to stick Multiple GA at 25, Medal of Merit at 35, and keep Superior Scribe where it is (because, well, if you're doing 50 reviews...). Few reviewers get up to those levels -- by my count, only four people reviewed 25+ articles in March. This does open the possibility we end up with a slightly absurd level of people getting high-tier barnstars. The Rambling Man, as "the guy who we all know in advance is going to win this", do you have any thoughts on how to best align the upper-tier categories? Vaticidalprophet 02:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have too many bright ideas here. The only way to gauge it properly would be to retrospectively apply the new scoring proposals to the last competition and see what the results are. I definitely think bonus points for "article under review length" and "age of nomination" should be considered but I'm not too troubled by it, it's still supposed to be for fun. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Notifications

I've added the drive to the tab header, to give ample notice to anyone who visits the nominations page. In addition, what are good ways to raise awareness of the drive? Some ideas are:

• Send a notice to previous good-article reviewers, say everyone on this list with 2+ reviews. Does anyone know how to automate such a notice?
• Is there a way to advertise this on the watch pages of registered users?
• Mention this on discussion pages of other projects, e.g., WikiCup and FAC—although I suspect many of the people who regularly check those pages frequent this page also. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be very concerned about #1 and #2 working out to spamming uninterested people, and for the latter in particular possibly attracting people who don't really know how to do GANs. Vaticidalprophet 02:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Obviously we don't want to send users unwanted notifications, but to be fair, people who have already reviewed multiple good-article nominations are perhaps the least likely to consider a notification of the backlog drive to be "spam." Also, we all started with the same number of good-article reviews: zero. Soliciting new reviewers means that some reviews will likely end up being questionable, but I think the benefit—getting more users involved here—significantly outweighs that harm. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, you previously mentioned that you could help mass message users about a backlog drive. Would you be able to help out and do the same for this one, using the list of all users with 2 or more reviews? And any ideas for other methods of notification? Looking at this page's archived discussions, I see other methods have been to post on the village pump and the community bulletin board. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: I am happy to send out a mass message but sending it out to 2+ reviews - which might include 2 reviews years and years ago - is too broad of a group. If a more targeted list can be put together (and ideally the desired message written) I am happy to press the buttons. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Barkeep49. What about all users that both a) have 2+ reviews and b) have edited in 2021? If that works, I'll slog through the list to refine it—just let me know what the best format would be for the list (Excel?). --Usernameunique (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think last time, we sent notifications to everyone on this list, plus everyone who participated in the most recent backlog drive. That at least ensures that the notifications are only being sent to those who are interested. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

While spam isn't ideal, I don't understand the hesitation about attracting new reviewers. Surely a backlog drive is one of the best times to do this, as all reviews will be looked over by the drive overseers? CMD (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. And if notifications are sent to only a select group of people, there likely will be significant selection bias. It's very likely that many (or most) of the people who are on the list of people who want to receive good-article newsletters, for instance, are already watching this page and thus aware of the backlog drive. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The worry is about the sheer amount of work bad reviews can produce for GAN, multiplied over a large body of people working in great numbers. It's good to attract new blood, but doing so poorly is actively counterproductive and gives people a poor impression of the process; if large numbers of people find their reviews not counting towards points, or having to be completely redone from scratch, they'll come away soured about reviewing at all. It also causes problems for the nominators, as they finally get reviews after waiting and then have to be put back in the queue. Vaticidalprophet 02:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

If that's true—and I don't think it is—then the good news is that the proposed mass notification would target those who have already completed two or more good-article reviews. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

General question

I've got a general question about GA reviews. I've never done one myself so perhaps I'm just not too familiar with how it's usually done. Is it necessary to transclude the entire review on the article's talk page in an editable format? The example I'm thinking of is Talk:Jacinda Ardern/GA1 and Talk:Jacinda Ardern. Someone more unfamiliar with the GA process than even me, might not realize that what's posted on that talk page is actually transcluded from the GA1 page; so, they mistakenly might try to edit the review or add their own comments to the review. This might particularly be the case when a article has be PP'd for some reason and new or unregistered accounts are thus required to make edit requests on the article talk page. I came across this article via WP:THQ#Edit request: Death Threat (permalink) where one such editor tried to post an edit request for the article at the Teahouse. If the review needs to be transcluded on the the article's talk page, then maybe it would be better to do so in a way in which the content of the review cannot be edited like is done with template documentation pages on the actual template page. It seems that one section title "GA review" for the entire review would be preferable to 30 sections, each of which can be individually edited. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If I understand the issue you are highlighting, the solution is to add archive tags to the review when you finish. See these examples (tags added to the review page, not the talk page): [6] [7]. Hopefully I've answered your question! Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reponse Goldsztajn. I didn't conduct the GA review of Jacinda Ardern; I just noticed it transcluded onto the article's talk page in a way that seemed unusual compared to other template transclusions I've seen. Can anyone add the archive tags you mention of should it be the actual reviewer (@Whiteguru)? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly Feel free to be WP:BOLD :) I see now what you mean with the review, this is a product of the reviewer using multiple subheadings in the review. Adding the archive tags will help deal with the problem you highlight. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: I tried your suggestion and it did archive the thread; however, the individual sections for the review at Talk:Jacinda Ardern#GA Review are still active and can be edited. Most likely that's due to the multiple subheadings the reveiwer used. I think that's probably not a good thing since someone can still edit it and noticed that the reviewer did use a table like you did. Maybe there's nothing that can be done about this at this point, but it seems like a bad idea to have a TOC for an article talk page bloated with 30 subsection heading when one for the GA review would more than suffice. It also seems like a bad idea to have all of these 29 extra heading "active" so that they can be edited by any editor (even by mistake) who might not understand what the section is about and thinks it's an ongoing discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, from my experience, what you mention is not really an issue; aside from the fact that everything in Wikipedia can be reverted, new users seem far more likely to make mistaken edits in article space, not talk space. Page protection would be overkill and there's no evidence that this is a problem (so not an option) ... perhaps a code could be patched to solve this, but is something actually broken? Of course, knowing how things can work around here ... it will now emerge as a problem! Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair point Goldsztajn. I did ask someone who's quite familiar with templates to take a look just in case there's a simple fix, but things are probably fine as is. Thanks again for your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added an article history section to the page, which moves the GA review off the talk page and supplies a link. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Whiteguru. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Prosesize

Do I need to install Prosesize if I'm taking part in the backlog drive? I am slightly confused. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• REDMAN 2019, that would be easiest. Thankfully, it's easy to install: just select it at the "Browsing" section of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, and click save. Once you do so, you will see a link on the left side of each page which says "Page size." Clicking on this activates Prosesize. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique Thanks! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump GAN

Could someone take another look at Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump? it was passed at GAN, but I see some issues. There are uncited parts in the Trump counsel and Question-and-answer sessions sections. The article also has with 2 non-primary source needed tags and 2 expansion tags. Based on the review here by a newer reviewer, I believe this article wasn't thoroughly checked, especially with verification/broadness. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• I had a look at it yesterday and I felt that it was close to a drive-by review done by someone sympathetic to 46, shall we say. I might even go beyond sympathetic to sycophant. It is a glib review and if you are uncomfortable with the article having GA status, you are free to add the {{GAR}} tag to the very top of the talk page. Nothing wrong with doing that. Any editor is at liberty to apply that tag. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• @The free random article and Vesper flying chrysanthemum have been vandalizing Wikipedia. Today, Vesper flying chrysanthemum passed the Trump impeachment GAN and nominated Tom Vasel for GA, having made no edits to the article. "The free random article" then passed the GAN of Tom Vasel without a proper review, so I think these accounts might be related. A temporary ban and a GAR would probably do the trick. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Whiteguru: @Some Dude From North Carolina: I see this user who pass the GAN opened a semi-GAR minutes before I opened the GAR for this article. So, what should I do now? Keep the GAR open? Or close it as this user has stated it fails grammar and stability, neither of which I mentioned in the GAR. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Close Talk:Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump/GA2 since that's not a valid place for a GAR. I would even nominate it for deletion. Your subpage is where the discussion should take place. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: I concur with User:Some Dude From North Carolina; might be best to wait and see. The community is likely to revoke the initial review. See the Community Reassessment talk. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Italicizing website names

Quick question. Is someone able to point me in the right direction to a MOS link somewhere, about whether it is essential to italicize website names? And, should it matter for GA reviews if websites are not italicized but print media or magazines otherwise are? Haleth (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Haleth, I would say that GAN is supposed to be a lightweight process and I wouldn't fail one because of differences in italicization. MOS:ITALICS doesn't discuss this issue, but personally I only would italicize a website if independent sources did, which can vary. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The prevailing consensus is apparently 'yes', as expressed by MOS:ITALICWEBCITE and WP:CITALICSRFC, and there is a bot now running that makes such changes to existing articles, see User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_25#Publisher/work. I don't like it myself - I cite according to the formatting of article on the source, so The Guardian but BBC News. In any case, for the GAN process, I figure the editor who did all the way should be able to get their way on minor stylistic stuff like this. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The only reference formatting requirement mentioned on WP:GACR is MOS:REFERENCES, which merely states that the citation method should be consistent within the article. The citation has to be verifiable, which means a bit of information is needed (eg. a common interpretation seems to be that a bare url is not enough), but whether or not to use italics is clearly beyond that need. My personal reading is that GACR doesn't even require page numbers, although I've sometimes made a note that they would be nice. CMD (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we don't require italicising. Page numbers are often necessary though. I don't think we could expect a reviewer to flick through hundreds of pages of a book to verify a source. Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not says Page numbers (or similar details) are only needed when the inline citation concerns one of the above five types of statement and it would be difficult for the reader to find the location in the source without a page number (or similar detail). which probably sums it up. Aircorn (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Arab Christians GAN

Hi! I was browsing GA nominations and spotted Arab Christians which has a merger proposal tag on. It appears that three other editors have supported the idea on the article talk page - including the nominator - without any opposition - since March. Moreover the merge proposal (and nominator's support) predates the GAN. The nomination is not under review at this point, but the situation may be puzzling to potential reviewers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The article in question was a stub with zero inline citations, so I have boldly redirected it and left a note on the merge discussion to this effect. CMD (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hey! Do you want to reviews these article I have expanded: Hajipur , so I will be really grateful if you can so. Thank you! ItsSkV08 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Be Best GAN

Hello. Should the GAN of Be Best be reverted? This is the same user who quickpassed Talk:Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump/GA1 per the discussion above. They also have an open SPI on them as well. Pinging @Colin M: as well as they've just opened the GAN review for Be Best. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should deny someone's ability to nominate articles for GA because they've done poor GA reviews. But it probably does make sense to put this review on hold until the SPI concludes. If the result of the investigation is that the nominator is banned, I think it's worth checking to see if there are any other contributors to the article who would be willing to be the main point of contact for the review. Colin M (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Good suggestion! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the nominator has officially been b&. If anyone cares to take their place, now's your chance! Colin M (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic

hi, I have a quick question Im interested in taking this article to GA (Im principle author[8]) is the article stable enough at this point?...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think 'stability' is a complicated question for an article like COVID. There's enough settled that I don't think it would quickfail at this point, but I don't think the stability exists for it to truly be a GA yet and won't for a while. I'm broadly on the more conservative end of stability interpretations (I think we should be a lot more cautious to nominate high-profile/controversial BLPs than we are), but I wouldn't touch it. GAN and FAC in general are at their best when assessing things that have happened and are now thoroughly in the past, rather than things actively happening, even though we have plenty of GAs and FAs for the latter. (I suspect current events are overrepresented amongst the substandard GAs that would be caught in a sweep.) Vaticidalprophet 16:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

yes, I see your point, in that case I will therefore wait, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that interpretation of stability is way too conservative. There are no ongoing edit wars and the article needs updating on a weekly/monthtly basis, rather than daily. Given the benefits of a review of such a vital article, please go for it. A review will be less useful for society when the dust is settled. It can always be demoted in a few months if it falls out of compliance, and this article is prominent enough that that might actually happen. Thanks for your hard work! FemkeMilene (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the stability issue but I would say that the article needs significant trimming to bring it into compliance with WP:Article size (and therefore GA criteria 3b), and would therefore probably meet quick fail criteria at the moment. Although the transcluded sections aren't counted by the prose size tool, the length must be well over 100,000 characters. (t · c) buidhe 07:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with buidhe that the article will need trimming. One of the prime locations for this would be the national responses of Europe, which can easily be trimmed to one third to bring balance w.r.t Africa and South-America. If you want more tips from me before nominating (and I hope you will make the article GAN ready!), let me know. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I would wait on nominating this article for GA status: there are some editors who fiercely believe that Wikipedia's coverage of this event is unsatisfactory, & even if the article were perfect they would fight this rating. I mention this not because I agree with them -- I don't -- but because unless you are eager for a fight all you would get for the hard work is heartache. -- llywrch (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this is something we should not accept. The GA process can give core controversial articles such a boost in quality. That said, doing a WP:peer review first would be useful and tactful, lessening the chance of a objections if you decide to bring it to GA later. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This article raises another question, which is can Good Articles contain excerpts? I would say excerpts can't fulfil the criteria, as any changes to their text does not show up in the article history, and thus it is difficult to assess stability. In addition, it makes it difficult to check the version of an article that passed GA, as oldid's would still display the current excerpt. CMD (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly excerpts are a terrible idea in any article. I would say no given your reasoning above and the fact that the quality of one article depends too much on the quality of another. It is easy to fix though, so shouldn’t cause too many issues. Aircorn (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Re excerpts in a GA I would say fine provided the article being excerpted is itself GA or above. On the main point the subject is so important I strongly encourage you to put it in for GA. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

An article being a Good Article at one point does not guarantee the article will be a Good Article in the future. If the excerpted article degrades editors watching the other article may not even be aware. This is even more of an issue with highly edited articles, which is probably the only justified use of excerpts (and even then the justification is low). Better just to copy the text into the article and then we can be sure it is up to standard when passed and it is going to be preserved in the article history. If the article is not stable enough to do this, then it is not stable enough to review. Aircorn (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Abandoned reviews

Talk:Greysia Polii/GA1 (nominator: Sportsfan77777; reviewer: Stvbastian) and Talk:United Airlines Flight 328/GA1 (nominator: Dhaluza; reviewer: Bredyhopi) have both been "on review" for months, with little in the way of substance; despite pings, both appear to have been abandoned by the reviewers. It may be time to delete the review pages so these can be placed back in the queue. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's time to ask for a new reviewer, which can be done most easily by incrementing the |page= counter. (t · c) buidhe 05:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, though I'm unfamiliar with how that works—assuming there's no objection from the above nominators/reviewers, would you mind doing so, and I can take a look at your diffs for future reference? Also, Talk:Abdurauf Fitrat/GA1 (nominator: Man77; reviewer: Kaiser matias) looks like another review that's gone by the wayside. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique, No, in that case, Kaiser matias closed it because they were unable to complete the review. (t · c) buidhe 10:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, whoops. Let's chalk that one up to lack of sleep, shall we? --Usernameunique (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

All good, and I wish you the best moving forward with it. Solid work here. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the procedures. I didn't work on my article lately because I felt there was noone really waiting for it to be finally completed for review. This weekend, however, I could get it ready. → «« Man77 »» 18:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Man77, Since we're running a backlog drive this month, hopefully your article won't go so long without review. (t · c) buidhe 19:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique, there are a number of reviews that have effectively been abandoned, but at least got to a certain point before the reviewer stopped for whatever reason—health, disappearance, lack of time, etc. The same sometimes includes 2nd opinions, where it's effectively a request for someone to take over. Might some of these be available for credit in the backlog drive? If the original reviewer did some good work and raised issues that do need addressing, it could be more effective to continue the open review rather than close it and start over. Perhaps we could specify ones that are eligible for takeover on this page. Any thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd absolutely be in favor of this. (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Definetly agree, especially if they happen to be 90+ day ones. They need to be fully reviewed one way or another ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. I've added a separate list entitled list of abandoned reviews. Others should feel free to supplement it as appropriate (I might not have much time over the next few days). --Usernameunique (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, an excellent idea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Word count for July 2021 Backlog Drive

Hi there, is the word count taken from the point where the review starts, or the point where the article is passed/failed, which may be slightly different? Thanks,--Harper J. Cole (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Harper J. Cole, I've been doing it from when it starts, and have clarified that on the backlog drive page. But in most cases, I don't think it will make a significant difference. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If the goal is to reflect the amount of effort required to review the article, wouldn't it make more sense to use the size at the end? Any text added in the course of the review still needs to be checked by the reviewer. If we were to be really pedantic, we could go with the max of the two sizes, though in practice I think an article is much more likely to come out the other end of a GA review longer rather than shorter. But yeah, I agree it's not likely to make much difference either way. Colin M (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Depends on what the review hinges on—if the article just needs a bunch of prose edits, it's likely to get shorter as it gets tightened up. If it's lacking in substance, it's likely to get longer. But honestly, if someone uses the end word count and it's within the realm of reason, I wouldn't get too fussed. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, there's no need to over-legislate this. I took out the added language; the most important thing is that the word count is from the time of the review. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad that everything seems to have worked out. I just wanted to note that, when GOCE gives word-count bonuses, it's based on word count from the start of the CE. The argument could be made otherwise that one would want to "puff up" the article to get a word count bonus, which I trust our reviewers not to do. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 22:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"puff up" the article to get a word count bonus ... internet anthropologists in 100 years reading this are going to be drawing some wonderful (amusing!) conclusions about Wikipedia's editors and epistemological motivations. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Second Opinions

It was recently brought to my attention that after providing a second opinion the person who provides it should place the article back on review (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Answering a second opinion). I personally have not noticed this to be occurring and it seems like it might be a good idea to leave it up to a reviewer to decide when to stop asking for second opinions. Just wanted to see what other editors who give second opinions do and whether it might be worth changing the instructions. @Femkemilene:. Aircorn (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have placed articles back "on review' after doing a second opinion, and notified the original reviewer. I suspect one second opinion is enough, and a third opinion to be a rare event. I don't see any purpose in having (additional) second opinions; sort of defeats the purpose. @Aircorn: which reviewer are you talking about, the original or the second reviewer? --Whiteguru (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Most second opinions are from new reviewers that need a bit of encouragement and advice, which can easily be given by one other. In case of difficulties, reviewers can always come here for help. Given our scarce reviewer resources, the current system looks good to me. When the second reviewer feels they cannot fully address the SO, they can leave the SO request open, which is what happened at talk:tachyon. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I was meaning the initial reviewer, i.e. if they are happy with the second opinion they can remove the request or if they want more advice they can leave it up. I am fine to place the article back on review if I give any more second opinions. The reviewer can aways ask again if they want. Aircorn (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Aircorn, I agree with you completely. It's been a while, but this part of the instructions I wrote for the reason that 2nd opinion's were occasionally not being shown as answered on the nominations page, likely because there were no instructions explaining how to do so. But whom to so do is an incredibly interesting point. Yes, let's change it to be the privilege of the person who hung the sign in the first place. I looked at the wording, and I believe we only need to change one word: "A reviewer's" call for a second opinion changed to "Your" call for a second opinion. What do you think? If you like it, please be bold and change it to that now! Prhartcom (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

thanks for you reply. However given the other responses here I don’t think I have the consensus at this point to make such a change. Aircorn (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine. I have never let that stop me. I just made the change, referencing this discussion. I changed what I originally wrote in the first place, so I think it will be fine. That's how the WP:GA site is so well copyedited the way it is: If you are really here to improve, then BE BOLD. Prhartcom (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination age histogram

GAN age stats

Today, by sheer coincidence, I stumbled upon an inexplicably deleted file titled "File:History of GAN Age Over Time.png" and requested it be restored from PROD at WP:REFUND. I now have for our elucidation a histogram of nomination ages as they were in 2018, breaking down data by the period the nomination has been open for -- it's interesting stuff. My impression from the archives of this talk is that the data is likely a little different now (I have the impression of a particularly long backlog a few years ago that's since shrunk), but the broad strokes are plausibly similar. Vaticidalprophet 12:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Needing to drop nominations

Due to sudden issues, I'm going to need to drop several of my open nominations for Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021. Is anyone able to pick up Talk:Let's Dance (David Bowie album)/GA1 and Talk:Heartless (Kanye West song)/GA1? Talk:Hardcore punk/GA3 as well, but I believe GhostRiver is interested in that one, so pinging her. The remaining open nom I can keep working with. Pinging @Buidhe, Usernameunique, and Lee Vilenski as co-ords and @Zmbro, Kyle Peake, and Hoponpop69 as nominators. Vaticidalprophet 21:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I can take Hardcore punk, although I'll be away most of tonight. I know I'm fairly busy with graduate school, so I won't claim the others, but if nobody else expresses interest, I can find time. — GhostRiver 21:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll list them as needing a new reviewer on the GA drive page. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: and Buidhe change the status to second opinion while they are awaiting new reviewers. --K. Peake 05:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I know the project is already a bit taxed for reviewer time ...

But I just found out that 33% of all GAs have at least one outstanding cleanup tags. And I find that very high rate to be rather concerning. Not all of these tagged articles represent significant issues (I don't think the 5 tagged with "Articles using infobox body of water without alt bathymetry" or the 7 tagged with "CS1 errors: invisible characters" are that big of a deal) but many of these indicate possible sizable issues, such as the 187 tagged with Failed Verification or the 22 BLP GAs lacking sources. Would anyone else be interested in trying to work together to try to take a look through some of these classifications with the more serious concerns? Hog Farm _Talk 02:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that list is sobering reading. I'd be interested in helping. Did you have any particular procedure in mind for working through the list? Divvying them up by tag seems non-ideal because of the overlaps that would create. Colin M (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Hog Farm/GA cleanup listings 2021 is something I started about a week ago pulling a few based on tags; it's not a good way to handle this large-scale for obvious reasons. The WP:URFA/2020 process is a little more hardcore than what would be needed here, as GA is a single-editor process for the most part, as opposed to FAC. A table sort of like the URFA one might work once we figure out how to pull a subset, although filling the table could be a pain. One thing I know is that the sporadic method that's been being used for sometime for bringing things to GAR is really hit-and-miss. Hog Farm _Talk 03:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I had been crawling through the dead links section on that page and running the Internet Archive Bot over articles with GA status. Problem is, after you do about 20 of them, the toolforge packs it in and says you are not authorised to use the tool - and you have to wait a few days to get access again. Now, if you do the right thing and validate the changes made by the tool, The Wayback Machine will say "too much access, apply for extended access and tell us why" ... and fixing dead links is quite the time consuming process as the tool really digs deep and takes it time. The WP:URFA/2020 process looks good, but would need to scope to agreed matters demanding attention. With 38,480 articles rated at GA here such a project would need agreed scope, targets and methodology. Something like that. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks worse than it is. Many of the cleanup tags are not really cleanup ones (for example the {{asof}} template triggers the potentially dated statements). Others are not part of the criteria (like deadlinks). Saying that it is a good place to find articles that need work. Ideally we would have a more specific list, one that shows the orange tags and is focused on the criteria. If you are interested in working on these my advice would be to ignore any category with over 100 articles in it as they are usually the minor issues. I would also focus on the older tags. Many of the newer ones work themselves out once editors come to an agreement and it can be unpleasant, and even unhelpful, stepping into a current dispute and suggesting or enacting a delist. Aircorn (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It'll also take some monitoring of CAT:GAR to make sure stuff doesn't sit around in purgatory indefinitely. For instance, Talk:Eppur Si Muove (The West Wing)/GA1 is an individual reassessment open since April with no comments in two months but is still open. Hog Farm _Talk 06:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Two months isn't too bad as far as GARs go. I'm happy to go through and make another sweep in the near future. On the bambot results, I agree with Aircorn it's not as bad as it looks. I wonder if instead of organising the table with putting all of the issues into one column, it could instead create different columns for each issue and note if the article has a relevant tag or not. Articles with multiple tags might be the most worth looking at (and be smaller in number). For example, Blast furnace, "Unsourced passages need footnotes (April 2017, July 2021), Cites unreliable sources (October 2018), CS1 errors: missing periodical, Expansion needed (July 2021), Update needed (July 2021), ... (July 2021), Vague or ambiguous time (July 2021)", was recently demoted. CMD (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile waiting for user:firefly, who was thinking about automating part of the GAR process before starting a serious sweep. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene, hello! :) Yep, still on the list. I’m hoping to get the GANbot to BRFA in then next few days and it’ll be next up after that. firefly ( t · c ) 08:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a qualitative observation: looking at the reviews that have been completed in the backlog drive and that have also been confirmed by buidhe, about one third have failed. Would be interested to see how this holds up at the end of the month - how much alignment is there between the qualitative review process and the quantitative results that come from tags etc.? how many were specific overlaps (ie failed review and had tags being discussed here)? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The count is biased though since I try to check every failed nom (to make sure it's failed for a legitimate reason), but for experienced reviewers it's not necessary to check every pass. (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this website broken? When I click on most of them I see no outstanding cleanup tag. JBchrch talk 17:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: - A lot of these are minor issues that don't show up with a cleanup tag. For instance, all those dated statement are automatically produced by the {{As of}} template and don't produce a cleanup tag, and a lot of the referencing errors aren't obvious without knowing what you're looking for. Some of them are produced by smaller inline tags, such as [citation needed] and such. So a lot won't have the big orange banners on the top. Hog Farm _Talk 02:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Possibly abandoned nomination

BigCheese76 nominated 2010 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania here in February, and I began reviewing the article in July. In the interim, however, BigCheese76 appears to have taken a break from editing—his last edit was in May. Would anyone be interested in shepherding the article through the nomination process? It needs a bit of work in a few places, but is in generally good shape; the review page is here. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique, I could do it if you don't mind waiting till I'm done with the remaining reviews that I have taken on, it'll take a day or two. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to work on it, Tayi Arajakate. Good timing, too—I was going to close the review after the backlog drive ended tonight. But take your time with the other reviews, and I'll leave this one open in the meantime. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Template talk

Template {{GA inline}} and template GA pass {{GA pass|article|2000|01|01}} are up for merging. Discussion found here --Whiteguru (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Next GA drive suggestions

Thanks to everyone who participated in the last drive and got GAN down by almost half. I am requesting any feedback from participants or suggestions from interested persons on how to improve the next drive—ideally, without adding too much complexity to the process. One thing that I think might improve the drive is making it shorter: say two weeks, which saw the greatest declines (199 articles!) during that period. By the end of the month, enthusiasm seems to have trailed off a bit. (t · c) buidhe 06:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That was my impression as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I would go for three weeks, as we saw loads of people finishing their reviews in week 3. With two weeks, people may not start reviews that may take a bit longer. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

First, I thought the extra point for old nominations worked extremely well at the beginning, but stagnated once there were only a handful of old nominations left. There's only so much incentive one can give to review certain articles, and perhaps for the next drive it would be worth expanding the criteria (from 90 days to 80 days, 80 to 70, etc.) once there are a only a few old nominations left (e.g., 5 instead of 0). Second, as Buidhe previously noted, the word count may have been more effort than it was worth; perhaps it is worth abandoning, or turning into a binary metric (e.g., an extra point if an article is 4,000+ words long, but no cumulative count). Third, the drive reached its lowest point of unreviewed nominations (230) on day 20, while the March drive hit bottom (270) on day 31. Three weeks may thus be more effective than two weeks. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of what is a week, I don't think we benefit from having a three week over a month. Generally I feel like we benefit from having a little bit of time to close items that might go on a bit long. I'd suggest that the current system of calculating the words is such a waste of time. Can we not simplify this to simply how many reviews people do? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I think some thought may need to be paid to the quality of the reviews, some of which were very brief this time round. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the wordcount thing, maybe next time there could be some automation to reduce some of the manual work for participants. Something like fetching and tabulating the wordcounts for articles would be pretty easy to do. We could even have a bot/script that automatically populates the list of reviews begun by participants during the review period (you would just need to query each participant's contributions for that month looking for page creations with "/GA" in the title). Colin M (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The current system seems to disincentivize reviewing the longer articles, e.g. reviewing four 2,000 word articles will get you three more points than a single 8,000 word article, and for only a little more work.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking simply at the daily stats gives an imperfect picture of what's happening, since it doesn't say how quickly new nominations are being made. Sometimes it wasn't that reviewers were slowing down, but nominators were speeding up. I remember one day when two different nominators added five new GANs each. The third week saw a decrease of 35 in unreviewed nominations, which is nothing to sneeze at, and we ended the month at the lowest number of total nominations, 350. I don't think shorter is the way to go: reviewers grab a lot of articles up front, which makes the initial stats look very good indeed, and spend the following days and weeks working on them. The total nominations is far less steep a decline, yet it's the number that ultimately matters. For the extra point for old nominations, I was surprised that as additional nominations aged into the 90 days, they weren't readily picked up; I'm not sure adding the next tranche (80 or 75 days) would have helped, but it's worth trying the experiment next time. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd keep it one month but I think there needs to be more attention to brief reviews. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree that brief reviews should be scrutinized, whether by inexperienced or experienced reviewers. In general, attention needs to be given to new reviewers to make sure they understand the criteria and how to apply them, and guide them where necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Multiple people have expressed concern about insufficiently detailed reviews being posted at the drive. Currently, the only criterion we are using is review length, which is easy to get to if you are using a GAN template. Therefore, I am proposing to replace that with new criteria (User:Buidhe/Expectations for GAN drive reviews) based on the guideline WP:Reviewing good articles. I hope that these criteria will help ensure quality reviews at our drives and provide clearer understanding of expectations. (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of #1: Your review must explicitly address all the GA criteria. An easy way to do this is by using one of the GAN templates. As you said, the reviewers leaving perfunctory reviews apparently are already using GAN templates. On the other hand, this creates a little bit of drudgery for those who prefer not to use those templates. I'm one of those reviewers. I stand by my reviews generally being very detailed, but I don't always explicitly mention all the GA criteria in each one. e.g. this review was 27k bytes, but nowhere in all that did I feel the need to say "This article is stable. There are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes." Similar situation for this really excellent review someone else did for one of my articles during the drive. I'm also a little iffy on 4. Though it's exceedingly rare, it's possible to come across an article that requires no substantial changes to meet the GACR, so it seems bad to force reviewers to come up with some change to mandate just because (I'm reminded of the anecdote of the queen's duck)

  All that said, I agree this is an issue. It just seems hard to come up with bright line rules that actually address it, since the length of an appropriate review varies so wildly depending on the initial state of the article. I feel like the only way to get a good handle on it is to have competent 'meta-reviewers' doing spot checks. If, for example, they see a reviewer repeatedly passing articles with only superficial suggestions, then that's a good hint that they should be dug into a little more (because what are the chances they hit upon an already-spotless article multiple times in a row?). And conversely if reviewer X's reviews seem consistently great based on the first few checked, then you might feel confident in accepting the rest of their reviews with little or no further checking. Colin M (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Colin M, Thanks for your comments. While there are definitely some nominated articles that don't need any improvements to make the GA criteria, I do feel that there are probably very few if any nominated articles where there is literally no room for improvement. GA reviews are intended not just to evaluate the article but also facilitate improvement.

  Explicitly addressing all criteria is already expected for DYK reviews and also reviewing good articles states that it's an expectation: "assessing the article against the Good article criteria, and communicating this assessment to other editors." As a reviewer, I do feel it's better to explicitly state what I did to evaluate the article, but I can see how that might seem pointless. (t · c) buidhe 03:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've never gotten involved with the DYK process, but I'm dubious as to whether the policy is helpful there. I'll pick on this example, since the article was on my watchlist. In practice, it seems like the reviewer "explicitly addresses all the criteria" by copy-pasting a nice big checklist with happy green checkmarks. Did they actually spend time verifying that those checkmarks were appropriate? I have no idea. (Well, actually, I have some idea, since I know from my GA review of this article that it absolutely does not pass the NPOV/V requirements.) Re the first part, you make a good point about the possibility of suggesting improvements that go beyond the minimum for GA - I hadn't thought of that. Colin M (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  NPOV is by far the most subjective of the GA (and DYK) criteria, and I would generally give editors a pass on it unless something leaps out at me. I understand why its at DYK and FA, but in those places there are multiple sets of eyes checking the article, so consensus is possible. Maybe we should consider dropping it from GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with Colin M above that GA templates can be perfunctory, and are not a sign that any of the items in the checklist has actually been assessed. I also agree with them that exceptional cases do happen, and so reviews should be considered in aggregate.

  In evaluating all criteria, I would say asking reviewers to address all criteria is reasonable, even if for example it is just writing "This article is stable" somewhere. That seems a pretty minimal burden on reviewers, but might help coordinators in evaluations. On NPOV, Something not leaping out is a pragmatic benchmark for considering NPOV on a GA review, which is after all just one person's evaluation. It's one of those criteria that doesn't usually matter (like stability, in the sense that it doesn't usually come up), but when it does come up it is important. This could also be easily addressed with a short "No NPOV problems were obvious during this review" or similar.

  On meta-reviews, I note that AFC had a "Reviewing Reviews" aspect to their recent successful drive, which essentially boiled down to 10% of reviews being reviewed by a second individual to see if the reviews agreed. I doubt a full second review is feasible for GA, but the model of community evaluation rather than relying on coords could be considered if the coords feel overworked. CMD (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I also agree with Colin, could I suggest an alternative wording re #4? That if you deem there are no changes that need or even could improve it, either including or short of FA standard, that instead of mandating changes the reviewer must detail why no improvements are needed. It still shows that everything has been checked and accounted for. Kingsif (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  While I'm generally happy to make changes that improve articles, I don't want to encourage GA reviews at FA standard when articles simply cannot be taken to FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Kingsif, I think this is a good idea. I was thinking that mandating substantive suggestions, as well as improving articles, would also make sure that the content as well as grammar etc. is also evaluated, but I think Talk:Armenian_genocide/GA3 is also acceptable on that front even though no suggestions for improvement were made. (t · c) buidhe 11:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Not to get too into the weeds on this particular example, but in this case the NPOV/V issue was that the article relied entirely on a mix of self-published sources and sources which will write about your project if you pay them. So not an especially subjective issue. Colin M (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Does the stability criterion reflect the article's history, or its subject matter

I see that Trevor Bauer has been GA-nominated. While the article itself is fairly stable, I wouldn't say the subject matter is - Bauer is a sportplayer currently on a restricted list due to ongoing sexual assault investigations. My inclination would be that this article doesn't meet the stability requirement due to the subject being in an up-in-the-air situation right now, but I want to know how others interpret the stability criterion at WP:GACR. Hog Farm _Talk 02:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I read it as the article history. The criteria itself reads it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. If the "up-in-the-air situation" is causing an edit war then no, it doesn't meet the criteria; but, if there are no content disputes and it gets updated as new information regarding the situation becomes public then it meets the criteria. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I fear that if we were to say that articles can't become GA that have things ongoing would pretty much disqualify any BLP. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to mention, as the article nominator, that there are two previous athletic articles that I've successfully brought to GA where the subject was in something of a dicey situation. The first is Tony DeAngelo, who was promoted in the midst of heavy speculation with regards to how the Rangers would handle the remainder of his contract (ultimately he was bought out and signed with a different team), and the second is Tyler Skaggs, who is currently the subject of both a criminal and civil case regarding the circumstances of his death. In both cases, I have not run into issues promoting the article, and any changes to the subject's situation have been dealt with at the time. The same could be said of, say, Evander Kane, who was already a GA when the NHL began investigating whether or not he had gambled on his own games. I have always interpreted the stability criterion as referencing the article itself, as, like Lee said, disqualifying a subject whose circumstances might change abruptly would make it difficult to promote any BLP. — GhostRiver 14:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Its probably worth pointing to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 153#RfC: Proposal: make subjects actively in the news ineligible for GANs and FACs which was pretty overwhelming. I feel this is one of the more misunderstood criteria and a note at WP:GACR could be worthwhile. Aircorn (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That RfC is a useful link I hadn't seen before. Given the comments in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Metroid Dread/1, it's clear there's a variety of interpretations and so a note would be useful in that regard. CMD (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

GA reviews by Sahaib3005

Just a heads up, a user named "Sahaib3005" has just sped through a few GANs and approved them without leaving a single bit of critique:

• Talk:Creighton Preparatory School/GA1
• Talk:Darren Murphy/GA1
• Talk:Tom Wilson (ice hockey)/GA1
• Talk:Leonardo III Tocco/GA1
• Talk:Paul Goodman/GA1

The same user also nominated a clearly unready article (Glasgow) without being a significant contributor or contacting those who did contribute. Perhaps we should have mandatory GAN training for new users before they are allowed to conduct their first standalone review. SounderBruce 08:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a fan of mandatory training as most new GA reviewers are fine imo, and I don't want to raise barriers. Maybe we can have a script that detects very small reviews by new reviewers and posts them here. And for the first review they do, maybe they can have an automated user talk page message pointing them to a 'how-to' page? FemkeMilene (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

A script would be a great idea. And having a small dashboard (perhaps pinned to the top of this talk page) with reviews by new users that more experienced reviewers can check would help with oversight. There should also be an easier way of undoing a promotion; as it stands, it seems that GAR is the recommended venue. SounderBruce 08:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I nominated Leonardo III Tocco, which was reviewed by Sahaib3005. I'm not complaining that the article passed but a more thorough review would have been nice. Just wanted to pop in and ask what happens to the article now and if I should do something. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I've left a note at the user talk page asking the user not to do this again. I think all the articles should be re-reviewed. For example, Paul Goodman has a {{cn}} tag and some Harvard referencing errors, looks like things that would be easily fixed during a proper review. —Kusma (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Added more articles below. I'd suggest to just revert all the GA edits of the user and to delete the review subpages, but I don't want to upset either Legobot or the nominators. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

These don't seem to have been processed by Legobot:

• Talk:John B. Curtis/GA1
• Talk:Alexander Bain (inventor)/GA1
• Talk:Henderson Hall Historic District/GA1
• Talk:Chase Anderson/GA1
• Talk:Albert Kahn (architect)/GA1

Just as a note, these articles do not seem to have been added to their respective lists of GAs, so if the reviews are deleted for reassessment there should be no need of cleanup on that front. CMD (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

They need cleanup either way, as they have been removed from WP:GAN but not further processed by Legobot. @Legoktm and Harej: Do we need to do anything special in order to make Legobot happy when we try to fix this in order to return to the status quo ante? —Kusma (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I have glanced at all the reviews and articles linked above, and have left comments at the ones which clearly do not currently meet GA requirements, or would need a substantial review to confirm that they do: Talk:Creighton Preparatory School/GA1 (several issues), Talk:Leonardo III Tocco/GA1 (source review), Talk:Paul Goodman/GA1 (cn tag, non-encyclopedic tone), Talk:Albert Kahn (architect)/GA1 (many unsourced parts). This is not to say there won't be problems with the others, but they would need an actual review to identify. Kingsif (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I direct other users in this thread to read Sahaib's comment here; from what he wrote, he seems to believe a GAN review is a simple "yes" or "no" (he takes my concerns as meaning his "yes" should be "no", says he'll fail the article and maybe it can be GA "in the future"). Kingsif (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I got two reviews sped through (Tom Wilson and Chase Anderson) and was surprised this morning to see it. While I know I put work into both articles, I'm sure they need to be looked at more via an actual review. Let me know if there's anything I can do from my end to help undo these speed promos. — GhostRiver 14:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the GA template with the GAN one on both articles, changed the class on all the WikiProject tags, and asked to CSD the two reviews. Let me know if there's anything else. — GhostRiver 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic: I know this isn't about their GAN/GA Reviews but I just took a look at their editing in general and they seem to be also having some issues with various file/pic uploads like File:John Gray with Greyfriars Bobby.jpeg & File:Blair drummond logo.jpg etc. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

We have been here many times over the years with inexperienced reviewers not understanding the process and causing frustration among those more au-fait with the standards. Invariably, it ends up with the reviews being voided and placed back into the queue on their prior standing. Looking at these reviews, there isn't actually *any* where I can say even a superficial review has taken place. A script of some sort would be helpful, maybe even to flag up on the "size" of the review page to detect very short ones and allow for a double-checking. Usually, these problematic reviews are very short on size anyway. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Stjepan Vukčić Kosača GA2 drive-by review

Hello to all. I would ask the community to check out (another) review process for the same article nomination gone awry. In case of my nomination of "Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača/GA2", it seem that reviewer acted in drive-by mode, and never took time to alert me of his willingness to do the job, nor did he stick to the prescribed methods, and left me any space for fixes if they are needed, and so on. Reviewer just made a surprisingly long list of alleged shortcomings, which contains some rather obvious nonsense along with some reasonable points, and some points that may or may not be (mis)understood. Reviewer also noted how article needs "a large copyedit", which seem pretty unreasonable since that job was already performed by one of the project's top copyeditors (User:Twofingered Typist). At this point the nomination has been failed, but it seems to me that the matter is pretty straight forward and that this review should be annulled. (Please @Buidhe:, if you don't mind, I would ask you to take a look at this situation, considering that in the case of Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača/GA1 your promptly reaction helped resolve the situation.) Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• User:Santasa99 I agree that the reviewer only examined one aspect (spelling and grammar) which is not sufficient to pass an article, however, not being close to meeting one of the GA criteria can be a reason for failing an article. Unlike the reviewer, I don't think the prose of this article needs so much improvement to reject out of hand, but I also am not sure if the review is out of process. In order to get another reviewer the easiest way may be just renominating the article. I'm sorry that it's taken so long to get the article through GAN. (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• User:Santasa99 This has apparently happened at least once before judging by the reviewer's talk page. I would suggest you fix any suggestion that makes sense and renominate the article. That seems to me to be the most straightforward and non-stressful path to follow. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, Twofingered Typist, thank you so much for your prompt response. I was in favor of simply canceling the review, like the previous GA1, but if you think that doesn’t make a big difference, I will follow both of your advice.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Shoot for the Stars

User:Shoot for the Stars has been indefinitely blocked per an ANI discussion here. I have taken the liberty of manually removing all of the GAN tags on the articles that they nominated, but they also have an open (albeit not started) review here. — GhostRiver 12:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a shame - they've created some good content. I've gone ahead and deleted the review page, allowing a full review to go ahead. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Good article's minimum length

In regard to broadness, the GA criteria states "(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." I agree with the criteria, but shouldn't there be a minimum length requirement of a nominated article? Even DYK had 1500 character requirement. I recently came across a GA titled "M-105 (Michigan highway)", which is just slightly above 1000 characters. Although I have no issues with that article (or the whole Michigan highway's topic, in which many are GA), but shouldn't there be a minimum limit of characters? Please correct me if I missed something. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• If it addresses the main aspects of the topic, there's no reason to force the author to ramble on about superfluous and tangential material. For some topics, 1500 characters is too long; for others, 50000 is too short. It doesn't seem like a one-size-fits-all minimum would really help, which is why it's been rejected in the past. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing with the link of previous discussion. While I completely agree with your point that a "particular" size wouldn't fit all, but the issue remains that the reviewer has sole responsibility to check whether main aspects are addressed or not (and every reviewer is different). To me, it seems odd if an article can pass GA, but still doesn't meet the DYK criteria (1500 characters). Still, if that is broadly accepted by the community, let it be. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The only criteria is that it can't be a stub. A minimum character length wouldn't be all that helpful.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

In the specific case here, a 1,000 character article is at risk of being merged or redirected. My ground rule for DYK, let alone GA, is you should be able to write 1,500 characters, fully and appropriately referenced, without breaking a sweat. The Michigan highway article looks problematic; either there is not enough to write about for a non-stub article and it should be redirected to a list somewhere, or there is other information that proves notability that's not in the article, which is a problem for meeting the "broad in coverage" part of the criteria. The actual length of the street is not an issue, it's several miles longer than Vine Street, London, for example. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

None of that Michigan highway article's sources are "Independent of the subject". Are there examples of 1500ish character GAs that clearly pass GNG? Sometimes even longer GAs are lacking in notability, eg. Mon Calamari cruiser was just merged with another article. CMD (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

As to the Michigan highway article, see an AFD for a similar one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway). My biggest concern with the GA criteria is the use of maps to source all the history, such as sourcing " The designation has not been used since." to a map from 2012 and "The first appearance of M-105 on maps was in 1928" to a map from early 1928 and another from late 1928; the whole of the history section appears to be original research. Hog Farm _Talk 03:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The SYNTH could be solved with rewording, but then it would still all be PRIMARY. Kingsif (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've just come to say that these Michigan highway articles have been discussed at length, including quite recently. But back in 2010, there was a suggestion to allow them because merging into the state highway list article would, with all the highways, make that incredibly long. All the information is apparently needed, started as a long list, and split out when that list got excessive. Do with this information what you will. Kingsif (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Open reviews by Mikehawk10

Hi, unfortunately Mikehawk10 (talk · contribs) has not edited since 4 July. He was in the process of reviewing 4 GA nominations:

• Talk:Cone Mills Corporation/GA2 with Doug Coldwell
• Talk:United States v. McMahon/GA1 with The C of E
• Talk:Sunshine & Health/GA1 with Colin M
• Talk:Carlo Leone/GA1, nominated by Locomotive207.

Doug Coldwell and The C of E have pinged him, but he has not showed up.

As far as I can tell, we have no indication about why he is absent or whether he will return to the project at some point — I hope he is doing well.

May I suggest relisting these nominations as needing a new reviewer? (WP:GAN/I#N4) JBchrch talk 16:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Since the Carlo Leone review was opened but not begun, I put it up for a speedy deletion, which has been done; it's ready to be picked up by a reviewer. For the other three, which had been started, we can either request a second opinion in the hopes of finding a new reviewer that way, or do a complete relist (without any loss of seniority). Doug Coldwell, The C of E, Colin M, do you have any preference? Unfortunately, the GAN backlog drive has just ended, so there are fewer reviewers opening GA reviews than a few weeks back. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest a relist for mine. The review never really got off the ground - Mike only got as far as pointing out a couple sourcing issues, which I immediately fixed. Actually, I'll just boldly go ahead and flip the status now. Colin M (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer a second opinion because he did review mine and I did respond to it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Since Mikehawk10 has still not returned nor responded to the note I left on their talk page, I've just changed Talk:Cone Mills Corporation/GA2 to second opinion, though if Doug Coldwell decides that a relist is preferable, we can do that instead. All four have now been addressed (Carlo Leoni has already been reviewed). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest a relist for mine. The review never really got off the ground. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell, given the significant issues regarding the broadness criterion raised by Drmies's second opinion posted on the review within an hour of my request, what might be best is that you withdraw the nomination until you have had a time to incorporate material from the wealth of sources suggested. It certainly doesn't look like something that can be dealt with in seven days, though Drmies would know better, having done the searching. While under normal circumstances I would go ahead with the relisting as you've requested, I am very hesitant to do so given the identified shortcomings. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me add that I don't know either if it can be done in seven days, but it can be done. There is sourcing available, and I believe it is imperative to expand on the very idea of these companies and their company towns, on the many decades of labor unrest and the associated violence (there's a machine gun hoisted to the top of the factory in one of those 1930s strikes), and the issue of segregation and racism. I also think that there should be a bit more in terms of data, as I mentioned, I think, not just in terms of how big the company was in relation to the market, but also its size and importance to the regional economies. Even before we get to FA level that aspect warrants inclusion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Withdrew GAN nomination. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible abandoned review

User:JPxG created a review page for Presidential transition of Richard Nixon (nom) on July 1, the day when the backlog drive started. I pinged the reviewer on the review page on July 25, and gave also informed on their talk page on August 11. The article has not yet been reviewed (though only a review page is created). Should that be marked as an abandoned review? I noticed that the reviewer is actively contributing to other projects. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm...that's a bit strange since the editor in question does indeed seem to be actively editing. Here's another ping for JPxG: are you still able to conduct this review? If not, just let us know and we can put the article back in the queue. If you don't hear anything in a few days, Kavyansh.Singh, feel free to tag the review page with {{db-G6|rationale=Abandoned good article review}}, which should ensure that the article gets another reviewer. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I have been letting my to-do list get a little long in the tooth, although I do intend to finish it. How about this: if I don't have it done tomorrow, go ahead and take it over. jp×g 05:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG – No issues if you are busy with other projects. I would be delighted to take over the review, but I'll wait for 2-3 days. Feel free to let me know if you can't. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:JPxG has continued with the review. The issue is resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination requiring a GA review

The article Early life and career of Joe Biden, currently a GAN, is also being nominated at DYK under Template:Did you know nominations/Early life and career of Joe Biden. That nomination cannot progress unless a GA review is conducted, since the only way the article is eligible for DYK is if it's improved to Good Article status. As the DYK nomination has been open for over a month, I'm bringing it up here in case anyone is interested in reviewing the page. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Epicgenius – Thanks for informing. I have taken that article for review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Another

The article "Electoral history of Bill Clinton" would most probably be on the main page on August 19 (75th birthday of President Bill Clinton) in the Did you know column. It is a GAN, and I'll appreciate if anyone can review the article before it hits the main page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Aussie Article Writer

It looks like AAW may be in the same situation as the editor in the section above this one. He was in the process of reviewing two nominations. I'd be happy to finish the review on Esther Lederberg (once the nominator returns from a brief wikibreak). Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Larry Hockett, for taking on Esther Lederberg. I've marked the other nomination, Talk:English Standard Version/GA1, as needing a new reviewer and changed the status to "second opinion" in the hopes of attracting said reviewer. It's ready for whoever wants it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I have taken this one for 2nd opinion. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Closing a GAR

Any experienced reviewers able to look at closing Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Metroid Dread/1? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Closed as a Procedural Keep as per summary by CMD --Whiteguru (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Review by 3E1I5S8B9RF7

Yes, that's a registered user, 3E1I5S8B9RF7. They have nominated many GANs, and I haven't checked for other reviews but this: Talk:Ashes and Diamonds (film)/GA1, came to my attention through the film assessment taskforce. Obviously that needs undoing, and the IP who mentioned it at the film project doesn't seem to have nominated it for GA, so I wonder if 3E nommed and reviewed it themselves, and maybe it doesn't need to be relisted for review. It does seem to fit in 3E's broad area of editing interest which may have motivated the blank review. Kingsif (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not wrong, this was reviewed and passed way back in 2019, and has been a GA for almost 20 months.... Strange! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Completely under the radar. There's the possibility that it was, indeed, never nominated and just given a review. Kingsif (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It was nominated here by a very sporadic editor who had in fact done some work on the page. CMD (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, shall we see if they're currently active and seeking an actual review? Kingsif (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

They appear more active on pl.wiki, where they also work on films. The page looks decent at first glance, did the film assessment taskforce notice any particular issues? Regarding procedure, I suspect it would be easier to simply open a GAR than to wind back a two-year old review. CMD (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

No specific issues noted, just an IP mentioned the GANR was unusual. Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Virginia: Featured Article nominated for Good Article!

@WaddlesJP13: has nominated Virginia at WP:GAN, but it is already a Featured Article (and has been since 2009)! This is clearly a mistake by the nominator, but I am unsure of the best course of action. Could more experienced editors advise please? Thanks Mertbiol (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mertbiol: My mistake, I clearly forgot that this was a featured article. Any way to remove the nomination? Waddles 🗩 🖉 08:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@WaddlesJP13: As you are the nominator and the review has not yet been picked up, I think you can just delete the nomination template and then Legobot will take care of the rest. Mertbiol (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mertbiol: Just did so, thank you for notifying me as I was just about to go to sleep and it probably would have been more disruptive if I left it for 8 hours. Apologies for any issues. Waddles 🗩 🖉 08:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @WaddlesJP13: Legobot has now removed the nomination from WP:GAN, so I think this is resolved now. No harm done. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible abandoned review

Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/GA1 was started by HeartGlow30797 on July 3. Things seemed to be going along but they haven't made any substantial comments on the GAN/Review since July 27th. (They did comment on July 29th "will get to this tomorrow" and on August 8th "Sorry I'm busy will get to this soon".) They haven't edited WP since their last comment to the review. On August 6th I mentioned at the Review page that I had done some additional work and yesterday I left a comment on their user talk asking what their intentions were towards completing the GA Review. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, with summer over, school has been busy. I will do it at some point, but I only get brief breaks in which I do other stuff. I will do this eventually but very slowly. If you feel like another reviewer would be beneficial for you, please contact another person. Heart ^(talk) 03:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for making you wait and not finishing this review. Heart ^(talk) 03:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology but I kind of think Life happens and it interrupts everyone's Wikipedia'ing from time to time. It's ok.

And it's not that I *want* another Reviewer or that another Reviewer would be more beneficial - I think we've worked together quite well, improving the article throughout the process - I just don't know when you'll be able to finish this Review. And I can't just contact another Reviewer...if another editor reading this page wants to finish the GA1 Review, that would be fine. If another Reviewer doesn't volunteer to finish the GA1, say, sometime within the next week or two, then I do think the article should be put back into the reviewing pool and someone can pick it up and start Reviewing anew at some point in the future. - Shearonink (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Can someone else please take on finishing this Review? Life has gotten the original Reviewer - HeartGlow30797 - too busy to finish it up in a timely manner. Does the process have to start all over again? I hate to completely throw it back into the pool again if I don't have to... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Since another editor hasn't stepped forward to complete the present Review, I am putting the article back into the GAN queue per the instructions at When a reviewer withdraws. Shearonink (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Advice for possible GA-class articles?

Hi. Not sure if this is the right place to ask but I was hoping to get some advice / feedback for a few articles I submitted to WP:AFC last year, and how much work it would take to get them up to GA-class.

• Most of the Category:Professional wrestling attendances lists
• MAC World Heavyweight Championship
• A Hot Summer Night
• A Hot Summer Night II
• Superstars of Wrestling (Canadian TV series)
• Big Time Wrestling (Boston)

On a related note, there's two which were rejected due to WP:ESSAY but I don't understand how these articles violate this policy. I've already removed some quotes / text but I'm not sure else needs to be edited. If this were a GA-class article what info would need to be cut from these articles?

• Draft:International Championship Wrestling (Mississippi)
• Draft:National Wrestling Conference

Thanks for your time. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting at the very least, any of the list articles aren't suitable for GAN, they would have to go through WP:FL Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't realize there were different places. Thanks. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Any value in these old pages, or should they be junked?

Looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk subpages, there's a bunch of old GA subpages that are now orphaned. Just looked a couple, but it mostly seems to have been old GAN/GAR stuff where the article was later deleted, such as Talk:John Wasdin's perfect game/GA1 and Talk:2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game/GA1. Any value in keeping these around, or should they get the G8 treatment? Hog Farm _Talk 18:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm Spot checking a few of these, I find errors in article history. There are 61 GA/GAR's there, many need repair, some are straight out deletions. I'll make a list of G8's for you after I've gone through it all. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Taking over abandoned reviews

Hello all. What's the thinking on the following:

1. I conduct a GA review.
2. After a couple of weeks it becomes clear that the nominator is not interested/not available/blocked etc i.e. for whatever reason, will not be addressing the issues.
3. I then "adopt" the review and implement my own comments.
4. I finally seek a third-party to double-check/add further comment where needed, and promote.

It's theoretical at the moment but I'm intending to do a bunch of GA reviews I've had a few experiences where (1) and (2) have happened and I just have to fail the nom rather than make the changes to improve Wikipedia. I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this could work well, you could use the second opinion parameter to draw in another reviewer. It's great that you would put in the effort to fix up the article, rather than simply failing it! (t · c) buidhe 08:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this seems like a good thing to allow, and brings a net positive to the project. An alternative would be to fail it and then renominate under your own name, but it seems cleaner just to get a second opinion sign off on the original page. The new reviewer might come back with their own issues to resolve, but those should be relatively few given that you already thought the article GA ready yourself.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the logic here. "Adopting" the nomination and asking for a second opinion is basically the same as failing and then renominating it yourself, so why add such unnecessary extra steps when you could just keep it all in one review. Alternatively, we could just treat such cases as a withdrawal of the reviewer as per the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4 without resorting to the "second opinion" option. That might be "cleaner" and keep the second opinion option for cases where the first reviewer is still the one deciding in the end. Regards SoWhy 12:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I also feel failing-renominating will be better.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  13:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think either is fine. I have given a second opinion before on an article when a reviewer felt they had made too many changes to be the reviewer anymore (not exactly the same, but similar) and have also re-nominated an article I reviewed after failing due to lack of engagement from the original nominator. It probably depends a bit on the state of the article (if major improvements are needed it might be better to go for a fresh review, but if minor changes are all that is required then a second opinion seems like an easier option). My feeling is the same as yours, if we go to the effort of making suggestions, reading sources and familiarising ourselves with the topic it only benefits the encyclopaedia to improve the article ourselves if the nominator is no longer interested. Aircorn (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's an amazing idea to "adopt" the review and fix the issues rather than simply failing the article. I agree with Aircorn when they say "if major improvements are needed it might be better to go for a fresh review, but if minor changes are all that is required then a second opinion seems like an easier option". However, in my opinion, getting a "second opinion" is much faster than getting a new reviewer (Thanks to the backlog of 457 nominations, of which 326 are waiting to be reviewed) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, getting a second opinion is faster than getting a new reviewer. And if your 'repairs' are basically minor instead of a major rewrite, then that is the more feasible way to go. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Ham House - advice needed

Ham House is currently up for GA. I should like to pick up the review as I have watched the article’s progress through PR, and it matches my interests. But I did make some contributions to the article at PR. These were mainly in relation to citing a bunch of pictures, but it does put me as the third contributor in the Authorship statistics. Can somebody advise as to whether this would prohibit me from undertaking the review? I’m confident I could do an objective review, but I also appreciate the importance of an appropriate process. Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, dear. You have come up with 74 edits to the article during August. Although you did it all on one day, (1 August 2021) I suspect that might put you out of reviewing contention. Might be best to stand aside this time around. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 74 edits, but I'm not sure I'd call them "significant contributions to the article" - mostly they're tidying up citations and copyediting. KJP1 only appears to have added three bits of actual content to the article in that time ([9], [10], [11]), none of which are particularly major. I might not review the article if I were in that position, but I wouldn't object if someone did. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Many thanks both. I wouldn’t call them significant either, but perhaps best to play safe. Another editor has picked it up for review, but I shall comment on the history/architecture. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Request a special reviewer

Hi, I wanted to ask is it acceptable to ask someone special to review my GA nominated articles? Honestly, I have nominated four songs articles for GA, but no one has reviewed for more than a month. I might be busy soon and not be able to have a good respond, so I wanted to know can I ask someone (for example the reviewers who had reviewed my previous nominated articles or similar articles recently) to review them? Or I must wait for the reviewers to choose. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Their nominations are: Fiebre (Ricky Martin song), No Se Me Quita, María (Ricky Martin song), and Tu Recuerdo (Ricky Martin song). Unfortunately, there's a bit of a GAN backlog at present but hopefully one of our music editors will step up. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about GA subpage where the "reviewer" intended to make a comment rather than do a full review

For Talk:Bank of America Tower (Manhattan)/GA1, it appears that Robertgombos, the "reviewer" listed on the review page, wanted to make a suggestion rather than do a full review. I asked Robertgombos if he planned to add more comments or if that was merely a suggestion, to which he replied that it was just a suggestion. A. C. Santacruz has offered to take over the review if Robertgombos was not interested.

My question is should the comment from Robertgombos be moved to the primary talk page for the article, allowing the GA1 subpage to be recreated? Or should A. C. Santacruz leave her comments in the existing subpage? I don't know if this is covered in WP:GAN/I which is why I'm asking. Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Any editor is welcome to comment on a review so I think they are fine where they are. If you hadn't got an offer of another reviewer we might have to do something to put the article back into the queue. The only possible issue might be that the GA review will be credited to the person who created the page, but that is a minor concern and happens quite a lot anyway when new editors take over abandoned reviews. Aircorn (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The reason I am asking is because of the issue you mentioned, that the commenter just happened to be the first editor of the review page. Therefore, they show up as the "reviewer" instead of just a commenter. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we can change the reviewer name manually. We can't change who created the page though without deleting it. Aircorn (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunate side effect of having GA reviews in the Talk space. I would suggest the comment be shifted to the main talkpage with a note of its origin and the page deleted, purely so that the article does not display as being under review on the GAN list. (Unless this display can be manually modified?) CMD (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

IP nominations

Am I missing something here, or are IP's allowed to nominate articles for GA now? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:GAI merely says "Articles may be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject." Nothing about whether the nominator has an account or not? In fact, as WP:GAN specifically states that reviewers need an account "Anyone may nominate an article, and any uninvolved and registered user with sufficient knowledge and experience with Wikipedia content policies may review.." the omission of that from the nomination statement makes it pretty implicit that one does not need to be a registered user to nominate an article. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/FAQ (at the top of this page) specifically covers this, and says it is fine. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping an IP doing it, so they can. The most significant issue with IP nominations is that with IPs being reassigned and the GAN backlog, there is a good chance they may not receive a notification of a review. A series of similar IPs do appear to have put some work into it over a few months, and if that is the same person, then their most recent IP is not the nominating one. Still, there's a chance they'd see it, as they do some to pop by frequently. CMD (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Incorrectly categorized articles

Heads up: I just went through the results of this query and cleared out around 80 articles that appear to have been erroneously categorized as good articles (their talk page was in a GA-class category, but they did not have the {{Article history}} or {{GA}} templates giving evidence of a review). The category may repopulate again over time, so someone may wish to clear it out again in a year or so. To do so:

1. Modify the above query to wiki format under the PetScan output tab, then copy the list into your sandbox.
2. Create an AWB list of the pages linked from your sandbox.
3. Add a find-and-replace to AWB to set class=GA and class = GA to just class=.

There were two articles that actually were GAs but had substed the GA template. If you want to check against outliers like that, convert your sandbox list to articles, and then do another PetScan run to filter for pages that are missing {{Good article}}. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the subst templates. Is this much different than what we run at Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches. Aircorn (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Thanks! It's similar, but the mismatches bot doesn't look at Category:GA-Class articles, so it misses instances where someone adds class=GA to a project banner; some of the ones I found were years old. I wasn't aware of the mismatches page and I'm glad to have a more permanent place to put the instructions above. I'll copy them to the documentation there for now, and GreenC, if you're able to modify your bot to include this type of error in the regular listings, that would be fantastic, as it'd help resolve them more quickly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

October backlog drive?

The March and July backlog drives were clearly successes, taking the number of unreviewed nominations from 579 to 273 (-306) and from 464 to 245 (-219), respectively. We're currently at 259 nominations—not bad compared to where it has been before, but still with much room to go down. (It would be significantly higher, but The Rambling Man has reviewed 148 so far this month as part of the WikiCup.) The only reason I can see to wait longer would be to avoid burnout. While this is important to bear in mind, I think it makes sense to have a few drives packed more closely together, and then, assuming the backlog can be taken down to a more sustainable level, spread them further apart (e.g., with two to three drives in 2022). Meanwhile, October is the last month of the WikiCup, so nothing wrong with adding an incentive to gain those points through reviews here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Is that why there are so many recent reviews by The Rambling Man? I thought maybe it was just a one-editor backlog drive. In any case, add my thanks to him for keeping the backlog significantly lower than it would otherwise be. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein it's a bit of both. It's good to keep the backlog down, and I'm enjoying reviewing articles at GAN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's in October I won't be available to coordinate because I'm running a one-month NPP drive starting 15 October. (t · c) buidhe 22:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I would be able to help coordinate in October, if someone is needed. Hog Farm _Talk 23:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure a drive is needed at this time, the backlog easily hits more than 500 from time to time, and that's when we need the really strong focus on reducing it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The backlog has certainly been higher, but I don't think that's a good reason to keep it from getting lower. Indeed, the Guild of Copy Editor's focus on bi-monthly backlog backlog drives has brought their backlog from 8,000 to as low as 51. I don't think we need bi-monthly drives here, but a couple packed more closely together, followed by more regular ones spread further apart, could probably keep the backlog at a more maintainable level. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The GOCE is a different beast altogether. A thankless task to pre-review articles. I still remain unconvinced that a backlog which is less than we started with in previous drives is useful. Maybe some incentive to review older GANs would be good. But right now we're below where end up after a drive so I don't see the point. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Mistake

I had multiple tabs opened and accidentally began a review of my own article Talk:Agrippa_Postumus/GA1, meant Talk:Hungarian nobility/GA1. Was checking if anyone looked at mine while starting the other and goofed. Pretty sure it doesn't affect anything but explaining in case it does. SpartaN (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

If this happens you can tag the page for speedy deletion under G7, and with the help of a friendly admin it should fix itself. CMD (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Nominated for CSD, thanks :) I've just about forgotten the basic WP processes lol SpartaN (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting new reviewer after strange insta-fail

Would someone be able to pick up Talk:Pierson, Iowa/GA1? It was insta-failed with mostly easily fixable issues. There are also non-issues like a healthcare and transportation section which can't exist for this town of 337 people. The reviewer also wants everything stated within the article to also pass the GNG. I waited around a week and half for this after the reviewer picked it up. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging reviewer @SounderBruce: SL93 (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"Mostly fixable" is a stretch. There's several sections that are outright missing, which clearly fails criteria 3a, and several of the citations used are entirely unreliable or too-closely paraphrased. The size of the town is no excuse for not covering the basics of geography and demographics that are expected of every city article beyond a bot-written summary. SounderBruce 02:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I said "easily fixable". Much of your review is unfair for the topic. Your review said that only one source was closely paraphrased. The "advertisement" one is not an advertisement which leaves "one" unreliable source. SL93 (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

There are two large sections for the demographics. The geography section already has the basics of a small area. Those sections are similar to my other GA at Kingsley, Iowa. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Two "large sections" generated by a bot from Census data is not enough. Two lines with the coordinates and raw size of the city proper are also not enough and could easily be replaced with the help of map sources. SounderBruce 02:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Then what is enough? I'm not sure what needs adding other than number of people, races, and gender. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Casliber: who reviewed my other Iowa GA for more insight. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of why the population grew/shrank between decades, household types, per capita income...all of this is available from the census but not covered by the bot readouts. (Also, please do not abuse the ping function. I do have this page on my watchlist.) SounderBruce 03:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I will wait for more input. It's a stretch to call is an abuse of the ping function unless I know for a fact that you have the page on your watchlist. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay hang on, looking now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Right - @SL93: - Sounderbruce's suggestiions are what I would have suggested largely. Also avoid one-sentence paras. Once you've done them all, renominate and I'll review. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm at a loss. The census information is the same thing as the Kingsley, Iowa article. SounderBruce also mentioned better sources for the organizations which is very vague. SL93 (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I have some sympathy, there are some very good points made but also a few that go beyond the criteria. In a city? of 300 odd people with low coverage in reliable sources you can’t be expected to create and fill sections where no information exists. Your best bet is to take Casliber on as a new reviewer once you have gone through all the previous review questions. If you don’t agree with any you can say so and then discuss with them why. As long as everyone remains reasonable you should be able to reach a satisfactory compromise that still meets the criteria. Aircorn (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Thanks for the comment. I have started fixing the issues that I can and I agree with. I'm trying to get the article to GA status because of how often I visit the place, but the original review made it seem to me that it was similar to writing for FA. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know how to approach a lot of these. Some just seem like suggestions and not actual issues for GA, some are blatantly false, some are already there, some are vague, and some of them cannot even exist as sections. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Casliber passed my GA, but the bot removed it from the pending nomination list as failed and no GA icon was ever added. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@SL93: - The bot removing it as failed and sending you the failed message is a known bot bug. The GA icon can be added manually, which I will do. Hog Farm _Talk 21:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Bangalamania

I've just undone a large number of out-of-process nominations by User:Bangalamania on articles that are either clearly not ready for GAN (e.g. Helen Munro Ferguson, Viscountess Novar, which only has two references) and/or that they have not significantly edited (e.g. Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners). There are a number of other borderline cases with stability concerns (Boris Johnson), quality issues (Korean Englishman), or that this user created several years prior but have not recently touched Squirt.org. I think the rest of these are worth combing over for possible removal/autofail. — GhostRiver 20:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for not following the GAN process properly. – Bangalamania (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Out of process GANs passed

Today, my GAN Cedar Hill Yard was mysteriously instantly passed to GA without any review. When I looked into things, it turns out that User:PedroC6586 improperly passed it to GA, along with several other GANs. There's possible socking going on with another account, User:Brothers1837, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PedroC6586. All of their GA activity should be reverted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the user has currently opened a review page for Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign (my nomination). Does the review page need to be deleted? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've undone the five reviews: Stortinget station (nominated by PedroC6586, reviewed by Brothers1837), Cedar Hill Yard, Nationaltheatret metro station, North–South Commuter Railway, and Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign (reviewed by PedroC6586). I agree this looks strange, particularly at Nationaltheatret metro station where PedroC6586 added content to the article, Brothers nominated it for GA with their 4th edit, and Pedro reviewed and passed it. Seems they're looking into it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PedroC6586. I think I got all of the relevant reviews and returned them to the queue at their previous spots, but let me know if I missed any. Ajpolino (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed the Stortinget station nomination as well; the last thing we need is a dubious nomination by someone who is, at least, clearly unable to properly apply the GA criteria and also to recognize when they are involved (PedroC6586 should never have reviewed Nationaltheatret metro station after their edits to the article), and currently under investigation as a sock (the CheckUser report is very troubling). Should the investigation close without action, the nomination can be restored with no loss of seniority. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked PedroC6586 for two weeks and Brothers1837 indefinitely, along with two zero-edit sleepers. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make FA and GA icons in articles more noticeable #2

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make FA and GA icons in articles more noticeable #2. Dege31 (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Guest voices

You are requested to provide your opinions at Talk:Tuqaq/GA2 — an individual reassessment. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

And, at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Magtymguly Pyragy/1 — a community reassessment. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Attempt to review own nom

I noticed that Tintinkien had ‎opened a review (possibly by mistake?) of his own GAN for Hawker Tempest. I applied CSD to the nomination page as it's not allowed to review your own nomination. Also, the GAN would not pass as the article meets quickfail criteria due to having active cleanup tags. (t · c) buidhe 08:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the GA page. It looks like you've also reverted the GA nom, so I guess we can consider this one concluded.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Streets (Doja Cat song)/GA1

Hey all. BuySomeApples opened the review for Streets (Doja Cat song) on September 20 yet they haven't made a single edit since September 22. Should we close that or mark it so someone else can pick it up? – zmbro _(talk) 18:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We could just delete it. It appears BuySomeApples opened with a standard template, and no reviewing has taken place. CMD (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps worth mentioning that the nominator has also not edited in two months. — GhostRiver 03:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

GAN passed by sock

[12] This GAN was nominated by User:What am you are 7 and promoted by User:What am you are 8. The latter is an account created solely [13] to promote the former's GAN. The socking is so obvious it's funny, but the GA should be undone. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/What am you are 7 Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed the GA template and tagged the GA for deletion, although incidentally the article seems in pretty good shape and may well meet the GA criteria, or not be that far off, if any editor in good standing wanted to look into that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, we also have User:What am you are 4 and User:What am you are 10. Hog Farm _Talk 17:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Blablubbs is on the case :) firefly ( t · c ) 17:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

GA pass

An article I nominated for GA just passed, but Legobot processed the pass as maintenance and did not add the GA badge to the article. Should it just be added manually? Armadillopteryx 06:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Armadillopteryx, yeah, I don't see why not. I just added it now - sometimes Legobot has a tendency to screw up and not add the badge. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: got it; thank you! Armadillopteryx 18:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

On category for GAN for a specific article

Hi, I've been working to improve the article Blood donation in India and was wondering if are there any restrictions on certain categories of articles ineligible for GAN? Since this topic focuses around general medicine/public health and not core medicine, would WP:GAN#MED be the right category to nominate it? Thanks! MT Train^Talk 14:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Mark the train – Feel free to nominate the article in the category most closely related with the topic, which, in this case is 'Biology and medicine'. Even if you don't know/specify any category, it is nominated in the 'Miscellaneous' section. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks for the answer :) MT Train^Talk 17:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Nominations by IP editor

Are nominations by an IP editor typically permitted? The only edits User:2804:7F4:8280:BEC4:DB4:94E2:8B9B:4E37 have made are to nominate articles, or to add the GAN tag incorrectly to the article space and their own user talk. Rfl0216 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on this, it looks like this account Pedrohribeiro13 (talk · contribs) was created specifically to "review" those GANs. Somebody with more experience needs to take a closer look at these, and probably revert all of them. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 23:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep that is a strange series of events and pretty ducky. I see Pedro has since retired from his short Wikipedia career. Have removed one nomination, but if a friendly admin could delete Talk:Hanya Yanagihara/GA1, Talk:The People in the Trees/GA1 and Talk:A Little Life/GA1 that would be great. I will remove the GA status from the articles. Aircorn (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IIRC, yes, IPs can nominate -- it's reviewing that they're prohibite from -- but this is clearly sketchy. I've undone the edits to the talks and G6 tagged the review pages per prior observed protocol for clearly-sketchy GANs. Vaticidalprophet 01:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Vaticidalprophet beating me to it. FWIW Ips are allowed to nominate articles. Aircorn (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the three GAs. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

IPs are allowed to nominate, but if they haven't made significant contributions to the articles then they're still responsible for consulting the major contributors to the article prior to nominating per the GA nomination instructions. The same is true of non-IP editors nominating articles when they haven't done significant work there. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

GA pass, no icon

Yesterday I reviewed Edith Garrud for GAN and marked it as passed. On the article's talk page this looks good, but there is no GA icon on the article page. Perhaps the bot got confused because at nomination time the article was called Edith Margaret Garrud. Can I just fix the article page myself? I also see that Edith Garrud is not listed in the Sports and recreation GAs. Should I fix that manually as well? Edwininlondon (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Edwininlondon. Thanks for picking up the GAN review. There's two pieces here - one, our bot is old and has a few bugs. It is supposed to add {{good article}} to the page, but sometimes it fails to do so. I generally wait at least a day before doing this manually. The bot updates quite a few pages with each article, so I'm a bit worried it won't update the right info. However, it should be added. The second part, it is actually part of the review guidelines to add the article once passed to WP:GA, the bot doesn't do this for you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Lee, I have done both manually now. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism, unsure what to do

Hi! I'm almost done with a review over at Talk:Shirley Chisholm/GA1. However, the the article has a 98% copyvio similarity with this website's article. Much of the text is supported by the sources cited, is publicly available, or basic facts about the subject (comes with being known for government work I imagine). However, I've never seen such a high similarity. I'd appreciate if someone with more experience dealing with plagiarism on Wikipedia could take a look at the review and copyvio report and see if the article can still pass GA or if something must be done with the article due to copyright. Cheers. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

They copied us, apparently; their article is dated 3/25/2019 and is essentially identical to the revision of our article as of earlier that month. Hog Farm _Talk 17:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated Hog Farm. Also I didn't know about that tool Buidhe! I love how many tools WP has, god bless open source volunteering. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• User:A._C._Santacruz Thank you for checking copyvio on the articles that you review. I agree, this is either a clear-cut copyright violation or else backwards copy (i.e. the magazine copied from Wikipedia). The magazine article is dated 03/25/2019 and does not say it's copied from Wikipedia, so the next step would be load the tool WhoWroteIt to figure out whether the article text came first. Looks like Hog Farm beat me to it... (t · c) buidhe 17:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

New reviewer

I've just started a review for Android Debug Bridge, but keep worrying I'm going to screw something up and pass an inadequate article/fail a good one. Is it okay to leave a second opinion request on my first review(s) to make sure a more experienced reviewer takes a look at it?

Also, unrelated question: what does the "X reviews" parenthetical after mean on the nominations page? Rusalkii (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

All GA reviewers start somewhere! :) Putting in a formal second opinion request on one's first review happens occasionally, but it isn't very frequent, as reviewers are fairly limited compared to the number of articles needing reviews; second opinions are more often reserved for cases where the original reviewer will be unable to complete a review, such as for off-wiki commitments. Informally, many more experienced reviewers are happy to look over a newer reviewer's work, including by asking on this very page if the review looks good. The "X reviews" parenthetical is an approximate count of how many reviewers a given editor has performed; it's not always accurate (it doesn't track username changes, and the bot that handles GANs has some issues and occasionally misses reviews), but it's usually in the ballpark. Vaticidalprophet 18:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll leave a message here once I'm done, then. Rusalkii (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

And done with the first pass. Happy to hear any feedback. Rusalkii (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to provide a second opinion on this once the nominator responds to your comments. (t · c) buidhe 04:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am also a new reviewer. I have an article or two in mind that I'd like to nominate for review, but I figure I should contribute to your backlog to understand the process and contribute first. I'll do my best by following the instructions. Ruthgrace (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ruthgrace It's great that you're willing to review articles, but reviewing is not a prerequisite to nominating! If you think your article meets the GA criteria, I would suggest nominating it. (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the encouragement, Buidhe! I will definitely nominate once the article I have in mind is ready. :) I actually already completed a review. I did my best, but of course I'm a little nervous that I've messed up something, so feel free to take a look and check if it's OK if you have the time: Talk:Cornwall_Electric/GA1. No worries if not, though! All the best. Ruthgrace (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Clique (song)/GA1

I am concerned about this review, which appears to consist of a single sentence. That's not sufficient in my view; every GA at least has discussion points that can be raised, including ones where I am confident that the nominator has sufficient expertise and writing skills to not require many changes during a review (which, in the case of Kyle Peake's experience on writing pop music GAs, seems likely). The nominator was community banned a few months later.

My question therefore, is what should we do? We could relist the GA review, or we could trust that Kyle has done a sufficient job that it probably does meet the GA criteria. Any thoughts? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I'm trying to understand the history here. You said the nominator has been cbanned. Did you mean the reviewer? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps take an informal review of it on its talk page, if it doesn't seem like it would have passed without some improvement then it can be tackled there, Kyle Peake is a diligent enough editor that anything that needs addressed undoubtedly will be. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I had a read-through today and cleaned any mistakes I could see in the article, but it was not very much to be honest. However, combining this and how the review seems to have been conducted in an improper manner, I would say that a reassessment is not suitable but maybe some comments on the talk page would be reasonable. --K. Peake 20:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I think this needs a full review by someone competent; the original reviewer certainly wasn't. Conducting a semi-review on the article talk page doesn't cut it. Just looking at the lede, I don't understand why "while" is use with "co-produced by West", nor why an unencyclopedic phrase like Two days after it sprang a leak is considered "clear and concise prose" per the GA standard. I don't expect there to be a huge amount to clean up, but enough that a real review needs doing so the article can be improved enough to get there (for example, in the Background and recording section). BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Serial Number 54129 has requested a speedy deletion of the review page; if it is deleted, I think we have no choice but to remove the GA listing and reinstate the original nomination, though in that case it would retain its original nomination date since this is effectively an unwinding of the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure the G5 applies here -- TUB/SttS was banned after the fact, and given the SPI is under his username/s on the same account, not now known to be block/ban-evading when that account is made. Vaticidalprophet 16:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The speedy was declined for just that reason. However, I think a competent review needs to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Clique (song)/GA1. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Confusing GA review by new Wikipedian

Skytheunicorn has just reviewed and passed Talk:Paganism in Middle-earth/GA1, but it doesn't seem to have been done according to the GA criteria. In particular, Needs One or two more sections; I feel like more evidence would be too much for the reader's experience, but adding per se an author testimony section would be good seems to be saying that the article fails number 3, Broad in its coverage, and the final conclusion, With slight tweaking, yes, means that it isn't there yet.

While I appreciate their enthusiasm, at best, the article should have been put on hold for additional work to be done, but it isn't clear that all the criteria have been addressed by the reviewer in their review. In addition, Skytheunicorn nominated five articles for GA at around the same time, two in the hour prior to their review, and three in the hour after it. As they hadn't made any edits at all to these articles, much less significant ones, and had not consulted with those who had contributed on the talk pages prior to nominating these articles (as WP:GANI notes should be done), I will be reverting their nominations. If they wish to consult on those talk pages, with the usual seven days to see what the responses are to the idea that the articles are ready for GA review, then they can always renominate if consensus is that the particular article is indeed ready. However, it might be a good idea to get far more experience of Wikipedia in general and article writing in general before plunging into the world of GA reviewing and nominating. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with all the above, and left a note at there talk page. The article is part of Chiswick Chaps in depth series of LOTR articles so probably meets the criteria, but could probably do with a quick look from someone with more experience. Aircorn (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Aircorn, in that case, it's probably better to revert the passage and make the review active again, then ask for a second opinion/review, rather than leave it as passed. I'll do that this evening; the review page is missing some key boilerplate. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for educating me on this, I believe we came to similar conclusions, but I just took the conclusion incorrectly. (Due to a lack of experience) I will learn from this. Skytheunicorn (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yapperbot sent this to my talk page today. I'll follow up on the second opinion. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for the care and attention. There's an old Scots proverb "Ye may be aye sticking in a tree, Jock: it will be growing while ye are sleeping". Seems so in this case! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks especially to our colleague BlueMoonset who has been answering user questions on this very talk page for many years. Prhartcom (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Backlog drive?

Update: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022

I know there was a discussion about this last month, but the backlog's gone up by nearly a 100 since then, so perhaps a Dec backlog drive is in order? AryKun (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if December is ideal because of holidays. I'd support running the drive in January. (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Will there be barnstars? I'd volunteer if I get some shiny bling. VR _talk 04:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There are always barnstars! (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

December might not be a bad idea, maybe even if it were a six-week run across the new year. I don't know about everyone but once work lets out a bit over the holidays I've got a lot more time on my hands usually spent engaging in the traditional rewatching of Jaws, which could easily be repurposed more productively. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking about suggesting a backlog drive in January as well. We could also have it be for more than just 1 month, per Grapple X. I don't see any reason a drive couldn't include parts or all of December and January, there's certainly enough nominations to keep reviewers busy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: We are approaching halfway through December now. Do we need to do anything in particular to "formalize" that a GAN backlog drive will be happening soon? I'm new to this process still, but I'm eager to see it succeed. And, do we wait until January 1st, or start it sooner? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings The enthusiasm is great! The next steps to make sure that the drive happens are

1. Get at least 2, preferably 3, coordinators on board
2. Create Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022 based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021. I suggest returning to the simpler scoring rule "One point is awarded for every article reviewed."
3. Draft a message to send to Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/Mailing list to let them know about the drive, then ask an admin or mass message sender to put it out around a week before the beginning of the drive.

Unfortunately, since I'm now a FAC coord I don't think I'll be able to help out on this drive, but perhaps some of the other coords on the last drive Usernameunique or Lee Vilenski would be available. (t · c) buidhe 17:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy to serve as a coord if needed. I'll have more free time come January, and about a year of recent on-Wiki experience under my belt. — GhostRiver 18:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I can coordinate as well. I'd recommend keeping the .5 point for old nominations (which seemed to work the last time) and dropping the words-based points (which was a lot of work). --Usernameunique (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Trainsandotherthings, Usernameunique, Lee Vilenski, GhostRiver I suggest that if you guys still want to run the drive in January to get started on it sooner rather than later. (t · c) buidhe 05:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the nudge, Buidhe. I've created the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022. Meanwhile, on the mailing list talk page, I've drafted a message to send in advance of the drive, and asked about updating the mailing list. Closer to the date, I can also request a watch-list notification at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Another new reviewer causing problems

I should probably get my own house in order before I start throwing stones, but I have noticed yet another overeager young reviewer who is quickfailing articles with almost no commentary. The two examples so far from User:Kpddg include:

• Tuvalu at the 2020 Summer Olympics, which failed on broadness of coverage because "This article cannot be expanded further", which is, uh, not what the criteria says.
• Article has been set to second opinion. Open for an experienced reviewer to take a look. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Whiteguru, you can't set a new unreviewed nomination to second opinion: no status is allowed until a review page is actually opened. Since the original review failed the nomination, the new nomination will have to proceed much like is being done with the broccoli renomination. I've removed the status field entry. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset ... If you look at this a little more closely I reverted this back to the original nomination and then added the second opinion tag as there was already a review on the page. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Whitegure, I did look closely: this was your edit, to set the new GA nominee (page 2) to second opinion, with the original page 1 still in the FailedGA template. You may have meant to set the original nomination to second opinion, but you set the new nomination instead. I can straighten things out if you'd like me to so the original nomination is reopened and the failure reverted; we would get rid of the second nomination at the same time. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset that is a satisfactory conclusion. Proceed. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• George H. W. Bush broccoli comments, failed as "repetitive, short article" with no actual examples of the repetition.
• Article has been renominated. Open for an experienced reviewer to start a new review, as per guidelines. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There is also one quick pass, at Talk:Philippe Coutinho/GA1, but I am more concerned about the quickfails, both of which came on nominations from GAN veterans. — GhostRiver 05:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I am more worried about the quick pass than the quick fails because if the article is not really evaluated we have no way of knowing if it meets the GA criteria. For the quickfails, they can be renominated. (t · c) buidhe 05:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That review (quick pass) is being taken for a second opinion. I'll get around to it anon. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Could we have a second opinions on quick-fails as well? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I would just resubmit with the old timestamp so you don't lose your place in the queue. (t · c) buidhe 20:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't resubmit with an old timestamp if the original review is closed as failed with a later timestamp. It's something else if the original review is reopened or a review is deleted, but in this case the failures have been allowed to stand. If we decide instead to reopen the failures, then the original review gets reverted and a new opinion is requested without any loss of seniority. I notice that the quick pass is getting another reviewer; perhaps the same can be done with the two failures. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I wrote the message now and it seems as if I did not review. But I first looked at the article a couple of days ago and then wrote on the page after reviewing. Kpddg (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Just at the most superficial glance, surely an article tagged as having multiple deadlinks since 2018 in its references should have had that issue fixed before passing (WP:GACR #2b). Seeing those cleanup tags, and the shortness of the review, does not give me confidence that a very thorough review was performed. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am concerned about the quick-fails too ... The reason given for failing George H. W. Bush broccoli comments (my nomination) here was "repetitve (the quote where he says 'I dont like brocolli', etc; short article". Well, that quote is just two times in the article (first time in the lead and then in the prose). Moreover, I don't think that the article is too short, there is no minimum length for a GA except that it has to cover all major aspects. Have left a message on reviewer's talk page. Would it be possible to have both the quick-fails re-assessed without renominating? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank You for telling me. Will keep in mind in future. I saw some of Whiteguru's reviews, and will try to improve. Please do give any more points of improvement. I have just started reviewing another article. Can I go ahead, or are there any requirements?Kpddg (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kpddg – I'll say you can carefully go ahead and give constructive feedback for the nominations, but it would be a nice idea to ask second opinion on your review from any experienced reviewer before passing or failing the article. Thank-you for your help. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot Kpddg (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, currently, George H. W. Bush broccoli comments is re-nominated for GAN. By doing that, aren't we sending a message that the article had previously failed due to it not meeting the GA criteria, which clearly was not the case. If there are issues with the review itself, it should be sorted on the original review page itself. Re-nominating the article is the easiest step, but it is not justified. Currently, the article is added again to the end of the queue, losing its original place. Also, I had already previously mentioned that I'll prefer a "second opinion" than a re-nomination. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment states: Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination. I am inclined to challenge the review then. Would that be fine? Courtesy ping for BlueMoonset and Whiteguru. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  You could, but to be honest you would be better off just renominating. There is a conversation about removing that from GAR and speaking from experience you are much more likely to get a quicker result b6 renominating. Aircorn (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Yeah, and the article was already re-nominated by Whiteguru. But, in my opinion, by renominating, aren't we indirectly endorsing the first review? I am not feeling particularly happy about this one ... I'll rather have a second opinion on the same review page or a re-assessment than a new review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't see that it's endorsing the first review. Reviews can go wrong in all sorts of ways; this is just a way of starting fresh if reopening the review isn't feasible. I don't know why it wouldn't be feasible, however: pinging Whiteguru to see whether, under the circumstances, we can reopen the failures (this one and Tuvalu) in the same way as was done with the quick pass, so that both are open to new reviewers. We have done this with clearly inexperienced reviewers in the past. Kavyansh.Singh, community GARs tend to take forever, and in this case, challenging a failure, it just means that a full GA review will need to be done anyway in the course of it, which (as a group effort needing consensus to close) would almost certainly take longer than your standard single-reviewer GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with BlueMoonset that community GAR's take forever to resolve and you may wait for quite some time for consensus and closure of the review. BlueMoonset my sense is we ought proceed with your suggestion of re-opening the failures so that both are open to new reviewers. A good solution for all. I do hope that our new reviewer Kpddg engages and observes the reviewing - for their benefit and that of the GA reviewing team. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on highly technical review/article on taxes

I saw Pseudo-reorganization acquisitions was in backlog and made my 2nd review ever here. Am concerned my feedback is harsh/unfair and would love a confidence check at Talk:Pseudo-reorganization acquisitions/GA1. Feel free to respond here or in the review directly. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on referencing style appreciated. This is my third GAN. A 2nd opinion welcome here on referencing styles Talk:Regular number/GA1 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Christmas review request

Hello all, long time no talk. Without flatly begging for a review, the article Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album is up for DYK for Christmas Day, and is just short of the 5x expansion requirement. I don't want to artificially bloat the article, and I would be GA nominating it anyway after spending working on its expansion, and since a new GA status is also suitable for DYK approval, I nominated it and have come to ask if anyone would be kind enough to review it before Christmas? Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I have reviewed the nomination and placed it on hold (after seeing it on WT:DYK). eviolite (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

:) Kingsif (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Legobot not picking up Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album

I was wondering why Legobot hasn't processed my review of Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album (from the section above) yet; it seems to be working for other nominations. It didn't increment my review count nor did it process the pass (i.e. sending a notice and marking the article and talk page.) Did I mess something up? (One thing is that I immediately placed the article on hold after starting my review, rather than initiating it and reviewing it after as I've done before, not sure if that's affected it...) eviolite (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you have to leave it on review for long enough for Legobot to run (which it does usually every 20 minutes). Otherwise it won't pick up on the fact that you did the review. (t · c) buidhe 15:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks; I'll go promote it manually and remember to do that next time. eviolite (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Weather-related article at GAN

See discussion at WT:FAC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington) GAN

Hey all. An IP editor who contributed greatly to Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington) nominated it for GAN back in July. I made this edit reverting it as that specific IP hadn't edited since July and I was under the impression IPs couldn't nominate GAs, but unknowingly they have been continuously improving the article through various IPs and also have an official account here. Would it be possible to reinstate the nom's position in the GAN list; since they have been waiting since July it would be very unfair if they had to wait significantly longer due to a mistake on my part. I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. – zmbro _(talk) 04:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Number of reviews by year?

I wonder if there's any way to know who did the most GA reviews this year? Perhaps we could start handing out barnstars to people who are contributing to GAN reviewing all year round to aid people's motivation even outside of backlog drives. NPP has a similar system of handing out year-end barnstars. (t · c) buidhe 13:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: - One way would be to find the 12/31/2020 revision of User:GA bot/Stats and then compare it to the current revision, although that could be a bit tedious. Hog Farm _Talk 14:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I found the last 2020 revision of GA bot/Stats in a couple minutes. It certainly seems to track my intuition that TRM did the most reviews this year. The bot doesn't track name changes, which might be an issue out at the tails. Vaticidalprophet 14:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

If I did the math right, TRM would be at 322 (!), but it looks like Some Dude from North Carolina had 331 (!). And I thought I was doing good to do about 70. Hog Farm _Talk 14:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Kyle Peake has 197 reviews this year, maybe that's #3? (t · c) buidhe 15:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion

There was a drive-by GA pass by an inexperienced reviewer at Talk:Philippe Coutinho/GA1. I am able to re-review this. Can I just add my feedback on the GA1 review page? I'm sorry for the delay in following up on this. I volunteered to give a second opinion and then forgot about it for >10 days, but I will start this weekend. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep, it's fine just to leave the review on /GA1. The downside is that it won't be counted in your review total by the GA bot, since you didn't create the page. (t · c) buidhe 22:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I changed the status to "onreview" and will get to work in the next day or two. No problem on the issue of not counting (but thanks for letting me know). Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion cleanup needed

Can someone delete Talk:BAP Carrasco (BOP-171)/GA1 as G6/housekeeping? Elelch, you can't review your own GA nomination. Wait for someone else to create the review page (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Quick pass

Hi there, a new user has passed my GA nomination Talk:1961 San Diego Chargers season/GA1 without comment. I'm not sure of the correct procedure with this?--Harper J. Cole (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You're correct that this is not a GA review. It should be G6 deleted. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging GAN backlog drive coordinators GhostRiver, Lee Vilenski, Trainsandotherthings, and Usernameunique, since the reviewer, BubbaDaAmogus, is participating in the drive and has listed the article. Indeed, they've done the same with their review of Talk:1990 San Diego Chargers season/GA1, only for 1990 they just passed it, while for 1961 they said they needed help (but passed it anyway). Note that these were both "old" nominations, so if the decision is to revert the passes, they'll need to be reinstated in the drive's old nominations table. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think they may be confused, as on the 1961 San Diego Chargers GA1 page, their comments are "This is my first ever review, and I need some help on this." Obviously, they didn't do the review correctly, and someone will need to step in and undo the GA promotions. I'm hoping this was a good faith mistake on the part of BubbaDaAmogus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Their conduct at 1990 San Diego Chargers season erases any AGF for me. Their edit summary was "The article has been reviewed and approved for good article status, this discussion is now closed. *gavel bangs*" But no reviewing was done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Harper J. Cole: I've reverted the GA promotions (and made it very clear on the drive's page the "reviews" will not count), but you will need an admin to delete the GAN pages, allowing for another reviewer to take on the reviews. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Pointing out that drive coordinator Lee Vilenski is an admin, and can hopefully take care of the GAN pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if I missed anything. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

A review of my GAN Tietze syndrome seems to have been passed way too quickly, in roughly 20 minutes time. The reviewer does not seem to be experienced in GAN, or Wikipedia even. Their account is less than a month old. Not to mention there are a couple of suggestions another user commented on my talk page that I have yet to complete, which you can find here. If anyone would be willing to re-review my article, it would be greatly appreciated. —TheRibinator (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, the reviewer, User:Sennalen, is a backlog drive participant, and has added the review in the submissions (Special:Diff/1063356511). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone appears to have accidentally removed the backlog diff. I added back in with a note that it won't count, with a courtesy link towards this discussion. Curiously, their other GAN appears to have been more thorough despite it being their first. I am away from my laptop for the next several hours, so other coords will have to jump in. Courtesy ping to Trainsandotherthings, Lee Vilenski, and Usernameunique. — GhostRiver 18:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I am an experienced wikipedian on a clean start account. I don't commit to a review without having read the article and having an outline of key points in mind. Tietze syndrome was read with the same care as Talk:Tolkien's_style/GA1. This simply does not need rework to meet the standards, which are specific and not a very high bar. I didn't look for content concerns on editors' talk pages, but the main points there were addressed in an edit on Dec 27. There are probably imperfections as in any article, so there's no harm in getting more input. Sennalen (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the article - there's a couple things that really should be addressed, (such as the over use of quotes, the prose being a bit journalistic), but at least there isn't any copyvio that I found, and everything is sourced. I don't have too many issues about it passing, although I usually request some critical response from a GA Review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

To add to above comments, I'd like to note that since I've peaked in on the FA process more and more, my standards for GA seem to have decreased. I'm sure the editors who said my reviews were too harsh will appreciate that, but seeing the demands and reasons for those demands at FA, I've come to realize that GA really means "article probably isn't of encyclopedic standard but has everything a layperson will need to know and is at least standardized in format". While FA takes a lot of work to achieve, it really should be the goal for as much of Wikipedia as possible to reach GA. Like, yeah, maybe there's some more tweaks to do, but this isn't FA so if it serves the purpose, well, I'm starting to be less pushy. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly am not opposed to Tietze syndrome becoming GA if others agree that it should be. I am open to any comments on how to improve the article. I just wanted to bring it up because it was a fairly quick review and I hadn't really received much feedback like the review for my last article. --TheRibinator (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

61/90 Chargers Seasons 2O request

I would like to also request a second opinion on the 1961 and 1990 San Diego Chargers Seasons. These are my first reviews of a GAN, so I figured some assistance would be nice. Thanks. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

BubbaDaAmogus, your second attempt is still not a GA review and it makes no attempt to evaluate the article based on the criteria. This is becoming a WP:CIR issue. (t · c) buidhe 23:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so what do I do? BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Either post an actual GA review based on the directions at WP:Reviewing good articles, or paste {{G7}} on the GA review page. (t · c) buidhe 23:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I will try to do that, even though I don't understand what G7 will do. If I need help, I will either try to contact you on your talk page or ask someone else for help. Thanks for the advice! BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the best thing you can do right now is to get some more experience editing before you attempt more good article reviews. The process will make a lot more sense when you have more editing experience under your belt. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The G7 tag will bring in an admin to delete the page so another editor can review it. (t · c) buidhe 00:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

BubbaDaAmogus, I agree with what Trainsandotherthings has said: you have fewer than fifty edits to Wikipedia articles, and as such it's understandable why you would have so little knowledge of Good Articles and what the criteria actually mean and how to apply them. There are so many things to do on Wikipedia besides reviewing—try doing them for a while. I've found that people with fewer than 500 to 1000 edits rarely make good enough reviewers because they don't have an adequate understanding of Wikipedia and how it works. The best thing would be for you to withdraw from these two reviews; please don't open any more reviews for a while. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I won't, but I want to know, what is something I can do to help in Wikipedia that rewards me that isn't a good article review drive? Can you tell me about some things I can do here? I am a rookie, so I want to learn as much as possible. Thanks. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Just basic editing to get your foot in the door, so to speak. Maybe find an article or two to improve. There's a lot that you can only learn with experience. I was as new as you were just 5 months ago. Everyone starts there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings Wow! You actually joined wikipedia after I did and have accomplished so much. More than me at least, I don’t even have any awards :’). It’s nice to see how someone so passionate about what they do can accomplish so much. --TheRibinator (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheRibinator: Check again, I think you have an award now ;) Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Haha, many thanks for that! —TheRibinator (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

To reconfirm: BubbaDaAmogus will be withdrawing from these two reopened reviews, and the nominations should be put back into the pool of nominations awaiting a reviewer. Correct? Once we have confirmation, the review pages can be deleted and the nominations reset. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But, I do want to learn how to do a Good Article review someday. I can always come back every month, so this isn’t the end of the world, that I understand. Go ahead and delete the GANs with my permission, and if you have anything else to say, let me know on my talk page. I check everything daily. Thank you! BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion requested but no review was done

Talk:Aurochs/GA1 here the reviewer An anonymous username, not my real name requested a second opinion, but as nothing was actually reviewed (or at least nothing mentioned here), maybe the page should be deleted? Artem.G (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Very short reviews

In responding to this discussion on the backlog-drive talk page, I came across a few reviews that seem exceptionally short. The first two were quick-passed, and the third passed after three comments.

1. Tom Cole (review)
2. 60 Wall Street (review)
3. Ruth Crosby Noble (review)

At least to me (although contrary views are welcomed), these seem to fall short of the requirement that "an in-depth review must be performed to determine whether a nomination passes all of the good article criteria". The third article, too, seems to have potentially serious breadth issues, which were largely passed over in the review. Does anyone have suggestions for how to address these reviews? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I suppose we could begin with leaving a note to those reviewers, explaining that their reviews fall short (no pun intended) of good article review expectations. About assessing whether or not these actually meet the criteria, in my understanding we can consider reversion and putting them back where they were in the queue. There is some precedent for that practice, although I do not recall when this was done (BlueMoonset might know). — The Most Comfortable Chair 09:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should revert them. Looking at the articles, they do seem like with a little touching up, they would pass. I think a quiet word would be best to say we'd like some improvements suggested, and maybe a bit more analytical thought mentioned. 60 Wall Street for example has little that can be improved, so especially for a newer editor, they probably can't see much to comment. However, if you look, there are things to fix. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Rather than revert completely, it might be best to reopen them, and explain to the reviewer on their own talk page that more work needs to be done, with suggestions on where to start. A further suggestion that they hold off final approval on their reviews until someone has had a chance to be sure they haven't missed things. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy look again and a commit more authoritative feedback/review on that specific article. For other architectural related articles by same primary authors, I've given more critical feedback. This article wasn't one of them for me. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Listing the nominator in the default GAN page

Is there a reason why when GAN pages are created they list only the reviewer, and not the nominator? A lot of times when I look at a past GAN it takes me longer than it should to see who the nominator is (because many people commented on the review). Of course, it is listed in the main GAN page, but if one goes from article history, it is unavailable if the GAN has already finished. FLC, FAC and PR list the nominator, why not GAN? Aza24 (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I have done this is many of my GA reviews: (1, 2, 3, etc.). I think we'll either need the Legobot to do that, or the reviewer has to manually do that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Since Legobot can't be modified (no support for changes), this is something that could perhaps be addressed once a new bot is written (if one ever is), but for now the boilerplate top section of the review page has to be in a format that the bot can read, so we can't add the nominator's name. (I agree that it's useful: sometimes the only way to find the name of the nominator is to check the history of the article's talk page to see the nomination being made or while it was in progress: the nominator's name is in the GA nominee template.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yet another reason for a new bot. Is it time we actually put forward a new bot request to get these things looked at seriously? We seem to be treading water, I'm sure there is someone who can create and test a bot to do the actions we want and replace legobot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a good point—I've also dug through many talk-page histories to suss out the nominator, and as Aza24 said, it always feels as if it takes longer than it should. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a new bot is a great idea. I also recall the bug where Legobot says an article has failed when it actually passes. I'm sure there are others? Aza24 (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Firefly has been working on a new bot for some time. Vaticidalprophet 06:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeeeeess and I really need to finish that off and file its BRFA. It's nearly done, I just need to find time to do the last few bits. Thx for the reminder! firefly ( t · c ) 09:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

- I did remember we requested one a while back. I assumed it had not been worked on. That's fantastic news Firefly! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking over abandoned review

Hi all. Kosack hasn't edited since October 3rd. He left Talk:Thomas Tuchel/GA1 unfinished. I am interested in taking it up but am not sure what the procedure is when the previous reviewer is AWOL. Advice? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

REDMAN 2019, as long as the nominator (Paul Vaurie), wants to continue, I would say go for it. I would also make sure you familiarize yourself with the comments made during Kosack's review, so that you can ensure that both them, and your own comments, are addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019 and Usernameunique: Is there anything I can do to help facilitate the transition? Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have left initial comments on the GAR page. I'll have a look over Kosack's comments over the next few days, although Paul seems to have covered them pretty well so far. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Bot malfunction

Hi, guys & gals, I have placed GA icon on Stjepan Vukčić Kosača manually - there was some confusion about the reviews of that article in the first and second attempts, it is very possible that the editors who tried to review (1st and 2nd time) handled templates and its set-up incorrectly. The review was done properly in the third and last attempt. Now, in order to avoid new confusions, and possibly some problems with the manual placement of GA icon by me since I was the nominator, I would like someone to confirm that I acted correctly and within the constraints of our guidelines - I found under the Instructions that this is possibility when bot is malfunctioning for some reason(s). Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99°

The bot doesn't handle diacritic markings particularly well. You did the right thing by manually adding the icon. — GhostRiver 17:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

User Nominating bunch of articles

Q28 has been nominating bunch of articles without a single contribution on those. 180.194.213.114 (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Reverted by yours truly and the IP as out of process (t · c) buidhe 06:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Buidhe:But some of the articles I nominated don't have much problem. Why can't they be nominated?--Q28 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Q28 If you are not a major contributor, it is expected to consult on the talk page before deciding to nominate the article. You must also have access to the sources cited in the articles. (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  For the same reason, I'd be inclined to remove the nomination of 2021 Belgian Grand Prix. It was nominated by RemoteMyBeloved, a new editor who hasn't edited the article. I'd just go ahead and do it, but it was already reverted by an IP (edit summary: "didn't contribute to the article + user inactive"), and then that revert was itself reverted by SSSB, because "They don't need to have contributed (it's recommened, but not a condition)". That's technically true, but given the circumstances I think it would make more sense for RemoteMyBeloved to work on an article for some time, get the handle of things, and then nominate it. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  We do expect, at the very least that major contributors are informed before the nomination is made. That can just be a talk page message. Perhaps we should actually add this to our criteria? I've been pretty annoyed in the past when I've had an article almost complete, and someone came around and nominated it, without even editing the article. It's like breaking down the door to get into a cafe one minute before it opens. If an article is inactively being edited, or if contributors are happy with it being nommed (not everyone wants to do the GA process themselves), then everything is ok. Don't just go around nominating articles without asking. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Are we talking about Peano axioms? I see you did ask for it on the talk (which is fine). The article itself already passed an A-Class review, which is higher than a GA class anyway, so I think that's a bit of a waste of time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  It is also quite unproductive to spend the time looking through a nomination, only for it to turn out to have been a drive-by from someone not invested in the article who then does not get involved in the review. For new editors, it's probably in part a misunderstanding of what the GA process is, as it's often an interactive review rather than a simple grading. CMD (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  The A-class review of Peano axioms was in 2007. A-class is long-obsolete (at least for mathematics articles), so calling it higher than GA is dubious. I don't think the current version would pass more modern GA sourcing requirements. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion requested: Golden Retriever

Could another editor please take a look at Talk:Golden Retriever/GA1? The nomination was speedily failed without any chance given to rectify any of the issues raised. The reviewer, Kpddg (talk · contribs), has been the subject of several threads here already including the one above, WT:Good article nominations/Archive 25#Another new reviewer causing problems and WT:Good article nominations/Archive 25#Second opinion. I have attempted to engage with them on their TP [14] but they have not acknowledged my message despite editing elsewhere. Cavalryman (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC).

That does look like an improper fail to me. The issues identified could easily be corrected in less than a week. I see Kpddg said on his talk page "There were many issues with the prose of the article. Hence, I decided to fail it. All reasons have been mentioned on the GA page. I highlighted all points of improvement in the article. Thank You." At this point we may need to take some sort of action. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going to say, I think we're coming up to a point where a GAN topic ban should be suggested for Kpddg, considering they have already been given several warnings on the matter and continue to enact both improper GA passes and fails. — GhostRiver 15:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it is not long ago that I told them same when they failed my GAN, and they agreed to "keep [that] in mind". That has not been done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, I thought it looked a little off. As Kavyansh.Singh did at Talk:George H. W. Bush broccoli comments/GA1, I would like to reopen the first nomination and allow an experienced editor to have a look. Looking at the history I agree about a topic ban, multiple editors have reached out to this user, I suppose ANI is the correct venue to make the request. Cavalryman (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC).

Update, on their talk page Kpddg has committed to not review any more GANs until they have the required experience and permission is gained [15]. If they abide by this then there should be no need to seek a TBAN, if behaviour continues then I would support a trip to ANI. Cavalryman (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

Three nominations which did not appear on nominations page

As a heads up, three nominations—of Out of This Club (nominated 26 March 2021), Lie About Us (nominated 30 March 2021), and Nokia Lumia 800 (nominated 5 January 2022)—were incorrectly formatted on their talk pages, and thus did not show up on the nominations page. The problem was that the {{GA nominee}} templates were placed within the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} templates: see the example here. The first two, now nearly a year old, were nominated by MrHyacinth, who has not edited since October. The third—which was nominated with the subtopic "It has decent writing, good references too!" (and so still does not show up on the nominations page)—was nominated by Yodas henchman, who has not made a single edit to the article. For these reasons among others, I'll remove the nominations.

This should resolve some, and perhaps all, of the discrepancy between the numbers in Category:Good article nominees awaiting review (which displays at the top of the nominations page) and the numbers in WP:Good article nominations/Report—which is why I was looking at the talk pages of articles in that category in the first place. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Aha, good catch! (t · c) buidhe 04:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, given our previous discussions on the topic (e.g., 1; 2; 3), just making sure you see this. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Usernameunique. Great work in finding these. Good decision to remove the nominations, given the current circumstances of them. If MrHyacinth returns, he can renominate the two that were his. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

New reviewer requested for Affine symmetric group

Just as it seemed we were finally finishing up the review, another user active in WP:MATH,(not the nominator, who I must say in this context has been nothing but helpful and cooperative these past two months), chose to be hostile and confrontational with me to the point that I no longer feel comfortable continuing the review as it has become impossible for me to do so if I have to interact with this editor as I now have great difficulty assuming his participation in this review is in good faith.

Can it be flagged as needing a new reviewer? (It's not just "second opinion") We were so close to finishing it up that it really wouldn't be fair to the nominator to have to fail it/withdraw the nom and make him have to put it through the whole process again (although with the current backlog elimination drive that probably won't take too long, but it should be said that I took the review on in late October when no one had touched it since April, so it has already been the better part of a year here). But if that's the only way to separate myself from this review then I absolutely will ... someone else can deal with this guy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

For other reviewers who might want some context for this, which DC has helpfully omitted, see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Talk:Affine symmetric group/GA1. Also, note that the article is very technical; it would not be an easy review to redo, unless a reviewer would be willing to merely read through the existing discussion and check off which requests that might be left from it might still need doing and which were unreasonable in the first place rather than doing a full re-read of the article itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to think that if you do not feel comfortable in a review, fail the article, and suggest they renominate. An article being complicated is not a reason to put yourself through issues. Your comments are already there.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

“Reviews”

After each article title there is a total for reviews in brackets. Surely this should be “views”?? Am I missing something obvious?

If there is some reason it should be “reviews” could we add some sort of key or explanatory note? Mark83 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

it's the number of reviews the nominator has conducted. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

And that means…? Sorry, not trying to be difficult. I just think it isn’t clear at all and other readers would benefit from clarity. Mark83 (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone has to review each nomination for it to pass. We highlight the number of reviews because it gives a sign of experience with the GA process and shows that the editor has been contributing to the process by reviewing other nominations. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Even with the benefit of that explanation (and looking at it again with that knowledge), I think it could be clearer, especially the way the totals currently appear before user names. And sorry to be pedantic - but does a nominator complete a review? The review is a collaborative process to be sure, but would a nominations total not be more appropriate?

Current

1. Colby cheese (talk | history | discuss review) (Reviews: 4) DanCherek (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

   Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). (Reviews: 45) The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 09:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

1. Colby cheese (talk | history | discuss review) DanCherek (talk · contribs · Reviews: 4) 21:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

   Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs · Reviews: 45) 09:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Mark83 (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Problem is that nominations are difficult to measure, whereas the bot tracks reviews for us. Furthermore, someone who nominates five articles and they all quick-fail would be counted as five nominations, meaning that it's not a very helpful measure. I still want to see the reviews performed by each nominator so that I can prioritize those who are contributing by reviewing articles (I'm not the only one who thinks this, and in fact, some have called for showing the ratio of nominations to reviews). (t · c) buidhe 12:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, misunderstanding on my part. Happy to leave that then (and updated the formatting above as such) But what about the formatting? Putting the reviews after the username makes it clearer what it means? Mark83 (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually see the point being made here, as looking at it without experience or familiarity with the process, it could be misunderstood as something else and not immediately obvious that "reviews" actually is associated with how many GA reviews the editor on the same line has done. I don't know whether the bot can be amended for that (there have been other issues recently as I understand in making changes like that) but I actually think for formatting proposal by Mark83 makes good sense. A ratio of noms:reviews would be an interesting stat but one that surely would require a bit of additional work over a visual change. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Firefly who I will keep pinging here until he does those 'finishing touches' is the person to ask about tweaking this, as he's the person currently putting the finishing touches on a trial new bot. It's an interesting thing to consider in the future, although the mockup as presented right now might run awkwardly into the way signatures are formatted. Vaticidalprophet 18:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The signatures point is a fair one, though i'd wonder if we actually need to be using the custom markups over the vanilla signature for GA entries, particularly as it isn't signing off on something you wrote (like here) but merely as a reference to who has nominated/reviewed and when. I guess that could go to a vote maybe, although I don't see why it would present a problem. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

a lot of this stuff is fine, but doesn't really help us without a new bot. I can't say the current style is all that ambiguous... But I would like a ratio of nominations to reviews to show up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Bungle, I'm concerned less about custom sig markup and more about sig markup in general. I'm not sure it's possible to place text between the username/talk and the timestamp, at least not trivially. Vaticidalprophet 21:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: Any change to this effect wouldn't necessarily need to replicate the aforementioned example in identical form, but I guess the wider discussion is around whether the visual information can be improved by way of reducing any potential for ambiguity and providing additional stats which are useful. I am sure a bot could write a custom signature-like stamp anyway, it wouldn't even need to be a signature as-such but a custom stamp perhaps. These are just ideas though, we don't need to overthink the technicalities before anything has been considered. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't say the current style is all that ambiguous - I couldn't disagree more. Mark83 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Better way to write this sea of numbers?

I'm reviewing PrOP-M. At my suggestion, Artem.G wrote this sentence: Sources differ on the physical size of the rover. Some say it's 25 cm × 22 cm × 4 cm (9.8 in × 8.7 in × 1.6 in), others say 25 cm × 25 cm × 4 cm (9.8 in × 9.8 in × 1.6 in) or 21.5 cm × 16 cm × 6 cm (8.5 in × 6.3 in × 2.4 in). Between the 3 sets of data, 3 numbers per set, and units conversion, it's not easy to read. Any suggestions on how to represent the source disparity correctly while maximizing readability? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A couple of options off the top of my head:

1. Get rid of the imperial conversions entirely. Per MOS:CONVERSIONS, "But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so."
2. Demote the imperial conversions to an endnote.
3. Demote all specific dimensions to an endnote, leaving only "Sources differ on the physical size of the rover" in the body.

(And while I'm at it, I would change "physical size" to simply "size", or, if you are worried that "size" is ambiguous, "dimensions"; "it's" should also become "it is"). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Some say it's 25 cm × 22 cm × 4 cm (9.8 in × 8.7 in × 1.6 in),[2][6] others say 25 cm × 25 cm × 4 cm (9.8 in × 9.8 in × 1.6 in)[3] or 21.5 cm × 16 cm × 6 cm (8.5 in × 6.3 in × 2.4 in).[4][7] - convert to a footnote. The size of the rover is disputed, with it being listed between 21.5x16x4cm and 25x25x6cm.

Large sections and no subsections in a decent GAN article

I'm reviewing Basuto Gun War, which has large sections and no subsections. Is this an issue? Is there anything other than the vague statement at MOS:BODY ("sections over a certain length are generally divided into paragraphs; these divisions enhance the readability of the article") to help guide me on this one? 13:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Amitchell125 (talk)

• Amitchell125 while there's no codified length of a section, the sections must be short enough to be digestible for readers accessing on a variety of devices, including smartphones. I would agree with you that some of these sections should be broken up in order to ensure they're readable for all our readership. I've made an attempt but you should ask the nominator what they think. (t · c) buidhe 13:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I've pinged the nominator and, yes, what you've done is along the lines of what I would have suggested. We agree, thanks for your help. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It's worth noting that mobile devices (or at least the mobile view) only takes into account stage two headers. Stage three and lower only show up as bold headers. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The lower level headers still show up on mobile view, and in my opinion help the mobile reader orient themselves among long stretches of text that, if not broken up, would stretch across several full screens. (t · c) buidhe 16:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Review by newer editor

I just wanted to get a second opinion on this review. The reviewer is a newer editor, and only left suggestions about two sections in the article, stating no sources, and they're really the only two sections in the article that aren't typically sourced. I've written numerous good articles, I know my writing is good but it isn't that good . There's always things (typos, grammar and wording suggestions, etc.) the reviewer catches that I missed, that this review doesn't have. The reviewer seems to have good intentions and is in good faith but isn't quite ready to be reviewing yet. Thoughts? TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The reviewer has in fact already asked for a second opinion here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Asiatic cheetah

Article was promoted immediately, even there are several unsourced statements, citation overkill and citations at the lead. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:3DC2:ED5C:21B0:A6 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this does not look like a thorough GA review and should be undone. Kpddg you may not promote to GA any article with active cleanup tags (in this case multiple ) (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

buidhe How do you undo a GA promotion (do you need to be an admin)? Do you need to take it to reassessment? There are several valid citation needed templates, along with a couple of ref issues I could see. AryKun (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be an admin to undo it. I don't think it is possible to have the review page deleted, so what I would do is paste {{subst:GAR}} on the talk page, open an individual GA reassessment, explain briefly why it does not meet the GA criteria. Then close as delist. (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Just make sure you notify the nominator and give them a chance to fix it first. Aircorn (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging the nominator, Jazzstinger, per the above comment. This was one of several nominations of articles with issues—others include United States Marine Corps and United States Coast Guard—and while the enthusiasm is appreciated, it would be most helpful if paired with a working understanding of the good article criteria, and sufficient contributions to a nominated article to have a good grasp of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi guys, Usernameunique, Buidhe, AryKun. Thank you so much for your notes, I'm sorry for causing this much trouble. I don't really edit on Wikipedia that much, I didn't know anything about all the details that you guys are bringing up. Can you guys please give me a few days to fix Asiatic cheetah for now, apart from the multiple tags, is there anything else I should address to bring Asiatic cheetah to the GA standard. Jazzstinger (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Usernameunique, could you please give me some comments on how I could bring up United States Coast Guard and United States Marine Corps to the GA standard. Jazzstinger (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Jazzstinger, we all started there; my first article, for its part, was about as bad as you can get. One of the keys, I think, is starting small—with manageable articles that you can grasp easily and figure out how to structure and improve. For that reason, I'd hold off on thinking of United States Coast Guard and United States Marine Corps as GA projects for now. Those are huge articles, covering centuries of history, that would require access to dozens (if not hundreds) of sources to do properly. (That said, if you want to generally improve those article, finding sources to replace the "citation needed" tags would be a good start.) Even Asiatic cheetah is on the bigger side for a first good article, and I think it would be easier to start smaller. But if you want to pursue it, I'd a) figure out who the main contributors are to the article and raise the idea with them on the article's talk page; b) possibly solicit further input at WT:WikiProject Mammals; c) look at other good articles on similar subjects to get a grasp of how they're done; and d) immerse yourself in the sources in the article, taking care to understand what they say, what you should be adding to the article as a result, and what other sources are not cited in the article, but should be. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Advice on image copyright?

I am reviewing Elisabeth Dmitrieff and am not sure about how to address photographs which were taken in the early 20th century but perhaps never published, or not published until very recently. Could an experienced reviewer advise over at Talk:Elisabeth Dmitrieff/GA1? Thanks! ~ L 🌸 (talk)|

• Will do, (t · c) buidhe 20:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Excerpts

The use of {{excerpts}} seems incompatible with GA status (or at least very problematic). I've looked at the archives of this page and other editors seem to agree. Could I get some advice please as this is a concern relevant to a live nomination? But more generally I wonder if we could/should bring this into the GA criteria? Mark83 (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Excerpts are problematic in a few ways, not least in that they are not a stable part of the reviewed page, and so anyone looking at the GA version of the article may see something quite different. However, it should be simple enough for text in excerpts to be copied over with appropriate attribution. CMD (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

195 unreviewed nominations

As of the daily report, there are 195 unreviewed nominations. As Eddie891's great graph shows, that's the first time in nearly a decade there have been fewer than 200 unreviewed nominations. (Although it's been close three times in that span, and is possible that during the day the number of nominations slipped under that number, and then increased before the report ran.) It'll undoubtedly go back up after the current backlog drive ends if not before, but is nevertheless fun to see. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Since Eddie891's graph, at least the one that goes back that far, only has one data point per month, it's probably missing the drop to 181 unreviewed nominations during March 2014, which is recorded in the Report archives. Still, nearly eight years is pretty good, and we've gotten as low as 189 this drive, at the change of day on January 25/26. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Two reviews for deletion

The review of Ryan Carter (American football) was opened by Hey man im josh, with the edit summary "Accidently submitted myself as a reviewer". Unless I'm missing something, it appears that the review should be deleted so someone else may claim it. Note also that the review is malformed (it has no "Reviewer: [reviewer] [date] (UTC)" line), such that Legobot has difficulty with it. The nominator is Sportswikiteer. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that, this whole process is new to me and I was on the wrong page while trying to complete something and made a mistake. I have no association with that article and had no intentions of putting that article up for review. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, the review of 2022 College Football Playoff National Championship was opened by ArsenalGhanaPartey, who later edited the article's talk page to attempt to close the review, saying "Withdrawing my review with regret". The edit did not have the effect of showing the review as closed, however, and the article still shows up as under review on the nominations page. Given that no substantive comments were made on the review page, it should probably just be deleted. The nominator is PCN02WPS. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the first one. The second one should probably just be changed to look for page 2, as there is at least some content. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Lee Vilenski. Given that the content on the second is purely reminders about undertaking the review, I don't think there's much benefit to keeping it. But I don't care much either way. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've marked the second one for deletion; there's no point in retaining the page since no review has been done and the reviewer wishes to withdraw. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Is every topic inherently possible to write a "Good Article" about?

This is sort of a philosophical question, but one with significant ramifications for this process. And I don't doubt that it's been agonized over in the past, so references to previous discussions would be an excellent starting point for me to educate myself. Basically, the question is whether it's potentially possible to write a "Good Article" about any topic, or whether there are topics that are so narrow or abstruse or mundane that there simply isn't an intersection in the venn-diagram of "comprehensive," "not too detailed to lose the interest of a general reader," and "longer than a few sentences?"

I ask because it feels like there are otaku who toil over an article, adding every possible abstruse detail, yet never putting forward a rationale for why the topic might be interesting to a general reader... If you remove the trivia, there's not much left, certainly not a "Good Article." If you try to beef it up by broadening the context, it loses focus. Yet the author/nominator feels very strongly about their topic, and isn't interested in making any changes at all, on the grounds that they know more about their chosen subject than you do. Which they do. That just seems orthogonal to "goodness."

If the consensus is that anything can potentially be the subject of a "Good Article" and hallmarks of Good Articles are that they are both comprehensive and do not descend into trivia, it seems like the implication is that there can be very short good articles. Ones of only a handful of sentences. Because there are topics that are defined so narrowly that comprehensive coverage can be achieved with brevity.

Thoughts? Bill Woodcock (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If there isn't anything there after removing trivia and irrelevant info, then the topic is not notable and should be merged/redirected, most likely. I feel like any topic that is notable and should have its own article per WP:NOPAGE can be a good article. (t · c) buidhe 10:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A perrennial question - in theory, provided an article meets GNG, it can become a GA. In practice, we do require a little bit more about a subject, and items that are about things that are broad, but such things aren't covered in RS become an issue. We don't want WP:TRIVIA, and we do totally have short GAs. Quite a few roads (we have a list somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Alabama State Route 73 for example, is one.) We do have a minimum requirement for GAs to at least not be stubs; which generally means 1500 bytes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't believe in "every article a GA", though I'm of the opinion there's a disconnect between what editors take GA to mean and what can actually pass the process (i.e. I think GA standards should be higher). This is something that causes me issues for myself -- there's a draft Good Topic in my sandbox that could never actually happen because one of the articles is just too niche, even if I got everything else. There are people who'd argue that could be a GA, and people who'd pass a slightly improved version on review -- but I don't believe in 300-word GAs. The practical fact of the matter is we do have 500-word, 300-word, 200-word GAs, but they're controversial and there's a real strain of thought we shouldn't. Vaticidalprophet 11:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick note, at WP:GT, you can get certain articles discounted so long as they go through peer review and deemed not possible to GA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Only applies to lists, at least according to rules as written. Vaticidalprophet 11:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a perennial question. The current criteria, in line with wider en.wiki MOS, disapprove of trivia and require WP:Summary style. There is some flexibility in interpretation, and that combined with what I would say is an innate preference for passing articles in grey areas means that there are very short GAs. Roads are a particular area in which this shows up quite frequently. That said, what meets the criteria here for a "Good article" may not be what someone else considers to be "good", and not everyone likes the MOS. CMD (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a lot of Thoughts about this topic more broadly, but just one specific note: "the interest of the general reader" is not, and afaik has never been, part of the GA criteria. I've written a bunch of GAs which are objectively of no interest to the general reader (three of my GAs averaged single-digit views per day last year; so did my current GA nominee). I would guess that most GAs are of no interest to the vast majority of readers – the broad articles of wide general interest are very rarely brought to GA status! So long as the article is broad in its coverage and doesn't go into unnecessary detail, that the topic is only of interest to a small number of readers is irrelevant. There's a case to be made that it should be relevant, to encourage people to improve more general-interest articles, but it isn't currently. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• My experience with the system is basically no, some are purely rejected due to being too short or gaps in source material, but it can depend on the reviewer. I'll try to be generous, but I once failed Talk:Mwazulu Diyabanza/GA1 because there simply wasn't very much information about the guy. This article of mine at 8347 B was considered too short when I put it up for review a few years back. If the source material could've sustained perhaps another two paragraphs it probably would've been fine. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Indy beetle Wut. My GA for Jozef Tiso's speech in Holič is considerably shorter than yours for Kasongo. 1307 words of readable prose is more than enough to be a GA! (t · c) buidhe 08:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  I was surprised too, considering that I'd worked on it for quite some time and tacked on a good number of citations. The main point of concern for the reviewer was the gap in his life from 1967 until his death in 1990, though that's not surprising considering that many Congolese politicians of the "first generation" (1960s) fell into obscurity after Mobutu took power and only popped up again when the country's politics were liberalised in the 1990s. But hey, what can you do? :\ -Indy beetle (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  You should probably renominate that one - we can't just make up sources about time that is missing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps somewhere in the broadness criteria we should add something saying that "covers all main aspects of the topic" should be interpreted as "covers all the main aspects of the topic that it is possible to know" in cases (e.g. historical people) where it will be almost impossible to find out certain things anymore. Or, if also considering geology and history articles, with new discoveries possible, it could be amended to "as currently/at time of review known". Kingsif (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Legobot misspoke

Talk:Manistee Watch Company/GA2 was passed by User:Vice regent at 07:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC). Legobot sent me a message on my Talk Page that it had failed. It does not show up in the tool that counts passed nominations as the most current one as it should. I think somehow Legobot got confused, because GA1 had failed. Can this be corrected so that it shows as a successful nomination, so that https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans? picks it up correctly. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is a long-term known issue with Legobot. It's mentioned on the instructions for passing a nomination. Generally people manually give the pass template in this case, although some forget or don't know. Legobot is unmaintained, so fixing this will wait until we have a new bot, which is currently in development. Vaticidalprophet 11:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for reply. Apparently today a couple of hours ago it got corrected by the oldid number being put in. It now reads correctly on the Good Article counter tool works correctly and Manistee Watch Company is now shown as the most recent Good Article I did. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

SS Eurana (1915)

The reviewer quickly failed the review for language being "too technical". Not sure what specifically was too technical about the language as many terms were linked. Also, reviewer had issues with terms like "scuttling" and "navy transport", which I'm certain are fairly well known. I believe the article was not given a proper and mature review. I ask that a different reviewer reviews the GA nomination. Thank you. Crook1 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Crook1 If you disagree with the review, the easiest thing to do is renominate. Of course, if the new reviewer agrees with the previous reviewer's concerns, they can quick fail it. (t · c) buidhe 19:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I did, but it was reverted by Usernameunique who suggested to post it here. So what's the procedure? Crook1 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I've looked into the review, and it does not seem well done to me. Quickfails are meant to be for articles which are far off from meeting the GA criteria, to the point the issues could not be corrected within 7 days. And even if something is quickfailed, specific things should be pointed to for the reason of the QF, and the steps towards correcting the problem(s). To give an example, I quickfailed one nomination for being too short (not even 1500 characters) and failing to provide a broad overview of the subject. Those are clear issues. Simply saying "the language is too technical" without giving any examples doesn't meet that, in my opinion (and it's debatable if that claim about language being too technical is even valid, from a reading of the article I don't see a major problem with this). I think the nominator is reasonable in requesting a second reviewer. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I restored the renomination yesterday. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

If the review was correct to quick-fail the article, than the article should not have been renominated so quickly, and without any intervening edits to address the problems raised in the review. With that said, I agree with Trainsandotherthings that the review appears to have misapplied the quick-fail criteria, and that if the article was to be failed for having "too much technical language", then—at the very least—specific examples should have been given. Meanwhile, given that the article is on a ship and not, say, special relativity, I would think any overuse of technical language could be ironed out during the course of a review, and should not have to be a reason to fail the article. Ideally, the original reviewer, Trains2050, would reopen the review and do a full and proper review. Another option would be to reopen the review and request a second opinion—although this is not ideal, and might take longer for a new reviewer to step in. Requesting a new review (as Crook1 originally did, and as BlueMoonset has restored) is also an option, although it does feel a little unfair to immortalize that blaring talk-page banner of failure, when the issue was with the review itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Having glanced over it, I'm curious who did the B-class review for MILHIST, as the article fails to meet B1's at the absolute minimum is that all paragraphs should at least end with a citation.1 The first section after the lede has no citation in paras 1 and 3 and no ending citation in paras 4 and 5. There are further instances of this in later sections as well.

A close read of the lede also revealed quite a few grammar and MOS issues as well, for a few examples: compare ... Eurana together with several other ships was ... and ... she together with several other vessels were ... (indeed this latter sentence implies that all of the purchased ships were renamed Alamar) ; ... the ship was released from the navy service ... - remove 'the navy' as it's stated that the ship was requisitioned in the preceding sentence ; ... she was acquired by Frank Duncan McPherson Strachan to operate in the Atlantic trade - this is the only individual mentioned in the lede and the reader is not provided an explanation (there) as to who this is ; ... to prevent her from becoming the menace to navigation - a, not the.

I don't believe that any of this is quickfail worthy, but the article needs a thorough review to meet the GA criteria. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The B-class review diff is here: [16]. For what it's worth, the more visible MILHIST B1 criterion description is B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations, which I don't think this meets either but gives a bit more room for interpretation than the absolute minimum is that all paragraphs should at least end with a citation (which is, strictly speaking, tighter than the GA criteria as written). -- asilvering (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hold up... the nominator reviewed their own article for B-class? That's inappropriate, at least for MILHIST which formalizes a B-class review. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

most other projects simply have a tick box exercise for B-class, so promotion by a major contributer is no big deal. MILHIST seems a bit more in depth. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think MILHIST formalizes B-class reviews either - if so, that information is missing from the Assessment page. It does say it's "custom" not to rate your own work higher than C-class, but if that actually means "it is inappropriate to rate your own work at B-class" someone from MILHIST might want to update that wording to make it more clear. -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria(FAQ) up to and including C-Class <- That's pretty explicit, at least for me. The same section is for requesting an assessment against the B-class criteria. It's all a moot point now though as the GA and FA review processes supersede Wikiprojects' internal review processes. Checking the member's list, Crook1 isn't listed so it's likely they didn't know about MILHIST's 'customs'. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Review open for a month without any reviewing happening

The review for Talk:First homosexual movement/GA1 has been open for a month, but unfortunately the reviewer has never posted the review. I would love it if they could do it, but they haven't responded to multiple pings. Should this review be deleted or should I ask for a second opinion? (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not the only abandoned review by the same nominator: Talk:Hasan ibn Ali/GA1, Talk:Devil in Christianity/GA1, Talk:Leonel Gómez Vides/GA1 have all been abandoned in various stages of completion. Pinging Ganesha811 to let them know about this issue. (t · c) buidhe 10:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I see the reviewer has only made two edits this month. It seems they are inactive for the most part. We might need to have second reviewers take over their abandoned reviews. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed a lack of activity from the nominator as well, but felt I couldn't fairly say anything about it without hypocrisy while I still had an open review myself! In any case, if they remain inactive, putting these back into circulation would be helpful. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Two abandoned reviews

On 1 January, Jburlinson opened reviews of Jans der Enikel (nominated by ΟΥΤΙΣ) and William Chaney (nominated by me). Since then, the reviewer has made only five edits on Wikipedia, and has not responded to a reminder (on 30 January) on the Jans der Enikel review page. The reviews suggest that a few metrics have been looked at (e.g., both say "I added a couple of references where they seemed appropriate"), but this appears to be boilerplate copied over from previous reviews, since no such edits have been made to either article.

Absent any objections, I would propose deleting the review pages and letting a new reviewer have a go. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah - I just saw your post above Usernameunique. I just posted on Jburlinson's user talk about this issue at User talk:Jburlinson#Dormant/Unfinished/Abandoned GA reviews - no objections here! And their posts saying they "added a couple of references"?...well, that didn't happen. I'd say it looks like they're probably inexperienced & copied that statement from another GA Review intending to finish but Real Life has probably interfered. Shearonink (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah - the editor in question has responded on User_talk:Jburlinson#Dormant/Unfinished/Abandoned_GA_reviews, he's been having some serious health issues. I'll take on the GA Review for Jans der Enikel when it gets kicked back to GAN. Shearonink (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Article being reviewed, but not showing up on main GA page

The article Christianization of the Roman Empire is currently being reviewed (link to review page), but is not showing as such in the main listing of GA nominations. Not sure what the bug is. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ganesha811, the WP:GAN page is correct. The GA1 reviewer resigned back on 16 February, and the nominator updated the nomination to page 2 with an edit that said as much in the edit summary. A new reviewer will need to be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:George Burditt (writer)/GA1

Hello. I selected this for review while I was on my tablet but it hasn't attached the GA tools template. Could you please insert the tools or, if necessary, revert the selection and I will pick it up again? Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Copied it over from another GAN, should be fixed. (t · c) buidhe 10:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, buidhe. You're a life-saver. I tried copying from another GAN too but it fouled up the linkage when I replaced the article titles. I'm not having a very good day yet...(groan!). Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems like there's some problem with starting GA reviews from mobile devices – I had the same issue recently with Talk:Lady Henrietta Berkeley/GA1. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it didn't display the usual instructions for page setup, but then I often don't see template content on the tablet. I wrote a quick message and thought it would be okay when I looked on the laptop, but my one-liner was all the page contained. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Abandoned review - second opinion?

Hi! It appears that the review of Leonel Gómez Vides has been abandoned at Talk:Leonel Gómez Vides/GA1. The reviewer has not taken any action on the review since January 23rd and has not edited on en.wiki since February 9th. What is the right thing for me to do in this situation as the nominator - mark it as needing a second reviewer? Thanks. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You can ask for G6 deletion, as I did with Talk:First homosexual movement/GA1 (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Two abandoned reviews

On 1 January, Jburlinson opened reviews of Jans der Enikel (nominated by ΟΥΤΙΣ) and William Chaney (nominated by me). Since then, the reviewer has made only five edits on Wikipedia, and has not responded to a reminder (on 30 January) on the Jans der Enikel review page. The reviews suggest that a few metrics have been looked at (e.g., both say "I added a couple of references where they seemed appropriate"), but this appears to be boilerplate copied over from previous reviews, since no such edits have been made to either article.

Absent any objections, I would propose deleting the review pages and letting a new reviewer have a go. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah - I just saw your post above Usernameunique. I just posted on Jburlinson's user talk about this issue at User talk:Jburlinson#Dormant/Unfinished/Abandoned GA reviews - no objections here! And their posts saying they "added a couple of references"?...well, that didn't happen. I'd say it looks like they're probably inexperienced & copied that statement from another GA Review intending to finish but Real Life has probably interfered. Shearonink (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah - the editor in question has responded on User_talk:Jburlinson#Dormant/Unfinished/Abandoned_GA_reviews, he's been having some serious health issues. I'll take on the GA Review for Jans der Enikel when it gets kicked back to GAN. Shearonink (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm requesting a G6/deletion request for Talk:Jans der Enikel/GA1. If that doesn't go through then I'll close it out and do a new GA Review myself on that article. Shearonink (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The previous review was deleted per G6 and I have started a new Review. Shearonink (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by reviews by Telex80

Telex80 has picked up several nominations and "reviewed" them by adding the standard template and a comment or two without critical commentary. These should be reverted or reassessed as appropriate:

• Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004/GA1
• Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018/GA1
• Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021/GA1
• Talk:Kang Daniel/GA1

SounderBruce 06:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I had been checking these independently, and the first of these, Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018/GA1, actually has a paragraph that ends in the middle of a sentence, which is a blatant issue that would have to be fixed in any normal review. (The other two Greece ones were completed within a few minutes, and Kang Daniel hasn't started.) None of the review pages have the required GAN boilerplate section at the top. I will be reverting the passage of all three Greece Eurovision articles, and hope we can engage Telex80 here, since it's clear they don't have a good handle on GA reviewing. I also removed their out-of-process nomination of Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania, since they have not contributed to the article and hadn't consulted with significant contributors on the article's talk page prior to nominating, which is supposed to be done per the GA nomination instructions. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As the nominator of the three Greek Eurovision articles, I noticed these passing when I signed in this morning and was very surprised that they passed without even the typical bot notifications of the review! I left the reviewer a note earlier, but it appears they've never responded to a single talk page message in over four years, so I'm unsure if they'll engage now. Thanks for trying to straighten this out! Grk1011 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Grk1011, the reason you never received any bot notifications is that the review pages are malformed: all of the required boilerplate at the top is missing, and the bot needs a properly formatted review page in order to list the reviewer at WP:GAN and send out status messages to the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I got that. Just saying it's what made me suspicious from the get-go. Glad it is being fixed! Grk1011 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

GA nom from a sock

Mohammed Shami has been nominated for GA, however the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Was wondering if this GA nomination should therefore be reverted per WP:DENY, or allowed to continue? Is there a standard way of dealing with this? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is a standard way to proceed, but given that usually the nominator is supposed to be around and answer some queries/fix some issues, having someone review a nomination where the nominator is indefblocked looks likely to be a waste of time. —Kusma (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Of course, if anyone else has access to the sources and willingness to respond to a review, it can be renominated by an editor who is not a sock. (t · c) buidhe 09:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Joseph2302, your instinct does not fail you; DENY applies because their main account was blocked at the time the edit was made. SN54129 16:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the review began (and review page was created) about ten minutes before buidhe deleted the nomination, so it's now listed as having Failed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice if the review page could be deleted too, but it wasn't created by the sock, so isn't eligible for G5. Either G6 (housekeeping) or G7 (author requests deletion), if No Great Shaker is willing. It's not the most important thing, perhaps, but IMHO it's out of order for the first proper review to be /GA2. SN54129

I'd be more than happy to have it deleted. I agree the first true review should be GA1. Probably best if I do a G7, unless there's a quicker and easier way. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged it G7 but no problem if it can be deleted in another way. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Article Approved as GA But not appearing as such?

I recently have just approved the Aqua Aqua article as a GA, however it is still being rated in the WikiProject Video Game ranking as a B instead of GA, And its badge doesnt appear? PerryPerryD (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@PerryPerryD: - you have to manually update the WikiProject ranking yourself. The badge will appear in probably about 10-15 minutes when Legobot (the bot that processes GA stuff) does its run. Hog Farm _Talk 20:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Premature nominations

I can't find any instructions on how to remove premature nominations, like Ghost of Kyiv, which was recently nominated. I've reverted the nomination, but I don't know if that is sufficient or if further steps are required. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

What you've done is fine. Legobot will do the rest. Do recommend that you begin a talk page discussion on the nomination though Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I think reverting is acceptable, as long as the nominator doesn't re-revert. Possibly more procedurally correct but also unwieldy, you could also quick fail it (obviously not stable in this case). (t · c) buidhe 10:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy Close Process?

Can I ask, is there a process for a speedy close of a GAR? A user involved in a dispute on the article NATO elected to nominate the article for GAR on the basis of an edit war they were involved in. While I'm sure a real GAR would be beneficial, this may not be the best time for one. There's a lot of new editors due to the article lately being in Wikipedia's top 25 most visited for the last few weeks, which is generally welcome, but leads to a certain amount of instability which could make it difficult for reviewers.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 01:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup, see above #Premature nominations or WP:GAFAIL. Edit war would fall under instability. (t · c) buidhe 01:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why it needs to be speedily closed (and there isn't a process for same at GAR, unless the nominator is blocked or banned). Community GARs, which this is, typically take weeks if not months, and in the interim, NATO remains a good article. It seems pretty clear based on what's been posted so far that this is unlikely to be closed as "delist", even with a temporary edit war or significant additions to the article given recent and current events. However, absent the original nominator withdrawing their nomination or a number of editors chiming in to say that they don't see any GA criteria issues at the present time, it's best to let this run its course. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, we're always happy for more reviews! I don't think would be a good candidate for FA, I think that's a hill too high for this page, but keeping it a GA is certainly a good goal.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 02:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I meant to start a discussion on unstability as a delisting option for GARs a while ago. An article losing its good status due to a disgruntled editor edit warring is just too easily gamed (as it appears to be here) and in my opinion goes against the spirit of the Good Article process. Usually they close as kept if no other concerns are presented. If consensus can be reached I would like to put something in writing at the GAR page at the least discouraging editors from delisting articles due to instability. Of course stability remains an important consideration for getting an article to GA status as it is next to impossible to review an unstable article. Aircorn (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That sort of clarification would be useful, although the gaming potential seems limited by other reviewers being unlikely to delist on that basis. CMD (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

PerryPerryD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we not let PerryPerryD review articles again? He suspiciously passed the article easily on Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle/GA2 including this bizarre review Talk:Assassin's Creed Odyssey/GA1, and then quick failing Talk:Warlocked/GA1. They are probably only making articles more worst. 110.67.38.99 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My reviews were made with good intentions in mind. There is a well described Manual of Style. Also I passed the mario article easily because there was nothing visibly to change. If you want, you can register an account and perform a re-assessment. As for the warlocked revirw, that was my mistake, which is why the article is under second opinion. Also. "Probably", Please actually research the articles and reviews i place before you make judgements. PerryPerryD 00:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@110.67.38.99 Also, I did not directly vandalise any article. please Assume Good Faith as stated in the guidelines. PerryPerryD 00:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Also Also, What do you mean "Bizzare" review? thats a regular review. Judging by a lack of a profile name, I assume that you are new to wikipedia. PerryPerryD 00:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Panini! Would you say that i caused damage to the Mario + Rabbids article? Or the assassins creed article? PerryPerryD 00:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle/GA2 and it looks pretty substantial, including a sources spot-check. The quick fail of Talk:Warlocked/GA1 also looks defensible, although it should not be failed if independent RS sources have no more to say about the game. (t · c) buidhe 00:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I understood the warlocked one, I made an honest mistake and regret it. I informed the nominee, marked it as second opinion, and hopefully we can get it resolved. PerryPerryD 00:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Panini here. The hot water that PerryPerryD is in is nothing more of a newcomer learning curve. After all, we all make mistakes, and as long as there is a significant improvement as they continue to review, they shouldn't be held accountable. Of course, however, competence is required at some point. Let's break this down:

You imply in your writing that you carefully read through the article, sometimes multiple times, and I'll assume good faith and assume that's true. Technically, everything PerryD is doing goes by the book; they check the article by every point of the good article criteria. Judging by my past experience with reviewing articles, most of my points are aimed at grammatical fixes and paragraph formatting or expansion. The reason why I give these main two points is that all of the major stuff is already handled by the main editor before nominating said article. Most of the criteria are no-brainer, common sense stuff. Nobody has Grammarly installed in their brain, and even after a two-month-long review of Paper Mario: The Origami King by twelve different editors, I still embarrassingly found a typo months later. Additionally, more often than not sentence structure is subjective, and most suggestions for reorganization are often because there's a justifiable reason why. If a review doesn't list a bajillion points for fixing it doesn't mean it's a bad review, it's just that it's generally in good condition. After all, a good article isn't brought up to GA status during the review, it should be done before. For an example of a "bad" review, see this. An example of a short "good" review, this article of mine is a behemoth, and the GA review was a couple of points that the reviewer came across. This is not because it was a bad review, rather because I worked on the article for a long time before that and practically found everything I needed.

For suggestions on how to improve your good article reviews in the future, here's my review of Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash. Note how a lot of my critiques were things I was confused about; if there's something that you don't understand, you can ask the reviewer to re-phrase the statement so it does, which will help the article improve as it is now more understandable to a broader audience. I would also try to scrutinize your articles more; while grammar and spelling aren't something everyone picks up, it's your job to make sure the article is as best as it can be. Panini! • 🥪 16:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Reviews look fine. No issues. Potentially could be done different, the quick fail probably could have been a bit loser, but not an issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Going to go ahead and note that OP's comment (OP IP? Opip?) is only their second edit under this IP. A best-faith reading of this is that they do not have enough experience editing to understand the GA criteria and thus how reviewing works in practice. There are, of course, less charitable readings from which I will refrain. And to add to Panini's point, you'd be surprised how many typos I find after what were very thorough GA reviews. I remember reading somewhere that, as long as the first and last letters of a word are in place, the brain automatically unscrambles the middle letters. — GhostRiver 16:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That's true, actaully. You probalbly didn't even notice that I secertely put three typos in this sentence. Panini! • 🥪 17:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yall are too nice :) thank you so much for your help in allowing me to make better contributions in the future. honestly im still a bit scared to make major changes because i was blocked for a year. PerryPerryD 17:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You know I fixed this after the article was promoted FA! Even after 10 people reviewing it, we couldn't figure out that yellow needs to be green! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

So. What now? with this specific discussion i mean, PerryPerryD 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spot checks

Dear expert-reviewers. I am an apprentice-reviewer and wondered about spot checks on text-source integrity. I have looked at archived GA discussions and consensus seems to be that such spot checks should be regular parts of reviews. They are, however, not directly mentioned in the GA criteria. The Note 3 of the criteria comes perhaps nearest to do so where it says "At a bare minimum, check that the sources ... support the content of the article". I wondered what to do when sources are difficult to access. I believe I have read somewhere in Wikipedia that reviewers can ask nominators to provide excerpts from such sources. Is this true in GA? Where is this specified? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You are right that a strict reading of the GA criteria doesn't actually specify that the reliable sources used must support the claims that they are being used to verify, but I think that's pretty implicit in criterion 2, particularly 2b and 2c. If I can't access any of the sources being used to support an article, I personally wouldn't review that article (although the GA criteria says that the minimum is to check that the sources "that you can access" support the content; they don't require that you have access to any of them!) – I have found discrepancies between the sources and the article text in reviews before, and I think it's important to review text–source integrity. If you don't have access to a particular source you want to spot check, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to ask the nominator to quote part of the source that supports the claim, though there's nothing specifically discussing that in the GA instructions that I can see. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been a fraught topic. The reality is, many editors are just going through the motions by using WP:AGF as an excuse. As for me, when doing a GA review I check each and every citation, online or offline, excepting cases where I couldn't get the book through Interlibrary loan or a website was paywalled. Some of our editors will buy or trade expensive books just to check the source material. Yes, you can ask for the nominator if they would kindly provide an excerpt but I've never heard of any requirement for them to do so. Even if they provide a short excerpt that doesn't wholly prevent a hoax. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that an excerpt doesn't wholly prevent hoaxes, but if I asked a nom to provide one and they refused, I absolutely wouldn't let that nomination pass until I had satisfied myself that the source did in fact support the claim being made! In cases like that, WP:RX might be helpful; you could also try the talkpages of relevant wikiprojects or of other editors active in that area. I would be incredibly suspicious of any refusal of a reasonable request to provide excerpts to help me check up on sourcing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I do not believe that checking each and every citation is necessary for a GA review. If I have particular concerns about sourcing (e.g. my spot checks turn up issues; particularly extraordinary claims are made in the article) I will be more thorough about checking sources, but if my spot checks turn out okay and the claims being made don't look suspicious, then I wouldn't check every single citation unless it's a pretty short article with only a few references to check. (I suspect that even without checking every single reference, I still check references more thoroughly than the average GA reviewer, and I would encourage reviewers to be serious about reference checking!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Grood day @User:Caeciliusinhorto and @User:Chris troutman, thank you very much for the discussion. I stupidly forgot to add the page to my watch and missed out on your contributions when they were actually made. They help me very much. I think I will take your advice and just politely ask nominators for excerpts, when I feel a spot check would be needed on an inaccessible source. Thank you very much, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Abandoned review

Hi, my apologies at first for requesting this. It appears the reviewer of Banjarmasin nomination (Talk:Banjarmasin/GA1) has not been active and the last review was on 22 January 2022. The nomination itself is older, nominated since June 2021. As such, I as nominator want to request new reviewer. Im not sure if the procedure would be to build on top of previous reviews or starting all over again as I am not familiar with this.

Thank you very much~ Nyanardsan (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

If I get it right, @Eviolite is the initial reviewer. They have been actively contributing elsewhere recently. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh:, the reviewer is actually Shushugah who had started reviewing before me but did not create the nomination page. More details are on there. eviolite (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I'm sorry. I can provide be the second reviewer, if Shushugah is busy. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, this is one of five reviews that Shushugah has in process—started as part of the last backlog drive in early January—but hasn't touched since late January (only four Wikipedia edits so far between February and March, and no sign of resuming any of these reviews). Please continue as second reviewer there. In case anyone else is interested in taking on the others, they are Talk:OpenVMS/GA1, Talk:Adam Naruszewicz/GA1, Talk:Hasan ibn Ali/GA1, and Talk:Guido Imbens/GA1. (Talk:Devil in Christianity/GA1 already has a new reviewer.) Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

So @BlueMoonset, for the article where I am providing a second review (half done, awaiting nominator's responses), I'll have to decide whether to promote or not, right? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey all, sorry for the backlog/confusion. Absolutely correct to handover for second opinion, as I have been inactive for several momths/effectively abandoned the review. Much love and respect to everyone here! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Could somebody close these GAR please?

As I mentioned above opening and closing community GAR seems a hassle to me so I won't open or close any more.

I asked for one to be closed both at the most relevant project and at Wikipedia:Closure requests but it has not been done. Could somebody please close the other 2 I opened namely:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Congestion_pricing/1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Environmental_threats_to_the_Great_Barrier_Reef/1

Not a big deal but it keeps the article alerts tidy at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change

Thanks

Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting opinions regarding poor/biased GAR close

Hello all, I am looking for some additional thoughts regarding what I see as a very poor close of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2. It was open for several months, with a number of editors providing significant criticism on the basis of fact-checking, sourcing, neutrality, and prose. Many of these concerns were not sufficiently addressed during the GAR. Two days after the GAR closure, the article snow-failed its third FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SpaceX Starship/archive3) for reasons that mirror those brought up at the GAR, again making it very clear that the GA criteria are not met.

The close itself is thin: in its totality, it reads "No consensus: so I studied the article for over an hour and decided to keep as although I think a little criticism from https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/05/01/nasa-identifies-risks-in-spacexs-starship-lunar-lander-proposal/ should be added for FA I think it is neutral enough for a good article". This implies that the closer opted to ignore the vast majority of the discussion and decided to keep the article as a GA on their own recognizance, rather than on the basis of the article meeting the GA criteria after editing. I have attempted to discuss the closure with Chidgk1 at their talk page (see User_talk:Chidgk1#GAR_for_Starship) and have found their responses dismissive and insulting. Their final response was to suggest an individual GAR after four weeks. I think it is absurd to suggest starting all over again given that there is an existing GAR with a great deal of unaddressed input from multiple editors.

Would it be reasonable to undo the close and reopen the GAR to allow for a more experienced closer who will assess the article per the GA criteria? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As the community GAR is very hard to read and significant new info is due 28th March I suggest you open an individual GAR in 4 weeks time. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The above response speaks for itself, frankly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Chidgk1 Per the instructions, you can't open an individual GAR after the article already had a community GAR... I suggest you undo this close as it does not address whether the contributors believe the article meets the GA criteria and reads like a supervote. If there is no consensus to remain a GA, I would close as delist. (t · c) buidhe 07:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe As significant new info is expected in 2 weeks time could the time limit between GARs be waived in this case? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is not new information, it's the bad close that would still be bad regardless of new information. opening a new gAR would not address that issue. (t · c) buidhe 08:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to undo this close, it might be worth asking for an overturn at WP:AN. (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I won't contest any appeal to WP:AN and I don't think I will open or close any community GAR in future as I have found them too much of a time consuming hassle. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If you aren't interested in defending your close at AN, why are you refusing to overturn the close? Your attitude here makes no sense. I'm not asking you to spend the time reading the GAR if you don't wish to bother, I'm just asking you to undo your own close and let someone with reading comprehension and an ability to evaluate the article on the GA criteria to do the close. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

OK fine I hereby rescind/overturn/whatever my close and am going off to do something more constructive. Sorry CactiStaccingCrane after all your hard work but this is all too much hassle for me and I will steer clear of opening or closing community GAR in future. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to undo the closure. I would prefer to remove the article for GA than leaving it on the chopping board for a few months, as the review quickly becomes combative and I see no use on leaving it open. I do think that these criticisms are very valid, but it's very irritating that these issues can not be addressed in the talk page. I am not an inactive editor on the article by a bit, and I have asked numerous people off-wiki to review it for neutrality. That's all. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Notifing editors: Buidhe, Chidgk1, and Premeditated Chaos. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Three IP nominations

History of Terrorism, Entick v Carrington, and Somerset v Stewart were all just nominated by 185.251.10.201. In none of these cases does the IP seem to have been a substantial contributor to the article before the nomination, nor have they consulted the regular editors as WP:GAI suggests that they should. A quick glance suggests that none of these articles are of the standard we would expect of a GA, though I haven't thoroughly reviewed them. What should be done here? Just revert the nomination? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed GAN tags, thank you for letting us know. PerryPerryD 20:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't discriminate and treat them like any other nomination, remember you don't own wikipedia its for everyone, and everyone is equal is don't be a bigot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.251.11.193 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

These nominations would have been reverted if a registered user had nominated them as well. The instructions state that you should not nominate an article at GAN unless you were heavily involved in bringing it up to GA quality, or at least contacted those who did the heavy lifting first. Further, all of these articles have serious issues with sourcing and, in the case of History of terrorism, size. — GhostRiver 16:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Remember there are no rules, and I have worked on all them on and off over the years, I think I may even have created Entick v Carrington. I think would probably be the only major contributor on all of them in recent years. I mean how far back do you going? History of Terrorism and Somerset v Stewart have addressed all the points raised in the feedback on their previous nominations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.251.11.193 (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not, as you appear to think, that you are an IP; it is that there is no evidence that you are a significant contributor to the articles you have nominated, you have not consulted the major contributors, and the articles do not appear to be ready for GA status. Somerset v Stewart, for instance, currently has five citation needed tags, and several other places are uncited where a citation is absolutely required by the GA criteria; it is currently eligible to be quickfailed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If they are not ready for GA status? surely in depth feedback would them be so? I mean in Somersett v Stewart it'll be the 250th Anniversary this July so feedback so it might potentially make it to the frontpage for the 22nd July would be greatly appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.251.11.193 (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, I'm glad that you're interested in improving the articles! For Somersett v Stewart I'd say the first thing to work on is make sure that all statements have a citation after them so that they are verifiable. If you did that, it could be nominated for GAN. (t · c) buidhe 19:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Re. improving Somerset v. Stewart, the first thing to do would be to find citations to reliable sources for all of the places marked {{citation needed}}; the second thing to do would be to make sure every paragraph at least ends in a citation; and the third thing would be to consider whether all of the quotes included in the article are really needed: as MOS:QUOTE says, While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style. Then read through the GA criteria, and if you think the article meets the criteria, nominate it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback both, I think I have now done all of what you suggest, what else do I need to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.251.11.193 (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This is getting rather off-topic from my original question on process; if you want an in-depth commentary on the article because you plan to work seriously on getting it to GA status, I'm happy to do so on Talk:Somerset v Stewart – just let me know. In the meantime, I suggest you have a look at all of the cleanup tags currently on the article, and address those. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Indian Space Research Organisation

Hello. I was wondering if anyone would like to review Indian Space Research Organisation. It's been a nominee for almost a year now (March 25th 2021) and has no review started. This article is not by me. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The mess of a talk page history shows why this one slipped under the radar. On April 17, a user vandalized? the page, breaking the code and preventing the GAN from showing up on the page until March 5, when someone corrected it. It's concerning that nobody noticed the talk page header was broken for the better part of a year, including the nominator. — GhostRiver 15:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit: It appears BlueMoonset left a message on the nominator's talk page last week, to which they have not replied saying they want to continue the nomination. Nom has been active in other areas and on the article page, though. Whole thing is a big ?!? — GhostRiver 15:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe has undone the nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

And the original nominator has restored it, showing that they are still interested in pursuing the nomination. A reviewer will be needed. I hope that someone will pick it up, as it is the oldest one by far. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Help! I've tried to find the answer to this question...

What happens to a GA Review when the Review is finished? How does the Review itself kind of "disappear" from the article's talk page?... I know the answer is simple or is governed by MOS or some automated/bot process or whatever, but I need some of you experienced hands around here to please give me an answer and cite the MOS/GA guideline or whatever that governs the GA afterparty. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shearonink:, after the review is complete, the reviewer updates the status in the template. A BOT (automated process) then updates the status and a link to a copy of the review is included on the article's talkpage. Depending on if you're the nominator or reviewer, you can find full instructions at WP:GAI ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your input but those instructions don't answer my question... How does the GA Review itself disappear from the article talk page? It's transcluded anyway right? So it's the Review linkage itself - the Wikicode, the {{GA Review!}} - that gets archived right? The Nominator doesn't have to blank the review page or whatever to get it to go away... I want to make sure I explain to a GA Nominator that they don't need to *do* anything to have the Review not stay present forever on the article's talk page. Shearonink (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no automated removal of a transcluded GA review. If you don't want it to remain on the talk page, it can be archived like a normal talk page post, or simply removed manually - the link will be in the article milestone template anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, so the transcluded link just gets archived, however that might happen. Ok, that is kind of what I thought but I am so Un-Tech I wanted to make sure I explained it correctly.

Actually it won't be present if...well, what happened was the nominator blanked the GA Review page to get rid of the text on the article talk. I was trying to explain why that wasn't necessary... Shearonink (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't generally remove it, but you can is probably the explanation. I've always thought it to be good to include on a talk page. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec) If someone has blanked the GA review so it won't display, you should revert that and then tell them to archive the review to their taste. It really shouldn't be blanked. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's all been fixed now, the nominator took care of the main issues. I just needed some WP-speak backup. Had forgotten the transclusion stuff and that the link to the Review would not be present on the main talk after it was archived. Shearonink (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Shearonink, as noted, the GA review page itself should be left alone at the end of the review, or it can be "closed" with the {{archive}} template to discourage further edits. The transclusion of the GA review on the talk page is more often than not deleted at the time the nomination passes or fails, because it doesn't need to be there any more: assuming the newly added {{GA}} or {{FailedGA}} template (or updated/inserted {{Article history}} template) is filled out correctly, there is a live link to the review page from those templates' displays: you should always be able to click through to past reviews from an article's talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Jersey

Hi all, I've noticed that IP addresses keep removing the good article nomination tag on Jersey. Now, Jèrriais janne, looking at the article itself, it would be failed if it went through the GAN process, as there are large swatches that do not have references, such as the entire "Administrative divisions" section, as well as unaddressed citation needed tags in "Economy". That being said, obviously an IP removing the nomination with an insidious comment in the edit summary (such a lazy nom) is out of process. We may need to codify under what circumstances an uninvolved party may remove a GAN tag as opposed to letting an actual review play out. — GhostRiver 19:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it's currently eligible for quick-fail but not out of process since the nom did make significant edits to the page. (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that we sometimes remove GAN tags on out-of-process nominations (e.g. nominated by an editor with no history of contributions to the page, with no consultation with regular editors) but Jèrriais janne is unquestionably a major author of the article, and so I don't believe the nom tag should be unilaterally removed by someone else. If the nom is in-process but quickfailable, the solution is to quickfail it. If you're an IP editor and so can't review an article which you think should be quickfailed, bring it up on this talkpage.

(And if you are going to remove a nom as out-of-process, it's probably worth making a note of it on WT:GAN for community review. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If an article is in a bad enough state that's it's a very easy quickfail, I feel it is sometimes better to remove the nom rather than make a whole page documenting it. The second option leaves that in the article talk page forever, for no benefit. CMD (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The benefit is that there is documentation of why the article is quickfailable, helping both editors trying to revise it to become better and future GA reviewers. A simple undo of the nomination with an edit summary like "such a lazy nom" doesn't do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see the case for doing things that way (with the caveat that if you are going to do so, your edit summary should reference the relevant quickfail criteria rather than simply saying "such a lazy nom"), but if we are going to handle quickfails like that we should update the instructions and criteria to say so. (And I'm not quite sure what distinguishes a "very easy quickfail"; from any other quickfail: are there some nominations where a quickfail would be appropriate but reverting the nom wouldn't, under your system?) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's a simple cut-off. Reviewers can have flexibility. (The current system incentivises creating the review page for the quick fail, so I don't think an undo option will be taken most of the time.) Obviously providing reasons in some way is a necessity, if it's needed I point that out. CMD (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Today there has been drive-by tagging by the IP with cn of many statements that do not have a citation, going far beyond the minref requirements and contrary to "subject-specific common knowledge" per Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed. I don't think this is in any way helpful, seems contrary to Template:Citation needed#When not to use this template, and appears to be intended to ensure that the nomination is a quickfail per WP:GAFAIL:

“ Challenges should not be made frivolously or casually, and should never be made to be disruptive or to make a point. Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate. ” — Wikipedia:When to cite#Challenging another user's edits

. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The presence of tags is only an indicator of the actual GA criteria, which is the presence or absence of citations. Subject-specific common knowledge can be hard to define, so the best solution to tags is simply to provide relevant citations. I am not sure what point is being made by the addition of the cn tags to the entirely unsourced paragraphs. CMD (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Not going to comment on this nom in particular, but I'd say we have two reasons for removing a nomination -

1. Removed by a major contributor. Many reasons for this, but it could be that they are specifically awaiting something before nominating/don't think the article is yet ready.
2. Nominated by a non-contributor/blocked user, obviously fail.
3. Out of process/malformed nomination for any reason.

In all of these, I'd really expect a talk page section opened up to explain, unless there is no chance that the instigator is going to respond (AWOL, blocked, etc). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. If it is a good faith nomination then they should get a good faith review. Even if it is to quickfail it with a few pointers. Aircorn (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Revert of premature GA nomination of Queen (band) (again)

I notice that someone has decided to nominate Queen for GA again. This has happened several times before by drive-by editors who have done next to no work on it. Although I am slowly working through the article with the eventual aim to make it roughly equivalent to a GA standard, it is not ready at its current time - there are numerous "references" to copyvio YouTube clips and unreliable websites, which will take time to resolve. While the instructions say "Articles may be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject", I think it's reasonable to decline a nomination where at least one significant contributor objects. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, indeed. I think this is actually being discussed similarly in the thread above. I'd remove. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

IP reviewing GA

The IP 212.250.168.131 is reviewing the Hayes Theater page. It states in the instructions that reviewers must be registered, so could someone remove the review? Nonexistent User (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Now csd'd (t · c) buidhe 22:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Hayes Theater/GA1

Can this be deleted per WP:GAN/I#R2? An IP user picked this up, but the GAN criteria indicate that only registered users should review GA nominations. Thanks. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

already done, it seems. Nonexistent User (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nonexistent User, thanks for the reply. Seems like our threads were talking about the same thing, so I suppose this matter is resolved. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Homelessness of Jesus

Hi all, this is my very first GA review so I might probably be missing something but my knee jerk reaction is this simply can't pass in its current state. Some sentences are grammatically unsound and the entire article is much too short, I think. At the same time, the nominator seems to have many GAs and FAs under his belt so I'm puzzled. Would appreciate a second opinion or even a third! Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Your responsibilities as reviewer include checking the source material, not just AGF'ing. Reading the Myles book on this subject might show that there is much more to the subject than what this brief article summarizes. Surely if someone wrote a book under an academic publisher there's more in the source material, therefore answering questions about comprehensiveness. You should also search for other literature on the subject if you suspect the article is missing key source material. The grammar issues can be resolved by the nominator. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Hence I said "at the moment", coz if I'm being honest, can't you just tell something isn't GA-worthy at first glance? Thought I'd save some time and energy proving what should be quite obvious. I took a brief look at some of the nominator's GAs and the difference between those and this one is very, very stark! Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Could I just copy and paste your assertion that "Surely if someone wrote a book under an academic publisher there's more in the source material, therefore answering questions about comprehensiveness."? Do I really need to hunt down and read a 235-page book (of which only 3 pages are cited here, and for the most banal of information that has no direct relevance to the "homelessness of Jesus") for myself? Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to quote me, paraphrase me, or take my suggestion. Every time we press the "publish changes" button we have given away our words under CC BY-SA. You might also have formally asked for a second opinion per WP:GA/I#2O and I'd've posted words there, instead. In any case, I don't think the article unambiguously meets the requirements of WP:GAFAIL, so you would have to look at the cited sources and find other sources to tell the nominator in good faith that the article isn't comprehensive. A book called The Homeless Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew must be full of information regarding the homelessness of Jesus unless the book was poorly entitled. I don't think it reasonable to fail a GA review just because you have an intuition that this isn't a clear-cut pass, as you aren't allowed to pass a nomination just because it all seems fine under a cursory glance. If you're not willing to do this extra work you should not have taken up the review. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So I've managed to find a copy of the Myles book (tho it does not have a GBooks preview). However, I don't think the onus is on me to digest what Myles is saying (circling back to my question on needing to read all 235 pages!), especially when it is clear enuf that no effort has been made to present whatever it is that Myles spends 200-odd pages saying. Surely I don't need to fully know what exactly it is that is missing, just the plain fact that something (and a lot of something) is missing, right? Otherwise shouldn't I be the one nominating the article since I'd presumably know more about it than the original nom by the time I've read all 235 pages.... To cut to the chase: is reading the book absolutely necessary? Judging by your response, I think it is... You know, I'm totally willing to do the extra work but is it not reasonable to expect that the nominator would have put out the bare essentials so I don't have to read everything?! Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input anyway, Chris. Having waxed much lyrical I intend to read the book soon anyway (just coz it's interesting enough). I just have the sinking suspicion that the nominator didn't do that, so it's almost like I'm writing this article for review instead. Prior to today my impression was that it wuz a two-way effort, that the review is built on the back of what has been put out there but looking at this, I'm pretty much researching this topic from scratch. Something just feels amiss and I don't want to waste my time (again, I am very much willing to do "the work" but it has to be worth it, I think!) Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The puzzling thing is the nominator has so many GAs to his name and I can't imagine that he thought that this was of a comparable quality to those GAs. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Like the replication crisis, I suspect Wikipedia's review processes are faulty in the extreme. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: Fyi, you certainly don't have to put the work in that the nominator was unwilling to! I also have—and have used—the Myles piece. It is not only invaluable but also the single broadest treatment of this otherwise niche topic to date. It is impossible to provide comprehensive coverage without referencing it. So, you would be perfectly within your rights to mark 3a as a temporary fail, give the usual seven-day holding period, and see what has been added to the article by then. SN54129 17:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Haha I guess this was the type of response I was fishing for. Thank you. Thanks Chris for contributing to the nom page too. You know what, assuming nothing gets done to the article for however long, and it gets failed, I have half the mind to get the job done myself. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please let this process come to completion. I once had a GA reviewer take the article away from me and it really soured me on the process at a point when I had maximum investment in making edits. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Ow, yeah, that's pretty poor. If someone throws the towel in, that's different, but everyone should have the chance to finish what they started. SN54129 17:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm going to offer a different perspective to Chris troutman, with the caveat that I've not followed the historical development of GAC #3: I think this is certainly an underdeveloped article, and you shouldn't need to read all of Myles to confirm that. Right now there are three sentences + a quote covering the theological interpretation of Jesus's homelessness. That quote is utterly out of context, appearing to be a random quote pulled from a critique of Jesus's maleness on the page before the single use of "homeless Jesus" appears in the book. The "kenosis" the author is discussing is actually the "kenosis of patriarchy", not anything to do with a renunciation of power vis-à-vis property rights/home ownership. Myles, despite being the best source for a religious/academic interpretation of Jesus's homeless, is actually not cited at all in this section. And a read over the book blurb reveals that none of Myles' thesis (that Jesus’ homelessness has become largely romanticized by the West in an attempt to remove blame for homelessness on structural issues) is currently in the article. Unless the article is going to be a play by play of Jesus's Biblical statements about his home, then the article has to include modern interpretations, critiques, and responses. None of that is in here, despite there clearly being some academic material to draw from. I would agree with a quick fail. Also, although you said that the nom has FAs, they're actually featured lists, which are significantly less intensive. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The nominator's previous GAs also appear to be related to Indian film and television, which is a completely different topic; it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility that they are writing perfectly good articles on that topic, but theology is a completely different area where for whatever reason they have totally underestimated how prepared the article is. (I also see that they have made only a single edit to the article in question; it is significant, and they are responsible for nearly 90% of the current article text according to XTools, but still – there aren't many Wikipedians who turn an article like this into a GA in a single edit.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

And yet Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes has passed its GA criteria poorly, just by looking in article's development section, reception and unreliable sources usage. 2001:4455:364:A800:E4E2:18E7:42BE:AE6F (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that it takes much longer to get a GAR done than to get a GA. My experience with GAR is that the article sits for a month and then eventually gets delisted. With the sheer volume of GAs being created and promoted, I don't see how we could reasonably have a second person check for quality before an article is promoted. I take exception to much of the way FAC works, but that process does ensure many pairs of eyes check for the article's quality. At the end of the day, the GA standards are nowhere near FA standards, and that's intentional.

Compare Talk:Train/GA1 and Talk:Providence and Worcester Railroad/GA1. These two GAs of mine had vastly different experiences at GAN, one was under far more scrutiny than the other. I'm not saying either approach is wrong, but there's an inherent variance in scrutiny which results in different GANs being held to different standards of quality. There's no universally accepted standard as to exactly how "good" a Good Article needs to be. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Well now I want to read the Myles. Kingsif (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• The sentence, "his legal father, Joseph, whom married to his mother, Mary, was a carpenter" seems to be grammatically incorrect. BD2412 T 19:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I mentioned that in the review. There are a few other glaring grammatical/syntax errors too. Neither does the lede do the body justice. Overall it's just a hodgepodge of things vaguely related to "homelessness" + "Jesus" Kingoflettuce (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hello folks, thank you for the comments. Really appreciate it! I have written just a few GAs so I thought I had a fairly good idea of what a GA should "look" like but I thought I'd still err on the side of caution. I have considered what all of you have said and it now appears that a quick fail wouldn't be the worst call. But let's see what the nominator has to say about that. Kingoflettuce (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I generally believe the reviewer has a fair amount of discretion to decide on things like quickfails - that's why we also have processes for getting a second opinion when the nominator and reviewer disagree on a review. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the article in its current state, I'd argue it fails on the basis of broadness outright. It only exceeds stub length on a technicality (1,500 characters or 250 words is generally the rule of thumb, and this sits at 1,823 characters and 305 words). Short GAs do exist, but stubs cannot be GAs. The offhand mention of the statue absolutely needs expansion, as it caused quite a theological stir upon its unveiling. (I am definitely forgetting more thing but I got home just now from a concert). — GhostRiver 05:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Amir Sjarifuddin Harahap

Amir Sjarifuddin Harahap was listed as GA this morning, but this does not appear to be a valid GA review. Ruбlov (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a new and enthusiastic editor unfamiliar with the process. I have restored the GAN tag and removed it from the GA lists, an admin should probably delete Talk:Amir Sjarifuddin Harahap/GA1. CMD (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

What have I forgotten to do?

I recently reviewed Whitburn, Tyne and Wear for GAN, and promoted it, but the review was not transcluded to the article talk page, the nominator did not get a message from the bot on his/her talk page, and the GA symbol has not appeared on the article page. Have I simply missed out one necessary action? I haven't had the same problem with other articles I've promoted to GA recently. Advice would be most welcome. Tim riley talk 09:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Tim riley In order for legobot to run, it has to be "on review" during a bot run (every 20 minutes). (t · c) buidhe 09:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. As I've already put the GA tag on the article talk page, is there any way of getting the symbol to appear on the article page? Tim riley talk 09:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Better off just substituting it manually... Or, don't bother. So long as everything has updated, there's no issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll seek the nominator's views on which to do. Tim riley talk 10:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you do if you don't want to review an article anymore?

I've become bored with reviewing an article, after I wrote up a review but ended up not saving it. Do I just leave it? blueskies (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bluesunnyfox: If you have opened the review and nobody else has responded (like on Talk:Indian Space Research Organisation/GA2), the easiest way out is to tag the review page with {{db-self}}. That should return the article to the normal reviewing queue. In order to make sure the nominator isn't confused by your action, you could leave a note at User_talk:Aman.kumar.goel#Your_GA_nomination_of_Indian_Space_Research_Organisation. (My apologies if this was about a different article, but from your contributions history this one seemed to be the most likely). —Kusma (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! blueskies (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Bad review by User:Mover of molehills

User:Mover of molehills today gave up in the middle of a review of a technical article, Talk:Möbius strip/GA1, after getting to the technical bits, because they were technical, and quick-failed the review for no valid reason. Until that point the review had consisted only of minor copyedits to the first two (nontechnical) sections and of points where I disagreed with suggested copyedits because they would have introduced technical errors. I don't think there's much to do in the actual GA process besides immediately renominate (I didn't lose much time from the original nomination date, and the other alternative, community review, doesn't seem likely to work better), but I thought I would leave this here as a heads-up to others of what I consider to be really bad behavior by Mover of molehills. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

(Also under discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse § GA reviewing difficulty.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Play nice Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't think the article should have been quickfailed, but your behavior towards Mover of molehills leaves much to be desired. It's one thing to disagree with the reviewer, it's another to insult them and claim they're trying to "punish you". You have ignored the reviewer's genuine criticisms of the prose in favor of saying "This failure is an atrocity and I cannot accept your behavior in it." That is not civil conduct and you should know that. And for what it's worth, I agree that sections of the article are too technical to be understandable to the average reader. The correct response here is to request a second opinion, not threaten the reviewer. Both of you did not handle this well, and as I said I do not agree with the fail, but only one of you has been hostile to the other. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC) It is appropriate for an article on a technical topic to have sections that are too technical for the average viewer. WP:TECHNICAL says that "content should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience", and WP:GACR echoes this view. That is not the same as removing all non-general-audience content, and should not be. Also, you are violating WP:AGF when you claim that I have ignored the reviewer's genuine criticisms. I have done no such thing. My testy reaction occurred only after the review suddenly completely broke down, after I had been highly responsive to the criticism up to that point. And you are incorrect when you say that I should have requested a second opinion. The GA procedure offers no option for a nominator to ask for a second opinion. That is purely something for the reviewer to do. And after a review has already been failed, the article marked as failed, and the reviewer left in a huff, seems an unlikely time to politely ask the reviewer to please reconsider and ask for a second opinion. Instead, WP:GAN/I#N5 says to post here, and WP:GNGA says to either request community review or renominate (following which I have posted here and renominated, according to those procedures). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2)Your hostile response to me, an uninvolved editor in good standing, shows exactly the problem here. I said that I agreed that the fail was wrong. And you immediately accuse me of violating AGF just because I dared to mention that your rhetoric was rather hostile. Suddenly I understand why the reviewer felt the need to fail the nomination. I never suggested "removing all non-general-audience content" because that would be silly. Who's violating AGF again? I'm not out to get you, and I have no horse in this race - I'm giving my honest feelings on the matter and how it could be resolved. And after a review has already been failed, the article marked as failed, and the reviewer left in a huff, seems an unlikely time to politely ask the reviewer to please reconsider and ask for a second opinion. Would you rather I reply in the hostile manner that you have been? General practice is that when the nominator and reviewer disagree, a second opinion from a new reviewer is requested. That process is often facilitated at this talk page. Obviously you and Mover of molehills do not get along so it would be a bad idea to suggest they review the article again. And for that matter, you have ignored their criticisms entirely, claiming it's because they're incompetent or don't feel up to doing a long review. Mover of molehills is rather new to the GAN process, but I am not. I have a dozen GAs and have done about 10 reviews. If you didn't want to get other editors' thoughts on the matter you shouldn't have bothered posting here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC) You wrote, and I quote, "for what it's worth, I agree that sections of the article are too technical to be understandable to the average reader", as if it were a valid criticism that could be an obstacle to GA status. It is not, and should not be. And please don't pull that "oh, I'm so experienced" card on me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I'm not engaging with you any further. You're not going to get anywhere being a jerk to everyone who tries to help you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Criticism of the quality of an article or of a review, rather than of the quality of the person behind those things, is one thing, but calling someone "a jerk" is an outright violation of WP:CIVIL. Retract, please. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Gladly, right after you retract your aspersions against Mover of molehills. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Just resubmit it, no big deal. ––FormalDude talk 18:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch

I hope my first nomination, Nintendo Switch, will pass the review. Also, can a bot put my entry in the Video Games section? Thank you. I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@I am Rjsb0192:, you do not appear to be an editor of the Nintendo Switch article. In general it is better to nominate articles that you work on, so it may be worth building up content writing experience before trying out the GA process. It is worth reading Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. On a procedural note, only a reviewer should create a GAN page, such as Talk:Nintendo Switch/GA1. CMD (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I already edited some of the page's content. I'll find more to edit later. I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You have made three edits to the page. You aren't even in the top 100 users to edit the page. At the very least, you should ask users who have edited the page a lot before nominating. What's more, you can't just open a nomination, and then open the review page. I have now deleted the review page. Masem - I'm assuming you'd rather not have this nomination retained? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

So, does this means the nomination already failed? I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly, but it is unlikely that a nomination from someone who is not a writer of the article will pass. Please read Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. CMD (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is anywhere close to all the checks for a good article. --Masem (t) 12:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

How to add a co-nominator?

I'd like to add a co-nominator to an existing nomination. How could I do this? K.e.coffman (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no formal way to add a co-nominator to GA noms; you can add a note using the note= parameter of {{GA nominee}} that someone is a co-nominator, but the bot doesn't recognise it as a formal thing and they won't e.g. automatically get the notifications about the review that the nominator gets. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Formally, there isn't such a thing as a co-nom. But, we generally allow people to say they co-nommed an article. Just add them in as a note Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski and Caeciliusinhorto: thank you both -- this is very helpful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawing from review

I started taking on a review of the Guadeloupe woodpecker article, but my workload has significantly changed. Because I wasn't going to have the time I had planned to work over the article (it's not a quick pass or quick fail), I decided to withdraw from the review to open it back up to someone else who could spend the time with the nominator on it. Following the instructions above, I put a {{db-self}} tag on it and notified the nominator. The talk page of the article looks to be correct and invites someone else to create a review, but the GAN page still shows that a review has been started, but with a reviewer of "unknown". Is it ok to just go in and modify the GAN page, or do I need to give the bot a strategically-placed kick somewhere? RecycledPixels (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

RecycledPixels, I've made the necessary modification to Talk:Guadeloupe woodpecker; the bot has just fixed the nomination entry on the GAN page, so that's all set. Editing the GAN page directly shouldn't be done, since the bot will just overwrite it the next time it runs (every 20 minutes). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Short GAs

Over the past year or so, I've been writing a lot about 1960s keyboard instruments and improving quite a few to GA. On that note, I think Fender Contempo Organ is about as good as I can get it. It's an obscure instrument that was commercially unsuccessful, in production for no more than two years, and has only one notable musician documented in reliable sources to ever use it, so I genuinely think it meets the "broad in coverage" criteria. However, it's only just over 3K of prose, and I've always felt nominating an article that short is a bit of a joke. What do other people think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

As the primary author of another GA on an highly "obscure instrument" with slightly less than 2.5K prose, I'd say: "no issues". I am not qualified to verify whether it is really broad in coverage, but if you really think it meets "broad in coverage" criteria, length should not be a hurdle – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That article certainly looks long enough to me. Some subjects just don't have very much to be said about them. As long as it's more than just a few sentences and meets all the GA criteria, I don't see any issue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Length isn't an issue so long as it's comprehensive. You'll have to be the one to judge comprehensiveness, but it is longer than one I currently have at GAN. Hog Farm _Talk 14:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Totally fine. The "broad in coverage" criterion has to be interpreted relative to the RS coverage which actually exists. Per "What the Good article criteria are not": 3a means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed" (emphasis mine) and reviewers should not require the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources. Also, for what it's worth, if that article passed in its current state, it wouldn't even rank among the 100 shortest GAs in terms of raw byte count. Colin M (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wicked (Maguire novel)

I completed this GA review last night, but though the bot has correctly removed it from the list of open reviews, it hasn't added the GA icon to the article. Did I screw something up here, or is it just the bot being temperamental? And can I just manually add {{good article}} to the top of the article page, or is there anything else I need to do to fix this? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto looks like you went straight to "on hold". The bot gets confused if the article isn't "on review" during one of its bot runs (every 20 minutes unless it's down). Thus, it won't carry out its usual tasks such as alerting the nominator or adding the GA icon after you pass it. (t · c) buidhe 11:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I knew that if you immediately passed the review it confused the bot, but I didn't realise that being on hold had the sane effect. Thanks Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Legobot has more than a few known limitations and issues, unfortunately. User:Firefly is working on a replacement bot. Until that is complete we just have to work around the issues the best we can. So as Buidhe said, you can't immediately put the article on hold (or immediately fail it, as I learned when I quickfailed something). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Newby reviewer

User:Eluike, with zero prior contributions, has begun Talk:Heilbronn triangle problem/GA1 and Talk:Möbius strip/GA2. Already they have made some mistakes, trying (in different ways) to mark both of them as having passed before providing any actual review. Perhaps, assuming good faith, someone more experienced would like to help guide them through this process? As the nominator of both articles it is difficult for me to take that role, although I did at least undo their passage of HTP and leave a comment on both review pages pointing to the relevant guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

At Special:Diff/1081667589, they claim to be Ewdqwdq, who has started similarly malformed reviews on two other nominations (Talk:Binary search tree/GA2, Talk:Computer program/GA2) and a GAR (Talk:Los Angeles Lakers/GA3). Pinging Timhowardriley who inquired about them possibly being a sock. Very strange. eviolite (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This edit is an admission that User:Ewdqwdq is a sockpuppet: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Binary_search_tree/GA2&diff=prev&oldid=1081667589 . I'm reporting User:Ewdqwdq and User:Eluike to be blocked. This user agreed to review GA requests, so an administrator needs to undo the damage. Timhowardriley (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly someone who does not understand what the GA review process is supposed to be, and has so little experience at Wikipedia that they are not able to do a proper review. I would like to suggest that they refrain from any further GA reviews until they have some months of experience editing articles, and delete the reviews they've opened under both usernames. Eluike's insistence at Talk:Heilbronn triangle problem that they have done the review without showing any work at all is particularly troubling, especially when they keep reverting to pass the nomination despite the nominator's clear and valid concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

My alt falls under fair use because that alt was hacked Eluike (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Both accounts have been blocked per the ANI. I have tagged the Talk:Heilbronn triangle problem/GA1, Talk:Möbius strip/GA2, Talk:Computer program/GA2 and Talk:Los Angeles Lakers/GA3 for deletion. I wasn't sure what to do with Talk:Binary search tree/GA2, since there are comments there from Timhowardriley and the nominator, so it didn't seem right to delete them entirely. Timhowardriley, might you want to take on the review? It seems that your initial issues are pretty fundamental; could they be addressed with a reasonable Hold time, or is the article too far? Note that there was an earlier review (Talk:Binary search tree/GA1) that had been lost from the talk page; I've just restored the information regarding it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Despite having left brief comments at two of these I have no objection to their deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "I wasn't sure what to do with Talk:Binary search tree/GA2, since there are comments there from Timhowardriley and the nominator, so it didn't seem right to delete them entirely.": My comments and the response were moved to the regular talk page, so Talk:Binary search tree/GA2 can be deleted. Timhowardriley (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "Timhowardriley, might you want to take on the review?": My vision of a good Binary search tree article would take longer than a week. Timhowardriley (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Now, another user, whom I came across while checking recent changes, has made similar actions. User:Ladnav no esool created multiple GA review pages, all of which were nominated by Epicgenius. They then made several disruptive edits. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Eluike isn't my account. I can delete the pages, but I am doing a real review, or plan to soon, on all of those pages Ladnav no esool (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Considering your edits have mostly consisted of overt vandalism, forgive us if we are rather skeptical of your GA reviewing capabilities. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I find it funny how none of you learned to recognize words spelled backwards Ladnav no esool (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg, I noticed that as well. Ladnav no esool picked up 18 of my nominations at the same time, as well as Talk:Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art/GA1 (which is not by me). I was surprised to find out that the reviewer had no edits prior to starting these reviews. I should also note that their very first edit was to create Talk:Hayes Theater/GA1, which was already deleted once because an IP user tried to review it. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I doubt that they actually intend to review Talk:Neil Simon Theatre/GA1, Talk:30 Rockefeller Plaza/GA1, Talk:Broadhurst Theatre/GA1, Talk:Vivian Beaumont Theater/GA1, Talk:Hayes Theater/GA1, Talk:1585 Broadway/GA1, Talk:One Astor Plaza/GA1, Talk:Beacon Theatre (New York City)/GA1, Talk:Paramount Hotel/GA1, Talk:1540 Broadway/GA1, Talk:750 Seventh Avenue/GA1, Talk:Minskoff Theatre/GA1, Talk:Booth Theatre/GA1, Talk:Shubert Theatre (Broadway)/GA1, Talk:Walter Kerr Theatre/GA1, Talk:August Wilson Theatre/GA1, Talk:Lyric Theatre (New York City, 1998)/GA1, Talk:229 West 43rd Street/GA1, Talk:Crowne Plaza Times Square Manhattan/GA1, given their not-so-veiled admission of being a vandal above. Can an admin delete all of these nominations? – Epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and they have also made disruptive edits. Should this issue be taken to ANI, under the already-existing thread? Kpddg ^(talk) 14:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. Never mind they have already been indeffed. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

But what about the review pages? Should they be tagged for deletion? Kpddg ^(talk) 14:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep. I will do that right now. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have now appropriately tagged all of these nominations. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe the admin who blocked the "Ladnav no esool" (loose-on vandal) account can delete the 22 GA review pages just opened, including Talk:Binary search tree/GA3. Pinging Ad Orientem to see whether they're willing to delete them as part of the needed cleanup. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Federico Gatti

This article is being reviewed by someone who's not very active and I do not agree with his opinions. Can anyone else take his place? Dr Salvus 15:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The reviewer (ArsenalGhanaPartey) planned to review the article almost one month ago, but has barley done so. Should this review be closed, and another one be opened? What's the correct course of action here? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I would ask for a second reviewer by setting the status to second opinion and leaving a note. (t · c) buidhe 17:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe oh look. Its reviewer has been back today but has decided that it would've been a failure. He's said there are grammatical errors (I can't be the one who says he's wrong) but he hasn't said where that are snd nor has he put the nomination on hold (the prose is its only problem) Dr Salvus 17:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the review or in depth at the article at all, so I have no opinion on whether it was correct to fail, but I've fixed a few easy errors in this edit. Another glaring one is "due to his poor of use on the pitch", which makes absolutely no sense to me; what is it meant to mean? Finally, if I were reviewing this article I would be concerned about neutrality, especially in the section on "style of play". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong in his style of play? Where are the mistakes? I'm not saying you're wrong but if you don't show my errors I will never be able to resolve. With "poor use" I mean that he wasn't often used. Dr Salvus 18:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point, the "style of play" sections seems to have a bit to much praise for Gatti. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Which sentences are a "praise" for him? These are his qualities which are sourced. Dr Salvus 14:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Took the tiniest look, but Gatti is a right-footed centre-back who is strong in the air at 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in) tall[2][22] and who is also strong physically[9] and who has an eye for the goal. Has all sorts of for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, if you say the way the sentence is written is wrong, I guess you have a solution to make it how it should be. Dr Salvus 15:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I literally looked at one sentence, and I'm not familiar with the people in the citations, but:

Gatti is a right-footed centre-back who stands at 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in) tall. According to Mirco Vecchi, writing for I am calcio, he is a physically strong player with good technique, thanks to his previous play as a midfielder. or similar. Otherwise, you are just stringing together citations that say something about this person, and picking out vague information without attribution. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, I've done so but now the prose looks more monotonous. Dr Salvus 17:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Somebody has corrected my errors as a fool and I've made the prose more neutral. Can't we change our idea that the article isn't a GA. For me, it's not wonderfull to see a good article shut down for a bad gramamar (I cannot make anything else as I am not a native) or a non-neutrality. Dr Salvus 22:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the whole article as I say, but if the article does have grammatical errors and isn't neutral, it doesn't meet the criteria for GA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski yesterday somebody corrected my donkey mistakes and the article was made more neutral. Couldn't this be reexamined? Dr Salvus 18:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If a user is unwilling/unable to complete/further review a nomination, they should close the review and be renomimated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, I've renominated this. It's a shame that such high quality article doesn't get promoted for the bad grammar and could be reviewed after two months after after waiting the same period of time... Dr Salvus 19:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Co- Reviewer

I know I haven't been on Wikipedia long enough to do a review. But, I was wondering if there is a way for me to be a Co-reviewer? Thank YouFinnish Idea (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably not. Best to just start writing and gaining experience throughout the encyclopedia. There's the technical restriction as well (no way to give credit to two reviewers). Dawnseeker2000 00:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

And he still continue to review especially complex article like Talk:Binary search tree/GA3. Facepalm 2001:4455:699:AB00:55AF:EAE6:6BC5:DF72 (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I am very knowledgeable in computer science so that article will not be the hard to review Finnish Idea (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Finnish Idea, you have only been on Wikipedia for a few days, so while you may be well up on computer science, you have little experience in Wikipedia, the Wikipedia five pillars, and how to apply the GA criteria. Indeed, your review has already run into trouble. You state, This is well written and passes Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Grammar/Spelling is correct. This is not accurate. The History section is unclear, largely due to the placement of "in 1960", and that date (echoed in the infobox) is clearly problematic: one of the sourced publications is dated 1 January 1960, which means that Windley, at least, had to make his discovery prior to that date in order to write his paper, have it accepted and peer reviewed, and then published as of the first day of 1960. Indeed, one of the other History sources itself references a number of sources to support the list of discoverers, one of which has a date of 1959. You also haven't addressed MOS:LEADLENGTH. It is clear that you aren't anywhere near ready to be reviewing this article, and should find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. It is doubly unfortunate that you should pick this one article out of hundreds to review, since it has been subject to several problematic review attempts by sockpuppet accounts over the past week. In an abundance of caution, since your account was created less than 30 hours after the sockpuppet accounts were blocked, I will be requesting a check to be sure you are not yet another username of the same editor who's been trying to review this article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I will delete the review, calm down. That was just my first quick comments not my final comments. There is no need for a check user considering I have done no vandalism Finnish Idea (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Also If I not allowed to review it, I will delete. But, I don't know how to. Can you please tell me Finnish Idea (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Blanking the page, as you had done, doesn't actually stop a review, so I have WP:G6 deleted this for you. BlueMoonset has suggested that you were abusing multiple accounts, not that you were vandalising. I don't think you have the experience necessary to review articles regardless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, there is no ground for a checkUser because this is not vandalism, Disruption or bad faith editing. Finnish Idea (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

And there is no evidence that I have been abusing multiple accounts Finnish Idea (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Finnish Idea, if you aren't the same person, there's nothing to worry about. If you are, then that's disruption regardless. I did go ahead and post the sockpuppet investigation request, which is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eliuke. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Note to those who may be interested: Finnish Idea was indeed a sock of Eluike and was blocked, along with a second account created at 16:05 on 15 April, 22 minutes after my post above about requesting an SPI. It seems likely they've created another one in the eleven hours since the blocks were made, or will do so soon, so keep your eyes out for their reappearance. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Clean-up for GA review of Janie Fricke: admin requested

I came across something I hadn't seen except in historical circumstance: the GA review of Janie Fricke was conducted entirely on the article's talk page rather than on its own review page.

What I have done is copied the review to its own page, Talk:Janie Fricke/GA1 (adding the proper boilerplate to the top of the review), and updated the GA template to point to that separate review page. What I was hoping is that an admin could move or copy the history of the review (starting March 31 and ending April 17, posts by reviewer User:TenPoundHammer and nominator User:ChrisTofu11961) to the new GA review page.

TenPoundHammer, thanks for taking on the review. The instructions page explains how to open a review so it creates its own page next time you review. Have you recently done any reviews on the article talk pages rather than on their own pages? I'm happy to make adjustments if so. (Not counting the pre-2010 reviews you did, when things worked differently.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It's been a while since I reviewed any. I thought something was wrong. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sora Amamiya

Hello! Is it okay if I ask for a second reviewer to take a look at the GAN for this article? The original reviewer, Bluesunnyfox, hasn't edited in almost a week and noted that the GAN for the article was her first review. Would it be okay for another editor to either help her with the review, or take over if she doesn't return? Thanks! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I know you weren't asking me, but I'm alright with a reviewer helping me or taking over. Thank you. I'll try and find time to work on this. blueskies (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I'm not in a place to talk considering I've been having issues keeping up with my own reviews, but something similar has happened on Robin Lehner. — GhostRiver 21:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to pick this up. Give me a couple days. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Penang and George Town, Penang was promoted to GA via deceptive sockpuppetry

Hi, I'd like to bring up the article Penang, which was rated as a good article back in 2018. However, it has been discovered that the GA Review was helmed by Semi-auto, a confirmed sockpuppet of Vnonymous, who was the user who had made major contributions to the article and had placed the nomination themselves. BonjourPinang and ParfaitMauban are also other confirmed sockpuppets of theirs that has made contributions to the article. Furthermore, the article swiftly went from nomination > review > passed in less than a day, which should had definitely caused great suspicion at the time, not to mention that it was also passed by their own sockpuppet account. These actions are clearly inappropriate uses of alternative accounts (WP:BADSOCK).

This person was literally reviewing their own content and pretending to be distinct personas. There is a whole lot of boosterism throughout this article added by this user that should be addressed. It's also hard to confirm how much of these sources correlate to the text, and with this sockmaster already known to engage in deception, it leads me to think that they may very well be engaging in the same thing when they were making major edits to the article, especially if one is not a native or knowledgeable to the city/region.

I initially brought this up to WP:ANI and was advised to bring it up here to see what the next steps should be. Some have responded to just merely remove the GA tag and disregard the bogus GA Review as actions of socks should be considered meaningless, while others think it should be left as is or reassessed. In my view, I suppose doing nothing may incentivize others to also attempt similar things, and that it may seem like it wouldn't matter at all for them even if they eventually get blocked for sockpuppetry, as long as they have already succeeded in promoting an article. Paul K. Sutton (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Add: Added George Town, Penang as well. Same situation. While it has been reassessed, it was done without the foreknowledge that there were deceptive sockpuppetry involved that may had influenced their judgement. Tagging SounderBruce to let them know about it. Paul K. Sutton (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I would just revert the GA promotion because sockpuppetry renders it 100% invalid. (t · c) buidhe 19:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

How does one go about doing that? Is it just as simple as removing the review? As I don't wish to accidentally mess things up, I'd just leave the reverting to a much more experienced editor (if possible) just in case. Paul K. Sutton (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• There is a dual discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockmaster reviewed own article with a sockpuppet account to promote it to a good article in less than a day. Aircorn (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, I requested the ANI one to be closesd as it is much better dealt with here. Will add what I said there. We have had socks pass their own articles before and they are dealt with quite harshly (indefinite blocks, GA removal and review deletion). Given the GA pass was deceptive I think removal and review page deletion is still very much warranted. Maybe with Begoons comment copied onto the talk page. Aircorn (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    • ANI discussion has been closed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I feel that these articles should have a mandatory GAR. While the sockpuppetry is certainly a smudge on things, the articles have had 4 years of editing in between, and may or may not still be up to WP:WIAGA standards, and shouldn't simply be delisted because of the actions of a ne'er-do-well. They do, however, need a proper review from an independent third party. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • But the actions of a ne'er-do-well are literally the only reason they were listed in the first place. WP:GAR is described as "a process used to determine whether a good article (GA) still meets the good article criteria", but in this case we have no reason to believe it ever met the GACR. If these are to get GA status, they need to be reviewed from scratch. Colin M (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur with buidhe and Colin M: the promotion was straight-up invalid, and the best course of action is just to revert it. There's no reason to let it sit around with a status it didn't earn, waiting for someone to put in the time to do a reassessment. A new review, started from scratch, would take a comparable amount of effort, and in the interim, the list of GAs would be more honest. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this, a GAR creates work for others. Delisting doesn't mean it can't be brought to GAN again, and if it is brought to GAN that means there's an editor putting time into it so a review would not go to waste. CMD (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems best to just remove the GA tag. That doesn't mean the article doesn't meet the GA criteria, it just means it hasn't had an actual review yet (reviewing your own article obviously doesn't count). It should be as if the GAN process for the article never happened, rather than considering it a 'delisting' per se. Can always be renominated for an actual review by any good-standing editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have reverted the GA status for Penang: nominators are not allowed to review their own nominated articles, which is what happened here, so the review was illegitimate and should not stand. My inclination would be to do the same thing with George Town, Penang, especially since the reassessment was withdrawn rather than completed, but as I posted to the reassessment (though I didn't know that it was an improper initial review), perhaps someone else should do the honors on this one (though I'm fine with doing so if others think I should). We'll probably want to add a "reassessment" as the reason for delisting it now, and post a note to the article talk page explaining the reason for the delisting. I think I'll go back and do that on Talk:Penang. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I would be inclined to leave George Town as a GA. While the reassessment was withdrawn the last comment from the withdrawer (an experienced GA writer) was it now meets the minimum standard in the GA criteria. Ignoring the deception and other issues with socking, the main issue re GA's is that someone independent assesses the article. That has been done in this case, although I will concede that if the socking had been known the reassessment might have been more in depth. Aircorn (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  @BlueMoonset: I wonder if it would be best to delete Talk:Penang/GA1 to keep things clean. That way if a new review is started it would be easier to implement the article history. Aircorn (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Aircorn, my feeling is that there are a lot of things that can make the article history difficult to manage, and we skip over reviews all the time in such article histories that don't conclude or are abandoned but were nevertheless worthwhile for what was accomplished, but ultimately had no effect. So I would be opposed to deleting Talk:Penang/GA1. Sometimes things aren't clean, which happens and should be noted. The same goes with the other article's reviews.

  That said, I disagree with your conclusion on George Town, Penang. Your quote was incomplete: after listing continuing issues with the article, it reads Otherwise, it now meets... Looking back at how things stood, we have a sockmaster trying to save a sockpuppet's GA passage, showing just how inadequate their original self-review was. The article should never have been given GA status to begin with, the reassessment was withdrawn in part because of Vnonymous's continuing deception, and I agree with Paul K. Sutton, Colin M, buidhe, CMD, and ProcrastinatingReader that the status should be pulled. I'll be interested in hearing SounderBruce|'s thoughts four years on. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  The image concern is not a really GA requirement. Anyway I am not going to push the issue if we really do have consensus (note that the second article was added after many pinged above had already commented). Also we delete poor and socked GA reviews quite often. Can we at least keep it in the article history. As someone who has spent a bit of time trying to sort out and decipher missplaced, incorrect or incomplete GA reviews/reassessment it would make life much easier (especially if we remove the listing from George Town as it will have two previous review pages). Aircorn (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Been away for a few days, but this seems to have become a major issue. The article is in a better state than it was at the time of my botched attempted at GA reassessment, but clearly needs a thorough review to pick up on any problems left behind by the sockpuppets. SounderBruce 05:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

In this situation, an immediate demotion is the only possible option. The GA process relies on independent assessment by editors who have not heavily edited the article (minor grammar/spelling corrections do not disqualify). That has clearly not happened. As for Talk:Penang/GA1, the best course of action is to keep the text, but strike it through. If a new GA nom is made, it can be at GA2. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Article delisted

It seems clear to me that we have a consensus that George Town, Penang should be delisted, which I have done. I checked back and of those editors I pinged, all but buidhe had originally commented after Paul K. Sutton had added that article to Penang as another with the same sockpuppet approving a GAN by the same sockmaster nominator.

I basically followed the process I proposed above: the Talk:George Town, Penang/GA2 page has been archived/hatted with a "Voided" notice (as I did with Talk:Penang/GA1); I added a section to Talk:George Town, Penang explaining the delisting, and added an entry to the Article history template for the delisting, using the closest analogue, GA reassessment, pointing to that new explanatory section on the talk page. I hope this creates enough of a trail for people to follow, and satisfies the needs of the situation. Should I also hat/archive the original withdrawn reassessment? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Two article waiting for review

Can I have two articles waiting for a review at the same moment? Dr Salvus 21:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Certainly. Some editors have many more than that. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Time for another GAN drive?

We're now up to 457 nominations outstanding; 391 not reviewed compared to the end of January where we were at 165(!) not reviewed. Time to run another backlog drive in May or June? (t · c) buidhe 00:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd support running one, but I am absolutely not serving as a coord again unless changes are made to the review checking process. Considering as two of the coords from the last drive decided to ghost us and neglect to check any reviews, leaving me to do almost all of them, I'm not about to repeat that experience again. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Realizing that me complaining without suggesting a course of action isn't very helpful, so to specify, I'd like the rules changed so that any user in good standing may check reviews against the criteria (other than their own reviews, of course). In the event of a dispute between the checker and the person who did the review, the coords would have the final say and discretion to uphold or overrule the giving or non-giving of credit as part of the drive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this was your experience, Trainsandotherthings. IMO it is kind of inevitable that these things can happen considering WP:VOLUNTEER. Allowing any editor in good standing to check reviews would be an improvement, imv, although not necessarily a big change as I don't know how much people would actually do it. Also, not all reviews need to be checked—marking every 2, 3 or 4 should be sufficient especially for more experienced reviewers. (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

There's the slight issue that the awarding of points from the last backlog drive has not happened yet because of a combination of a too workload intensive process with not enough coordinators. We tried to bring in more people to check reviews, but then it turned out we didn't agree on the criteria, and after some talk page discussion, the new people also abandoned the drive, with no reviews being checked in the last ten days. (You can see at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022 how many people helped and how much work they got done). Trainsandotherthings has checked a huge number of reviews and also had to moderate the talkpage discussion by himself, which was not ideal and probably rather unpleasant. I wonder whether we can learn from other contests like the WikiCup how to do this efficiently; perhaps we can invite @Cwmhiraeth to comment? —Kusma (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Kusma said it perfectly. I've been buried with this, and with a lot of work irl as well, so I just don't have the time to get this done in a reasonable timeframe. I'm chipping away when I get the chance but it could be weeks more, especially as I'm taking part in a musical irl that's going to hit tech week and performance soon and my editing will drop to almost nothing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have vaguely alluded to some mental and physical health issues recently, but I should clarify: I was in a motorcycle accident earlier this week that will require some recovery time, so I will also be incapable of serving as a coordinator. (For those who may be concerned: I will be fine, nothing is broken and nothing is permanently damaged, but among other things my arm is in a sling and I am supposed to avoid too much screen time at once in case I am concussed). — GhostRiver 16:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Nominator reviewing their own article

I don't know if anyone has already noticed this, but @Will y theweatherguy473737: appears to be reviewing the article they nominated - Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory. Don't know what the protocol is here, so thought I'd point it out to those who know more before something dubious happens. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, I've marked the review page for deletion, and the GA nominee template was already gone from the article's talk page before I got there. I left a note on Will y theweatherguy473737's talk page about their apparent self-review (which may have been an error), pointing out that the issues that so quickly sank the immediately previous FAC will also sink a GAN, possibly also as a quickfail, and recommending that the GAN not be resurrected until far more sourcing is included in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I can confirm that that was a complete accident. I'm a new editor and I did not mean to do that. Is there a way I can prevent this from happening in the future? Also, I see other people saying this does not meet the GA criteria because it's largely unsourced. I will be sure to fix that. :) Will y theweatherguy473737 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Will y theweatherguy473737:, never click the 'start review' button unless a) it's someone else's nomination and b) you're planning to review it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)