This is the discussion page of the good article nominations (GAN). To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

Archives

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

GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4 GA help: 1, 2 Nominations/Instructions: 1 Search archives

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

Eurohunter currently has fifteen reviews open, all of which were opened during the August GAN backlog drive. Of these, one has been awaiting a second opinion for over eight weeks (Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA1), one received a brief comment from them in late September (Talk:Kwyet Kinks/GA1) but a request in response to complete the review one way or the other has been ignored, and the rest haven't been touched since sometime in August despite Eurohunter being pinged on their talk page. It could be that they burned out before the end of the backlog drive; it has happened to a number of participants in the past. One way or another, the reviews need attention.

Two of these review pages were opened but no review ever posted; I have requested a G6 speedy deletion for them both, since it has been eight weeks without action for both noms, and Eurohunter has another dozen reviews that clearly have a higher priority. It would be great if an admin could delete the two review pages—Talk:Mis Mejores Canciones – 17 Super Éxitos/GA1 and Talk:16 Super Exitos Originales/GA1—so these can go back into the pool of unreviewed nominations, where they would be the eighth- and ninth-oldest nominations awaiting review.

Even with those two deleted, there are still thirteen open reviews. The other eleven not yet mentioned are:

• Talk:Handstand (song)/GA1 (I've pinged nominator Infsai to see whether Eurohunter's requested remaining changes have been addressed)
• Talk:Las Reinas del Pueblo/GA1 (nominator AJona1992)
• Talk:Bang (Rita Ora and Imanbek EP)/GA1 (nominator Iaof2017)
• Talk:Besitos/GA1 (also AJona1992)
• Talk:Abriendo Puertas (song)/GA1 (nominator Magiciandude)
• Talk:Pero Qué Necesidad/GA1 (also Magiciandude)
• Talk:Entre el Mar y una Estrella/GA1 (also Magiciandude)
• Talk:Júrame (Gisselle song)/GA1 (also Magiciandude)
• Talk:No Me Dejes de Querer/GA1 (also Magiciandude)
• Talk:Heart Wants What It Wants/GA1 (also Iaof2017)
• Talk:Elle Leonard/GA1 (nominator TonyTheTiger)

Some of these may be awaiting nominator action, in which case the nominator should be contacted on their talk page (unless they post here) and if they aren't prepared to address the issues in a timely fashion—they've had as much as a couple of months already—the reviews should probably be closed by someone here. Thanks to anyone who can help move these along in some fashion. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that BlueMoonset and Mike Christie have already handled the talkpage templates for the two G6ed reviews. Of the remaining, all except Elle Leonard are songs, if that interests anybody. If no-one wants to pick up directly within these reviews, it would perhaps be best to close them and open new GANs, backdating them to the original nomination date. CMD (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CMD, that might be a good idea to reset many of those nominations without loss of seniority, but if the nominator has yet to address any of the issues raised in the review, I'd just close them as unsuccessful. For example, Magiciandude has responded to issues raised in Talk:Abriendo Puertas (song)/GA1, but has yet to respond or make a single edit to the other four nominated articles: those four strike me as candidates for closure unless work begins in earnest. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a week has passed here, I have closed the four with no replies or later edits (struck above), and pinged the nominator of Talk:Bang (Rita Ora and Imanbek EP)/GA1, where Eurohunter had not received replies to some comments. The others appear to have received more substantive reviews, at first glance mostly on prose and source formatting. Music is not an area I've edited before, but perhaps these just need a quick source spotcheck on the existing GANs. CMD (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bang is up for 2ndopnion now, someone has taken up Abriendo Puertas. CMD (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, I started working through the oldest list to see if I could move things along. I was just coming here to note my discovery that @Eurohunter is the major roadblock and found this thread. So far, they have ignored my entreaties, but I guess that's not a surprise to people here. This kind of behavior is abusive. Nobody requires that you do reviews, but if you're going to start them, you have an obligation to see them through, or at least step out cleanly so somebody else can take over.

If the excitement of the backlog drive got the better of you and you bit off more than you could chew, say so and withdraw from the reviews so other people can pick up the work. Sitting on them and steadfastly refusing to respond to enquiries from multiple editors is reprehensible. I think the next step is going to WP:AN and asking that Eurohunter be WP:TBANed from all processes which require reviews from their fellow editors (i.e. DYK, GA, and FA). Eurohunter, please give me some reason to not do that. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On another note: there are several open nominations where the nominator has not been active for a month or more. Would there be any value in closing those to reduce the clutter on the page and increase the chance that reviews with a reasonable chance of having a nominator respond will be picked up? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Billsmith60 (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this whole discussion because no one mentioned me, but I have answered. Eurohunter (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Removed these nominations by inactive nominators where there is no ongoing review. (t · c) buidhe 19:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that 2 additional reviews RoySmith identified, Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA1 and Talk:Kwyet Kinks/GA1, seem mostly complete, one thanks to a 2ndopinion input from RoySmith. CMD (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am available to take over abandoned reviews or reviews that have been pending for a long time without the reviewer taking action in the "on hold" status. If there is a need for this in Biology and Medicine articles, please feel free to ping me now or in the future. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you watch this page you know it's a common occurrence for editors to post notes on a nomination on the GAN page, unaware that it will be overwritten by the bot. Over the last years I must have left dozens of messages on users' talk pages letting them know why this won't achieve what they are trying to do and telling them how to edit the GAN template on the article talk page. Besides confusing newer editors and leading to disappearing notes/co-noms, this issue also causes watchlist clutter. I was thinking it would be easy to fix by template-protecting the page and giving edit privileges to ChristieBot and any other bots that need to edit the page. Mike Christie suggested bringing this issue for discussion here in case there is any difficulty I am overlooking. (t · c) buidhe 01:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good call that will reduce confusion and time-wasting. Barring any technical concerns, I think we should do it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't see any particular significant downside. Perhaps combined with an edit notice this might help some new users. CMD (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Moxy- 02:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about those of us who know what we're doing and have edited the page dozens of times over the years? Also, will this protection prevent editing to transcluded pages in the initial sections? I don't edit the GAN page much any more, but in the Legobot before times, I did a fair amount of clean-up, and not just reverting like Buidhe mentions. I also edit transcluded pages several times a year for things like the start and end of backlog drives and for updating the list of the oldest unreviewed GANs when many of them have been reviewed. If all that goes away, I think some other solution should be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset I believe all of the items on the GAN page that would need to be edited manually are indeed transcluded (such as the header, which needs to be changed when a drive occurs). These would not need to be additionally protected to prevent the issues I was noticing. To be clear I'm not proposing the protection of any page other than Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations. (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like everything is transcluded (or added by a bot) except this bit:

Alternative lists of articles awaiting review

Sortable list annotated with more detailed topic information

List allowing sorting by nominator, review count, and other fields

To add good article nominations to this page, please see the instructions.

@BlueMoonset: would it help to move those links above to a transcluded sub-page as well? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rjjiii, you should ask SD0008 about the SDZeroBot. My assumption is that admin requirements not an issue for ChristieBot if Mike Christie was the one who pointed Buidhe here. It could be that I'm worried over nothing; my experience is with DYK, which has cascading protections that reach down into subpages, but that is because the process ends with material that goes to main page, so special protections are needed. If that won't be the case here at GAN, then the times we might want to edit the page directly would tend to be those that will heal themselves the next time ChristieBot runs, or during times when the bot is down or wonky and Mike Christie isn't around to fix things. Might the entire editing issue be solved, at least mostly, by causing a special edit notice to come up surrounding the edit window whenever someone tries to edit the page, like the one that happens when one edits a DYK nomination template? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie is a template editor and we will be requesting template (not full /admin) protection for the page. Obtaining the same permission for the bot shouldn't be an issue. I f the bot did fail the page could be unprotected by any admin. There is already an edit notice clearly stating not to edit, but I guess it gets missed. (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason you proposed template protection than EC protection? I idly feel that experience will correlate with understanding of the GAN process, but have not had the reverting experience you have had. This may assuage BlueMoonset's concerns, although due to the transclusions I remain unsure that there will be any real issues if template protection is implemented. CMD (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis I believe the page is already ECP. The erroneous edits are made by ECP users (the latest non bot edit was by an editor with tens of thousands of edits). (t · c) buidhe 18:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently semi-protected, not ECP, but if ECP would not help then that answers my question handily. Best, CMD (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FuzzyMagma (an editor with 23,000+ edits) made the error around an hour ago. Template protection is probably best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the last four users to edit the page erroneously have been extended confirmed users. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be getting close to a consensus. I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Template_editor for ChristieBot to get the template editor permission if there are no objections here over the next couple of days. I'll post a note here when I do so in case there are any questions there. Once that's done any of the admins in this discussion can change the GAN page. I don't believe any code changes to ChristieBot will be needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now requested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And granted. If any admin in this discussion wants to template protect GAN, please go ahead; revert if you don't see ChristieBot successfully editing that page. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bot just copy pasting from the sub pages? Any reason these aren't transcluded instead? Changing these to transclusions might also solve the problem and be less confusing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae The bot works by finding {{GAN}} templates substituted on the talk pages of articles nominated for GA. No type of transclusion could work because the template is not in the right format. (t · c) buidhe 06:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to close Talk:Cross-site leaks/GA2. When I go to the (absurdly long) "Topic, subtopic, and sub-subtopic" menu, there's no "Computing and engineering" item. Digging into the HTML, I find:

<option value="Engineering and technology" disabled="">===Computing and engineering===</option>

Why is this disabled? RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Novem Linguae, for if they're not watching this page. They might be able to answer. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. At the time I wrote the code for this, that level had no articles in it, so I assumed people were supposed to use its sub-categories. It looks like someone manually added an article to it, so now it is a proper category. I'll go ahead and update GANReviewTool :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This ended up being more complicated than I thought. Will circle back to this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith. Taking a fresh look at this, if I were to undisable ===Computing and engineering===, it would allow inserting articles here. That doesn't seem like a good spot to insert articles. I think we're instead supposed to choose a heading farther down. So I am leaning towards keeping ===Computing and engineering=== disabled. Does that seem reasonable? I also notice you manually added this article to the similar-sounding =====Engineering technology=====, which is an option farther down in the drop-down list and is not disabled. So hopefully this is all resolved? :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae thank you for looking at this. Yes, I did manage to get things done manually, so it is resolved in that sense. I still find the interface difficult to use. A drop-down menu with this many items in it is very difficult to use. You can't even search for the item you want in a browser unless you figure out that you need to prepend "===". Perhaps that's just a Chrome thing? RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae Here's another example. I'm trying to close Talk:Protector Shoal/GA1. In Wikipedia:Good article nominations, this is listed under "Geography and places" / "Geography", but both of those entries are disabled in the drop-down. I'm mystified how this is supposed to work. RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the top level categories ("Geography and Places") are not meant to have any articles listed directly under them; instead they should be in the most applicable subcategory. In the case of Protector Shoal, I guess that's Wikipedia:Good articles/Geography and places#Landforms? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense for the nom to pick the subcategory themselves and embed it in the {{GA nominee}} template in a way that the script could pick it up automatically. In fact, {{GA nominee}} does apparently have both topic and subtopic slots, but most of the templates I see leave the topic blank and put what I would think is the topic in the subtopic slot, as in this example:

{{GA nominee|...|subtopic=Geography...}}

which has me scratching my head every time I do one of these. RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether Prime Minister of Albania counts as a list or an article. Lists of course can't be good articles and a majority of Prime Minister of Albania is taken up by the list of prime ministers, but there is also a large portion which consists of prose, which gives it the possibility of being considered an article. I would like to know the thoughts of others. Steelkamp (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's well over enough prose to be considered not simply a list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PMC, it's an article including a list. At a brief glance, if that list was spun off (ala List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom) the rest of the content would remain appropriately placed in that article. CMD (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone oppose or support adding the below text to link the user talk template for drive-by nominations to the end of footnote ^[a] on Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions:

You can notify the nominator on their talk page.

I proposed this before but sidetracked the discussion.[1] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChristieBot has been down for the last 15 hours; I was just alerted to the problem by a post on the bot's talk page and have fixed it. I *think* it will catch up with everything correctly since it runs from categories, but if anyone sees something that looks like a bot error or omission, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we have difficulty on understanding and disagreement p. 1b of the GA criteria. See discussion at Talk:XXXYY_syndrome#Conclusion

As a second reviewer, I believe that the article does not meet the criteria because it lacks proper layout guidelines. Certain sections were missing from the article without any justification provided by the author. In my opinion, these sections are essential for that particular article to be considered GA unless a solid justification is provided on why these sections are not needed; they cannot be just silently ommitted. However, the first reviewer argued that I cannot insist on including specific sections in order for an article to be considered GA. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maxim Masiutin, the GACR 1b states on structure that the article should follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. This does not lay out any particular section topics/titles, being a very general guideline. It seems that you may be raising a point regarding broadness, ie. if the article is missing key sections is may lack key coverage, however you seem to have passed the article on this criteria. If the issue is purely section headers, that is not a GACR issue. If it is to do with coverage, I suggest making that clear. CMD (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My evaluation of the article (XXXYY_syndrome) was not solely based on section headers. I firmly believed that specific sections were crucial for the comprehensiveness of the article, and therefore requested the nominating editor to either include these sections or provide a detailed explanation as to why they should be omitted.

In my view, it would have been inappropriate for a GA nominee to silently exclude sections that I deemed important without any justification or explanation. Therefore, I encouraged the editor to address these concerns and clarify their reasoning behind omitting said sections. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chipmunkdavis: what you are talking about appears to be an issue with criterion 3 ("broad in its coverage"), particularly 3a ("addresses the main aspects of the topic"), not 1b. Biology is not at all my area and I'm in no position to comment on whether the article does in fact meet criterion 3a, but if you do not believe that it does meet that criterion then yes, that is absolutely a reason not to promote the article. If you consider some particular topic to be an essential "main aspect" of the subject, then it is absolutely correct to say that it should not pass GA unless it addresses that topic. For instance, I would contend that no article on World War II could be a good article if it did not address the causes of the war. That said, I don't think it's true that you could insist on any particular layout: if an article discusses some essential topic I would not think you could insist that the section header changed. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the explanation! Very helpful for the future. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you may be getting hung up on the notion that the article must be comprehensive to be broad. Explicitly, this is not the case: per GACR, "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles." If something is not a "main aspect" of the subject as discussed in the existing sources - let's say "Society and culture", which you criticized this article for not including - then it should not be expected to be included in the article. There are only 8 recorded cases of this syndrome. How can you expect an entire "Society and culture" section for something with eight cases without resorting to original research? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your observation about society and culture is correct. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Do you think there's a possibility that my observation might also apply to other sections that you originally believed were mandatory under MEDORDER? In other words, do you think that your assessment that the article fails 3a might be worth revisiting? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, would you be all right with reversing the fail and letting RoySmith finish the review, assuming he wants to? It would probably be less frustrating for the nom than having the article go back in the queue for another however many months when he decides to renominate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, if I took over the review again, I would still be looking for a SME to confirm that it is correct to use "male" to describe these patients. It might be best to let somebody else take this. RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prefacing this comment with a disclaimer that I haven't read the sourcing, as medical content is way over my head. Assuming Vati is correct in saying that all the sourcing says "male", and assuming that the sourcing appears reliable to you, what would a subject-matter expert be able to say that would be different? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's a fair question. As I was reviewing the article, I found myself repeatedly bugging my wife (who is a molecular biologist) to explain stuff to me. At some point it became obvious to me that there was enough that I didn't understand (the "male" thing was just the final thing) that I didn't feel competent to complete the review. RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. From the original wording it seemed like the "male" thing was the specific issue but it makes sense if it's a broader question of making sure you understand enough to provide a solid review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such definitions as "male" are highly controversial, because they vary on context, culture and environment. For example, for a clinical practitioner in a hospital in one country it may mean different for a intersex organization member in a the organization's meeting. You would not be able to find an expert on "male" that will be one size fits all. You can give any definition you like and make a reliable source and it sill be controversial. For example, you can use a definition of male as a human having at least one Y chromosome, and it sill be controversial.

Although the definition of male as a human having at least one Y chromosome is a somewhat commonly accepted definition, however, it is not the only definition of male. There are other definitions that take into account other factors such as hormonal balance, reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics.

Therefore, you can simply write in your article on XXXYY syndrome that "according to a definition of male given at .... that denotes male as ....., the individuals with XXXYY syndrome are considered males.

Then, you can either do the following:

1) further write that "further in these article the individuals individuals with XXXYY syndrome are denoted as males, however, it is not the only definition of male, there are other definitions that take into account other factors such as hormonal balance, reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics.

2) avoid using male, man, boy and other sexual denotions, and instead write person, adult, child, newborn, fetus, embryo, adolescent, etc...

Sex is a sensitive topic in Wikipedia and my colleague receved tematic ban on editing anything related to "sex" for arguing on Wikipepedia talk pages, so try to avoid this issue rather than waiting for a subject matter expert. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are other definitions that take into account other factors such as hormonal balance, reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics ...by which definition, it's a male SCA. It's not a condition that causes people to have DSDed reproductive organs or secondary sex characteristics -- none of the SCAs are. Some sex chromosome disorders are, but that's not the normal phenotype for any of the polysomy SCAs. (This is why I never worked on the male X-polysomy articles, despite the constant begging amongst XXY support groups for literally any information about those disorders that isn't deeply stigmatizing and several decades out of date.) Vaticidalprophet 22:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here, for reference, is the review that's the first source in the article and used most throughout. It consistently uses "male" to describe XXXYY men. So do all the sources it cites. Vaticidalprophet 22:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good catch! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean by the abbreviation SCA "sex chromosome aneuploidy" which refers an abnormal number of sex chromosomes, such as XXY, XXX, XYY or XXXYY? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we are in a medical context, than we are OK with SCA, but outside the medical context if we identify an XXXYY individual as male we may be in trouble because even according to Wikipedia's definition of male we can find that "In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender, in the social sense of gender role or gender identity. The use of "male" in regard to sex and gender has been subject to discussion."

That what I mean. If you only need to stay in a medical context, you don't have to be an expert in genetics or molecular biology to identify XXXYY as a male SCA :-) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet, I can try write a small section on newborn screening and prenatal screening if you wish. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell me what you think of it. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would not be able to do this objectively; I'm not insisting on all these articles, I just wanted the reviewer to explain why something is omitted or write these sections. For example, why the editor objects from making Classification a distinct standalone section or a subsescion with classification to be able to easier navigate the article and find the text there and understand better the context while skimming it?

Also, the explanation of the mechanism is not especially irrelevant, but if it is not relevant, an explanation on the Talk page should be given why it is not relevant, and if it is relevant, while not to group it under this title for future easier digestion of this topic?

It is also nothing written on prevention and section on screening, neither as as subsction nor among other text at all! Why screening is not covered? It was only mentioned that patients were screened in prisons and institutions, forming an image of such conditions as severely disabling, but it was not said anything about newborn screening at all. Is it a part of newborn screen kits or not? If yes, than in which countries? If not, than why? I understand that it is a part of karyotype test that may be used to screen other conditions which are more frequent but also involve sex chromosome abnormalities. Were there arguments to screen newborns for sex chromosome abnormalities or not? Are there advocacy groups that lobby screening other sex chromosome abnormalities that would also cover this symptom? What other genetic conditions or abnormalities are typically included in newborn screening programs? Are there any known cases of XXXYY syndrome being identified through routine newborn screening? What are the potential long-term health impacts and outcomes for individuals with XXXYY syndrome if not detected through newborn screening? Is there a recommended timeframe within which newborn screening should be conducted to accurately detect XXXYY syndrome? Are there any specific challenges or limitations associated with implementing widespread newborn screening for sex chromosome abnormalities like XXXYY syndrome? How does the cost of incorporating XXXYY syndrome screening into existing newborn screenings compare to the potential benefits it provides? Have any studies been conducted on the effectiveness and accuracy of current methods used in newborn screenings to detect sex chromosome abnormalities, including XXYYY syndrome? Have there been any animal studies conducted, such as in mice, to investigate the potential factors that may contribute to an increased or decreased occurrence of milder forms of sex chromosome abnormalities like XXY or XYY? What specific conditions or experimental manipulations in animal models have shown an increase or decrease in the frequency of sex chromosome abnormalities, potentially leading to a noticeable occurrence of XXXYY syndrome? Can findings from animal studies provide insights into the underlying mechanisms that may contribute to the development and manifestation of XXXYY syndrome? Given the rarity of XXXYY syndrome, are there any specific guidelines or recommendations for healthcare providers on when and how to consider newborn screening for this condition? Considering the low prevalence of XXXYY syndrome, what factors should be taken into account when deciding whether to include it in routine newborn screenings? Are there any ongoing research efforts to improve the accuracy and reliability of newborn screening methods for detecting rare conditions like XXXYY syndrome?

There is also nothing written on treatment or management at all, not even a single sentence like that the treatment options are not known. Omitting treatment or management for chronic conditions is unacceptable for an article nominated to GA, such article about a disease or medial condition cannot be classified as complete enough it it does not say a word about treatment or management!

There was also nothing written on research directions. If no treatment of management is known, it should probably be written whether it is researched or not, although research directions can be omitted.

These were the issues that I initially raised in my review. The nominating editor could have replied on them, at least on the most relevant and improve article in part and explain the irrelevancy of these questions in part.

However, as I mentioned earlier, I may be biased, therefore, I would not be suitable for reviewing the same article again unless the issues I initially raised in my review are addressed.

I will put these comments to the Article talk page for them not to get lost. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you're biased, but I will say I don't think you are quite clear on the GACR. If sources don't include this information, then we can't either. We can't hold gaps in the sourcing against an article if the article is able to address major aspects of the subject despite other gaps in the sourcing. It would be original research for Vati to make assumptions about things that aren't written in the sources - even to say that treatment options or research directions aren't known. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a reviewer, I want to ensure that the information in an article is backed up by reliable sources. I am sorry that you felt that I encourage the reviewer to make assumptions or close gaps with guesstimates. I didn't encourage to do that. I kindly request that the nominating editor justifies any missing sections that I consider important, instead of simply leaving them out without explanation. It would be helpful if the nominating editor could provide a brief explanation of their search process and any sources they found, even if they feel those sources may not be sufficient or reliable. It's always better to have a constructive discussion rather than just insisting on disagreement without providing any supporting arguments. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could make the same point - it seems that you are assuming the sourcing to justify those sections exists but are providing no evidence to indicate that they do. Anyway, earlier we agreed that your assessment that the article fails 3a was incorrect - have you changed your mind back? That seems unfair.

Something else I just noticed that I find really unreasonable is that you didn't even give Vati the chance to justify or correct any "missing" sections. You started leaving comments at 03:23 hours my time and failed the GA at 08:28 hours after disagreeing with RoySmith about the degree to which you were taking over the review. Vati wasn't even editing during that time, so how could he possibly have responded to you? If you really are as open to discussion as you say, I will ask you again to do the reasonable thing and revert your closure of the GAN as a failure rather than forcing a renomination. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. You're asking questions that may be pertinent to a researcher, but are well beyond the scope of an encyclopedic article. It's impossible to answer some of your questions without performing original research, such as: [c]onsidering the low prevalence of XXXYY syndrome, what factors should be taken into account when deciding whether to include it in routine newborn screenings? Others are beyond the scope of this specific article, such as: [w]hat other genetic conditions or abnormalities are typically included in newborn screening programs?

You've also now twice repeated the concern that the article excludes material that I consider important. The nominator is de-facto justified to ignore such concerns (though this isn't what happened as demonstrated by PMC). Wikipedia is explicitly disinterested in what any editor believes should be there. That's the basis of WP:V. Articles cover the subject matter as discussed within RS (in this case MEDRS) directly related to the topic. If you've identified material contained within MEDRS that is missing from the article, that is worth discussing. Otherwise, the generalized concern behind 'why does x section not exist?' can be addressed with 'because it isn't discussed in the relevant literature'. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to provide your insights on my list of questions. I appreciate your perspective regarding the scope of an encyclopedic article and which questions from those that I listed may be deemed pertinent or irrelevant.

I would like to clarify that not all of the questions listed were intended as mandatory requirements for inclusion in the article. They were meant to serve as examples highlighting potential areas worthy of consideration. I apologize if this was not clear initially.

In retrospect, it might have been more productive if we had focused on discussing the most relevant and significant questions from my list rather than singling out potentially less important ones. By doing so, we could have engaged in a more constructive dialogue about aspects that are truly impactful within the context of this article.

Furthermore, I must note that during previous discussions, my concerns and inquiries were left unaddressed without any supporting arguments suggesting their irrelevance. This led me to conclude that certain sections deemed important by myself were overlooked or given insufficient attention in relation to conforming with the criteria for a good article.

While Wikipedia emphasizes its commitment to verifiability (WP:V) and relies on reliable sources (such as WP:MEDRS) directly related to the topic at hand, it is crucial for us as editors to strive for comprehensive coverage whenever possible. If there are materials within WP:MEDRS that appear missing or underrepresented in the current article, exploring ways to incorporate them can enhance its overall quality.

As for your concern of "I consider important", I don't understand why it brought your attention. Earlier in the discussion, there was a sentence by Caeciliusinhorto-public that "For instance, I would contend that no article on World War II could be a good article if it did not address the causes of the war. Therefore, Caeciliusinhorto-public considers important the topic of the causes of the war in an article on World War II. This means that if the user Caeciliusinhorto-public were a reviewer in such an article, than the user would have indicated to the nominating article that such article should address this question before it can be considered to be a GA.

You made a blanket statement 'why does x section not exist?' can be addressed with 'because it isn't discussed in the relevant literature' but this statement does not apply for particular case. In this specific case, the newborn and prenatal screening topic is widely covered in reliable literature (secondary sources such as reviews, meta-analysis or books, for example, these are the titles of the publications indexed on MEDLINE about the newborn and prenatal screening for XXXYY syndrome and other conditions of sex chromosome aneuploidy:

1. Fragile X-related element 2 methylation analysis may provide a suitable option for inclusion of fragile X syndrome and/or sex chromosome aneuploidy into newborn screening: a technical validation study (PMID 23060046)
2. Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women (PMID 29125628)
3. A review of neurocognitive functioning of children with sex chromosome trisomies: Identifying targets for early intervention (PMID 31267526)
4. Rapid methods for targeted prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome aneuploidies (PMID 21316319
5. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis (PMID 23215555)
6. Chromosomal mosaicism detected by karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis (PMID 33201576)
7. Advances in genetic prenatal diagnosis and screening (PMID 25211161) # Chances and Challenges of New Genetic Screening Technologies (NIPT) in Prenatal Medicine from a Clinical Perspective: A Narrative Review (PMID 33805390)
8. Genomic newborn screening: Are we entering a new era of screening? (PMID 37403863)
9. Genomic newborn screening-research approaches, challenges, and opportunities (PMID 37831095
10. and so on....

Why didn't the nominated editor analyze the content of these articles and include them into the article if this information is both important for the topic described and confirmed reliable sources?

Once again, regarding your remark about "considering important," I apologize if there was any confusion caused by my use of similar language. I understand now that it was an attempt at illustrating how individuals might prioritize different aspects based on their perception of importance within specific contexts. In this case, highlighting the significance of addressing key topics like causes in an article on World War II further emphasizes the importance of considering various viewpoints when assessing articles' eligibility criteria.

Once again, thank you for engaging in this discussion with an open mind and collaborative spirit. I believe our collective efforts will help improve the quality and comprehensiveness of this article.

Additionally, it is important to note that not all articles may provide valuable information for inclusion in the current article. For example, articles specifically focused on prenatal diagnostics may not be directly applicable to the topic of newborn screening.

Prenatal diagnostics and newborn screening are distinct procedures with different objectives. Newborn diagnostics are typically prescribed when there are known concerns or risk factors present in the family history. In contrast, prenatal diagnostics aim to identify conditions or abnormalities during pregnancy. Since XXXYY syndrome is not an inherited condition, there is no indication for prenatal diagnostic testing specifically for this syndrome.

However, it should be acknowledged that newborn screening methods like karyotyping or genome sequencing can still be relevant as they have the potential to detect sex chromosome abnormalities including XXXYY syndrome. Therefore, articles related to newborn screening may offer valuable insights and information that could contribute to enhancing this article's content.

Furthermore, exploring research directions within the context of newborn screening would also benefit from incorporating relevant literature and resources. These sources can shed light on emerging advancements and future possibilities in diagnosing and managing XXXYY syndrome.

By considering these distinctions between prenatal diagnostics and newborn screening while utilizing appropriate resources, we can ensure a more comprehensive representation of XXXYY syndrome within the scope of this article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is one known case of XXXYY syndrome discovered through prenatal screening, which did not survive to birth. This is discussed in the article. This specific pattern for sex chromosome tetrasomy/pentasomies is fairly common -- their extreme rarity combined with the generally negative portrayal of them in older literature means the number of described prenatally diagnosed cases for almost any given one is about 0-1, and I've never ran into a report of a liveborn case. Fragile X is a completely unrelated disorder (this is a common problem for finding gscholar results on rare SCAs, because it's fairly common and has a lot of research on it, so it clogs up hits). The other articles are about different disorders that are discussed in this article/this article suite when relevant. Because XXXYY doesn't correspond "directly" to either male trisomy SCA, it's much more OR to draw comparisons in the way you can for e.g. tetrasomy X/pentasomy X, where the sources frequently discuss the relationship between those phenotypes and that of trisomy X.

The article discusses the complex history of prenatal and newborn screening in SCAs, and how this specifically applies to tetra/penta disorders, which are much rarer and have generally not benefitted nearly so much from it (e.g. Few adults with the disorder have been reported, and there are no reports of people diagnosed prenatally who survived to birth. This lack of prognosis information is common in sex chromosome tetrasomy and pentasomy; though longitudal studies exist for the sex chromosome trisomies, higher-level aneuploidies are far rarer and information more sparse and These assumptions were later disproven by longitudinal studies of people diagnosed at birth with sex chromosome trisomies, which found people with 47,XXY, 47,XXX, and 47,XYY karyotypes blended into the general population and had little unusual propensity for criminality. Despite these advances regarding sex chromosome trisomies, the tetrasomy and pentasomy variants remain understudied. Due to their extreme rarity, none were detected in these cohort studies, and no unbiased information exists on their long-term prognosis). This is the fourth article on a tetra/penta SCA I've nominated at GAN, and the rarest disorder of the bunch; the amount written here is generally representative of these articles and the sourcing that exists for them. Vaticidalprophet 02:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On relevant studies

Thank you for providing further clarification and insights into your reasoning. I agree with your points regarding the lack of research and information available on tetra/penta SCAs, particularly in comparison to the more common trisomies. This is indeed an important aspect to consider when discussing prenatal screening and prognosis. I also understand the points that you have raised regarding prenatal screening and newborn screening, as well as the challenges in obtaining reliable information on rare conditions like XXXYY syndrome.

However, I would argue that it is still important to acknowledge the potential relevance of articles related to prenatal diagnostics or newborn screening in informing our understanding of this condition. While there may not be a wealth of information available specific to XXXYY syndrome, studies on sex chromosome aneuploidies can provide valuable insights into common trends or patterns that may extend to this disorder. I must reiterate my previous statement that it may be beneficial to explore incorporating relevant literature from newborn screening into this article. While it may not directly correspond to XXXYY syndrome itself, as you have pointed out, articles related to newborn screening can still provide valuable information and perspectives on the broader topic of SCAs.

Utilizing appropriate resources can also shed light on emerging advancements and potential future directions for diagnosing and managing these rare disorders. Therefore, neglecting or dismissing such sources simply because they do not directly address XXXYY syndrome could limit our understanding of its implications within the larger context of SCAs.

While there may only be one known case of XXXYY syndrome discovered through prenatal screening currently discussed in the article (which I appreciate you mentioning), this does not mean that it will remain unchanged forever. With advances in technology and research methods, more cases could potentially be detected prenatally in the future. Therefore, considering how newborn screening has evolved over time could offer valuable insight into potential developments in this area. This can be explained in the "Research directions" section, for example.

Again, as with the case at hand, please consider focusing on what is relevant rather than on what is irrelevant for argument's sake alone. You mentioned about fragile X syndrome earlier but seem to avoid addressing my point about the title of this article is "fragile X syndrome AND/OR sex chromosome aneuploidy". It is a reliable source discussing both topics together. It would benefit readers if we explored ways to incorporate such sources without disregarding their relevance simply because they do not fit neatly under one specific disorder label.

As Wikipedia emphasizes verifiability through reliable sources (WP:V), incorporating these findings from secondary sources can strengthen the article's content and enhance its comprehensiveness. Again, my intention here is not to suggest mandatory requirements but rather offer insights on possible areas worth considering for improvement in future revisions.

As highlighted earlier with regards to prioritizing key topics like causes in articles on World War II or assessing eligibility criteria holistically rather than focusing solely on individual items from lists.

On GA criteria

As for the article's readiness for a Good Article award, it is far from complete and does not meet the GA criteria at this time, as I expressed earlier. Since you didn't complete the article, my opinion is the same, and the arguments that you gave avoid important topics while focusing on what is easy to rebutt. We should focus on good content in Wikipedia. Content could have been improved rather than arguing. The lack of comprehensive coverage and the omission of important topics and relevant literature are major concerns that need to be addressed before the article can be considered for a GA award. Again, I urge you to consider focusing on what is relevant rather than on what is irrelevant for the sake of arguing, and to strive for a more comprehensive and well-rounded article that meets the GA criteria. Thank you once again for engaging in a collaborative discussion aimed at improving this article's quality and comprehensiveness. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment demonstrates that you still don't understand that the GA criteria explicitly do not demand comprehensiveness. It is unreasonable to fail an article on something which is explicitly not required by the GACR. I would strongly recommend you not take up any further GA reviews until you have a better handle on the GACR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment on World War II above. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I once nominated an article about a human gene that encodes enzyme protein and nominated for GA and the reviewer failed the nomination because there has not been mentioned in the article about work done with this gene by the scientists on knockout mice :-) I agree that this information is important. But some may disagree. It is easier to add information on knockout mice than argue :-) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting take on why I failed that GAN. I invite others to have a look and see the review for themselves. Esculenta (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a diplomatic response, Esculenta. If I were you, I'd have used the word "lie". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you suffered what sounds like an unfair review, but that doesn't mean you should inflict that unreasonable standard on other people, especially without actually giving them any chance to add information or discuss the situation. Adding a bunch of smiley faces to your response does not make what you did any less unfair. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was fair. I had a couple of reviews where reviewer were very demanding, so I thought it was a normal process. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable to be critical in line with the GACR. It's not normal to demand things that have no connection to the GACR. It's not reasonable to demand that the nominator engage in original research by synthesizing content about treatment or screening for other disorders, which is exactly what you're doing here. It's not reasonable to blunder into someone else's review and abruptly fail the nomination without even giving the nominator the chance to log on and respond to your comments. Fucking hell, man, take a step back and realize that every single person who has responded to you here has disagreed in one way or another with your interpretation of the criteria. You are the one who's in the wrong. You have been the entire time, and all the walls of text in the world are not going to change that. Have some grace and revert the fail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not screening for other disorders, it is about sex chromosome aneuploidy. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need different screening for XXY, XYY, XXXYYY. Sex chromosome aneuploidy screening covers them all. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage and it addresses the main aspects of the topic, the "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

Although not every major detail or fact should be covered, some major details or facts should be covered still.

The notions of "major", "some", etc. are relative and subject to personal interpretation. For example, how many major details may not be covered, 1, 2 or 3?

A probable explanation is that the difference on interpretation depends on traditions for a particular area.

I was writing in medicine and had broader articles in its coverage than XXXYY and they still failed.

Therefore, I understood that the traditions for medical articles are differnt from the other articles, and demanded the same on average than was demanded from me, not more, not less. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And in the example on World War II given above, the article would just have failed GE because of just 1 major detail is omitted (causes of war). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MM, I agree with those above that are saying your standards are too high for the GA process. The stuff about omitted major details is something of a red herring. A GA quality article can be missing hundreds of major details. It needs to address the major subtopics of the article. "Causes of the war" is not a detail, but a major aspect of the topic with uncountable potentially major details. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newborn screening, management and treatment of a desease are also not details but major aspects. When I reviewed, my opinion was that without those major aspects the article was not ready for GA. Why you then blame me? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were the following discussion:

-- Why didn't you write about newborn screening?

-- Because it is not required by GA criteria.

-- But this topic is important and well-covered by the articles.

-- It is still not required by the GA criteria. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're very likely to be wrong, and you certainly have not proved, that newborn screening is important and well-covered by the articles. You brought up a bunch of sources about newborn screening for other conditions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I brought sources for newborn screening for sex chromosome aneuploidy and for whole genome sequencing. It is not a screening for other conditions. Sex chromosome aneuploidy covers XXXYY and whole genome sequencing also covers XXXYY. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to one source that discusses newborn screening for XXXYY? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look for sex chromosome aneuploidy screening and whole genome sequence screening. XXXYY is a sex chromosome aneuploidy that is detected by such screening. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to one source that discusses whole genomic sequencing for newborns that mentions XXXYY? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it mention it? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still, there is an article DOI: 10.1159/000101523 which mentions XXXYY in context of screening. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article, just commentary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was peer reviewed and it confirms that XXXYY is addressed by newborn screening, that was what you needed. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't address that at all. The full quote of its mention of XXXYY is "Mosaicism (46,XY/47,XXY) is observed in up to 10% of cases, whereas other variant karyotypes, e.g., 48,XXYY, 48,XXXY, 49,XXXYY, or 49,XXXXY, are rare." It then goes on to discuss newborn screening for Klinefelter's. We already have sufficient sourcing for the fact that XXXYY is rare Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Masiutin, it is a non-trivial amount of work to track down and review these references. It is so disappointing to find that you've misrepresented their content. Rather than my continuing the work, can you provide quotes from the remaining sources you've found that show that they discuss newborn screening or newborn genomic sequencing in the context of XXXYY. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can write a section on newborn screening for XXXYY if you wish, based on these sources. By the way, I save the sources to the talk page so there are the links that XXXYY can be detected by sex chromosome aneuploidy screening and genomic newborn screening. The articles on these methods are at Talk:XXXYY_syndrome#Literature on newborn screening methods that can detect XXXYY syndrome

Articles that expressly mention XXXYY in context of newborn screening are at Talk:XXXYY_syndrome#Articles that expressly mention XXXYY in context of newborn screening

There is also an article on sex that may be interesting to which that commentary replies. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This one also mentions XXXYY in context of screening: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.96.4.672 Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This one also mentions: 10.3390/children9111719

And there are other sources, but you requested only one. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You dont need separate screenings for separate genetic conditions. If you do whole genome sequnce you cover all known conditions, such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia, sex chromosome aneuploidy, etc. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that there may have been some confusion regarding the spirit of the rules for Good Article criteria on Wikipedia. It seems like there was an oversimplification of the requirements on your part, suggesting that the comparison could be handled mostly by a bot with a focus on technical aspects, and such bot could have given the Good Article status to an article submitted by the bot, if it were all too simple as you say. However, it's important to note that this approach goes against the intended essence of the rules. The inclusion of options such as "hold" and "2nd opinion," which aim to attract subject matter experts, further emphasizes the need for broad coverage. A subject matter expert plays a vital role in evaluating whether most major details have been adequately addressed. If broader coverage would not have been required and minor issue were easier to fix, there were no options like hold review for seven days to improve the article or verify by a second expert. Small issues like consistent citation formatting does not take as long as seven days for which the hold option is given. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you say does not match the consensus interpretation of the GA criteria on en-wiki. Lack of sources that cover an aspect of a topic has never been considered on en-wiki to permit a GA fail on the "broad coverage" criterion. For a fail on broadness, a reviewer must show that sources exist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put about 10 sources here on newborn screening. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And we already spent more kilobytes of text on arguing; these kylobytes would have been better spent on information on newborn screening. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the kbs are yours, and it would help if you could provide briefer responses. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is not absolute and I may be wrong, you may probably nominate the article to GA again without modification and another reviewer may consider it meets GA criteria in its current form. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the same article as a GA and a FA. There's a world of difference. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Regarding WP:MEDORDER specifically, criterion 1b lists precisely 5 MOS guidelines with which a good article must comply; MEDORDER is not one of them. The fact that MOS:LAYOUT links to WP:MEDORDER does not mean that MEDORDER must be complied with to meet the GA criteria, and even if it did, MEDORDER is (in its own words) a list of "suggested sections ... intended to help structure a new article or ... an existing article [which] requires a substantial rewrite". MEDORDER does not require any specific sections: indeed it specifically caveats the list by saying "some sections will necessarily be absent or may be better merged". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next step for XXXYY syndrome

I think we've moved past the point of useful discussion above. It is crystal clear that the article's first reviewer is demanding original research from the nominator. I think the nominator is wise to decline. Vaticidalprophet, would you like to renominate and ask for a new reviewer? I would be happy to create the review page and add a note pointing to this discussion, explicitly asking the new reviewer to disregard the quickfail criterion about addressing issues from a prior review. Is this option ok with VP, and would anyone else oppose it? Is there a better next step? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my interpretation of the discussion. It seems like MM is asking for explanations (ie. no sources exist") why certain standard content that would usually be a major topic for a medical article is omitted. He also seems to have found some sources that were missed by the nominator. The way he is going about it is suboptimal though. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's been given explanations above but ignores or doesn't accept them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MM was given the "no sources exist" explanation, and their source dump includes stuff that is irrelevant to the topic. When asked to provide a source that mentions the article topic, they said "Why should it mention it?" It is deeply unfair to the nominator to have to wrangle with this level of policy understanding in a reviewer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are cherry-picking certan quotes from my reply wrere I provided you with the sources which expressly mention XXXYY in context of newborn screening:

• "Clinical, Cognitive and Neurodevelopmental Profile in Tetrasomies and Pentasomies: A Systematic Review". doi:10.3390/children9111719. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• "Can Klinefelter Patients Be Female?: Commentary on Lee Y.S. et al: Genital Anomalies in Klinefelter's Syndrome (Horm Res 2007;68:150–155)". doi:10.1159/000101523. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• "Sex Chromosome Tetrasomy and Pentasomy". doi:10.1542/peds.96.4.672. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

You can also look for similar articles that mention expressly XXXYY in context of newborn screening. Maxim Masiutin Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, the second of those (the first one I checked) does not expressly mention XXXYY in the context of newborn screening. I did not cherry-pick a quote from you, but I chose one that was demonstrative of the overall issue, which at least two other editors pointed out to you before you made the quoted comment. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to have read all three of these articles already. None of them do so in the sense you are asking for. The third one is cited extensively in the article (you may notice it as the third source), including for content regarding newborn screening, and the other two do not provide information relevant to the article. None of them talk about newborn screening as relevant to XXXYY, because newborn screening in the context of SCAs refers to either 1. large newborn screening studies that only found trisomies or 2. speculation about potential future screening programs that are only discussed regarding trisomies. The former is to some degree relevant to the subject, which is why there is a lot of information in the article about the ways in which it is relevant. I genuinely do not understand your contention, and I feel bullied and patronized by your comments. Vaticidalprophet 05:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Your explanations are more than plausible. I made analysis and after the arguments presented I think that the article passes the GA criteria. Still, I'm not sure what is the right process. I didn't find on the rules of GA review on whether a reviewer who failed a GA nominee later change its status to pass without the nominating editor will renominate it again. Can you please renominate it again so we adhere to the normal process? If the renomination is not required, please let me know and I will try to change the status. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: The GAN was failed by you just a few days ago, so you can simply self-revert this action (ie. reverting this). Once you have done that, you can add the explanation for the pass to the bottom of Talk:XXXYY syndrome/GA1 and then pass the article normally. CMD (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I now the see the article XXXYY syndrome in the list at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Biology_and_medicine Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers just to correct a minor point, I'm the first reviewer. I asked for a 2O on one particular question, and MM inappropriately took over the review. I don't think what they did was correct, but I just couldn't work up the energy to fight him over this. Personally, I think he's being an ass. And, yes, I think starting from scratch with a new reviewer is the best way forward at this point. RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An important correction. Thank you RS; reliable as always. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You already done great job improving the article, so the article is ready from all technical aspects. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish me to try to write a section about screening? Or we should better now refrain from editing, submit to GA and after it passes GA write such a section? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not banned from editing the article (yet) and I would always encourage editors to WP:BEBOLD and make improvements as soon as they are able to do so. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that an article should more or less "settle" when submitted to GA, and since you decided to sumbit, my edits may interfere with a review. That's why I asked which time would be better: now or after the review. If it is not a problem that my edits may interfere, than I may try. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you've talked to (counting quickly) seven different people in the course of this conversation, of which I (the nominator) have participated pretty little. (The response my heart gives is "none, the article isn't worth this problem, I'll BLAR it to an article on sex chromosome aneuploidies". I'll see how I feel when the conversation dies. In a year.) Vaticidalprophet 21:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you don't wish, I would not do that even on the Talk page. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a wholly literal response. I am very overwhelmed and exhausted by this. I have the impression six other people are, too. I don't believe any article with transcluded sections prescriptively-should pass GAN. Vaticidalprophet 22:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the second option then? I mean explaining in a few sentences that there is a common or similar issue between SCA variations and link to a dedicated page that will explain this issue for all the variations, probably given differences where relevant? This way we would not need to duplicate information as you mentioned earlier. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working in the long run on an article about SCAs, which won't be ready for primetime until a lot of the individual SCA articles are in better shape. I don't think individual ones should require the main one to exist in order to pass GAN. Vaticidalprophet 22:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. However, having multiple different pages all for each SCA variations with lots of repetitions on things like meiosis whereas on one page meiosis the process is thoroughly described and on another is not is a questionable practice because all conditions are equally imporant from the encyclopedic point of view and should be equally covered. Either explain the process of cell division on all by copy-paste or use translucion or make a page that is common for SCA and move information there. I understand your drive to have as many GAs as possible, but there should be common sense. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC) --- striked Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's really insulting of you to assume that Vati's goal here is to have "as many GAs as possible" and not to provide information on this disorder. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your drive to have as many GAs as possible I'd appreciate if you struck that. I do not have a drive to "collect GAs" -- I have a drive to write high-quality articles. The article suite does consistently define things such as how these disorders originate, and will do so regardless of how it's long-term organized. I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by saying it doesn't -- are you only looking at section headers? This is the question I had before about "what do you mean by it not discussing newborn screening and prenatal diagnosis" -- it does! Vaticidalprophet 22:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize that I mentioned "I understand your drive to have as many GAs as possible", this was a significant error on my part. Such comments are not acceptable, because they are personal attacks. We should focus on good content for the readers since readers are the primary users. Editors are secondary users. Still, if we are secondary users, we still have to be people, and my comment was far from humane, I should not have done that. Sorry. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still, we could have used Transclusion or a statement like "The newborn screening issues are the same as for the all other variants of sex chromosome aneuploidies (or a different wording to avoid speculation and original research and improper syntheiss of sources) and then a transclustion part will follow or there will be a wikilink to a separate article that addresses these issues. This information should be available on the article at hand, so when a user read the article from start to end they had full high-level coverage on basic concepts such as screening and management, without the need to specifically search for that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, would you be willing to add a concise note on the GAN page providing a summary of this area you think is lacking, along with the sources you've found, and leave that to the original editor/a new reviewer? This is getting a bit beyond the scope of this page, and appears at best to fall within the grey areas of editorial interpretation rather than any clearcut WIAGA lack. CMD (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did that on the article's talk page in separate sections:

• Article improvement ideas
• Literature on newborn screening methods that can detect XXXYY syndrome
• Articles that expressly mention XXXYY in context of newborn screening
• Wikilinks, short summaries and Transclusion

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Maxim has now determined that the article meets the GA criteria and passed the review. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor logistical issue

Just at the end here...it seems something about how the GAN was passed (never technically being reopened) resulted in the bot not processing it properly, such that it e.g. was never given a GA icon. Would just manually adding the GA icon be enough for e.g. it to be properly read and categorized as a GA? Vaticidalprophet 00:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Handled by PMC. CMD (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need assistance with handling cases of reviewer's revenge. During the article review process, I requested certain edits from the nominating editor and placed the review on hold at Talk:Mammalian_kidney/GA1.

However, it seems that the reviewer went through my contributions and discovered that I had nominated an article for GA status on Russian Wikipedia. It is worth noting that this happened only after I provided my opinion on the Mammalian_kidney article. Then the nominating editor enrolled as a reviewer and expressed opposition to granting GA status to my article at ru:Википедия:Кандидаты_в_хорошие_статьи/16_ноября_2023#Против_(Обходной_путь_биосинтеза_андрогенов)

Please advise on how to handle these situations effectively in order to prevent such objectionable behavior in the future.

I would not have taken on the role of reviewing this editor's work if I had known that retaliatory actions would ensue. Unless this situation is clarified and resolved appropriately, future reviewers may also face similar retaliatory actions.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general, there is no prohibition on someone reviewing an article submitted by an editor who has reviewed their articles; given that editors have particular topics of interest and if you are nominating articles in one subject you are likely also interested in reviewing them, and given the small number of GA reviewers and their overlap with nominators, any such prohibition would I suspect be completely unworkable. Obviously retaliatory reviews are not acceptable, but simply reviewing and criticising your article when you have put their article on hold does not strike me as sufficient evidence that their behaviour is retaliatory – I do not read Russian and am not familiar with the GA process on ru.wiki, and both of your articles are completely outside my area of expertise, but from what I can glean from Google translate their review is not obviously frivolous or malicious.
If you have reason to think that this is a retaliatory review it would help to provide some more evidence, because it's going to be hard for most editors here to assess behaviour on ru.wiki (though I note that the editor in question is an established editor on ru.wiki with 25,000+ edits there, including nearly 1,500 to wikipedia space this year).
As for what to do in future, this talkpage seems like the best place to come with concerns, though if an editor's behaviour is severe enough there is of course the possibility of reporting it to WP:ANI. I will note that I have reviewed over 40 GA nominations and contributed to a similar number of FA reviews, and I've never experienced any sort of retaliatory evidence, nor do I recall any discussions of such problems on this talkpage, so I do not think that you are likely to face such an issue in future. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto-public, thank you very much for your response! I contacted editors and administrators on Russian Wikipedia, who informed me that such behavior is considered normal and familiar there. However, it came as a shock to me personally. In my case, the reviewer D6194c-1cc (which is Участник:D6194c-1cc in Russian Wikipedia) openly admitted that he deliberately searched for my contributions after I placed his article on hold, only to discover that I had submitted an article for review myself. He then enrolled himself as a reviewer and provided a negative opinion.

As a university professor with experience in academic literature, this kind of behavior would be met with administrative penalties or even banning from the reviewing process altogether. While it is acceptable to review each other's work at different times, specifically seeking out articles awaiting review by your reviewers and enlisting yourself as a reviewer on those articles in order to express any opinion (negative or positive) is considered highly unethical where I work. Opposing opinions are seen as acts of revenge, while positive opinions are viewed as attempts at bribery or favoritism. Ultimately, the quality of academic reviews suffers greatly if such behavior is tolerated.

You mentioned that such practices do not occur on English Wikipedia; however, people from Russian Wikipedia have assured me that this is indeed the norm there. Therefore, I will probably consider refraining from nominating any articles for GA status or contributing further content to Russian Wikipedia (except maybe small edits) due to the low ethical standards prevalent in that environment.

You stated that you translated the reviewer's opinion using an automated tool and found them not obviously inappropriate. While I understand your perspective, objections should have their limits, and everything should be common sense, not taken to absurd. It remains unclear whether these objections were influenced by personal bias, making it difficult for me to objectively assess the challenges I am facing within this context, whether it is a biased nitpicking or a reasonable objection.

Considering all these factors, it seems best to avoid engaging in an environment where what I consider unethical behavior is widely accepted as normal practice.

I appreciate your efforts to investigate this matter and for providing me with information about the cultural differences in reviewing practices between Russian and English Wikipedia. However, as a contributor to the English Wikipedia community, I believe it is essential to uphold high ethical standards in our reviewing process to ensure the quality and integrity of our content.

I hope this issue can be brought to the attention of higher authorities in Russian Wikipedia so that steps can be taken to address and improve these practices if they deem necessary or share my concern; who knows? It is essential for the overall credibility and reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

Once again, I thank you for your time and consideration in addressing this matter. I look forward to continuing my contributions to English Wikipedia while advocating for ethical reviewing standards. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking generally here, because this isn't a forum to discuss a specific editor's conduct. The cross-wiki nature of this makes it tricky. If there was an obviously retaliatory review on en.wiki, I would as an admin consider warning an editor, and consider sanctions if the behavior was repeated. Retaliatory behavior on ru.wiki could also be sanctionable, but it would need to rise to the level of harassment, which is a somewhat higher bar than just disruption of the process to make a point. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance and input on handling such situations, I appreciate that measures are in place to address retaliatory behavior on English Wikipedia and ensure a fair reviewing process. Although cultural differences exist between different language versions of Wikipedia, individuals within our communities need to hold ourselves accountable for promoting ethical practices. Your insights have been invaluable in helping me navigate these challenges and contribute ethically to the reviewing environment on English Wikipedia, and thank you once again for your time and guidance. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim: I kind of want to echo Vanamonde that I think the problem here is the editor's actions on ruwiki and so it's that wiki where this behavior needs to be examined. If there were to be behavior on enwiki as well that would suggest a reason to go to ANI for appropriate attention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You can read the discussion through the Google Translator:

https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D0%B8/16_%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F_2023?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Although the Maxim Masiutin's request to administrators:

https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8B_%D0%BA_%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Some terminology will be translated wrong, but the key points will be clear enough. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, can someone remove the nomination for Misti? I was too quick, the article needs some work still. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 17:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's super easy, you can just remove the template like I did. (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this review could needs some eyes, zero issues at the article??? 2001:4455:663:D600:3DB4:2299:F74E:C668 (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the particular concern with the review, or with the article? CMD (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me propose an idea of GA apprenticeship, where all editors are by default considered "GA reviewer apprentices". They can do reviews, but their verdict is not binding until approved by any "GA master", a status received by an editor with N reviews (similar to the Extended autoconfirmed status received by K number of edits). GA masters may supervise apprentices or may not, but they guide the process and should review the quality of the review process made by the apprentice, all communication, arguments and the verdict. After an apprentice made N/2 edits, such apprentices' verdicts are binding, but a nominated editor has a simplified appeal procedure whereas any master can review and uphold or change the apprentices' verdict in a lightway procedure. After an apprentice does N reviews (of which N/2 must be approved by a master0 and becomes master, such review verdicts cannot be appealed by the simplified procedure, and the contestation should be done as it is done now.

This process will attract the new editors to the review process because they would feel safe under guidance and would not fear to do anything bad. Also, it will make review process fair and will also not frighten new reviewers who may be subject of attacks by the editors who disagree. The master will guide the apprentice on how to withstand such attacks. It may add extra work to the masters, but this will pay up by the bigger number of reviewers that such system may potentially bring. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from someone involved in FAC mentoring to see whether that system works. My impression is that it is not widely used, but it's also not required. I would oppose any binding model of apprenticeship for GA reviewers since GA is a low bar and soliciting outside opinions is fairly simple. Urve (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if apprenticeship is the right thing, but I do think the GA process needs some kind of improvement. As noted, FA has multiple reviewers plus a dedicated team of experienced coordinators who do the actual closes and watch over things in general. DYK, even though holding submissions to a less stringent standard, has every nomination looked at by three reviewers in sequence, with the final reviews being done by admins. Plus there's often additional input on WT:DYK. It's only GA where reviews happen largely unsupervised by a single person who may or may not have any experience doing reviews. Not surprisingly, I see a lot of substandard GA reviews. RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I did my first FAC, I asked for a mentor and was told I didn't need one. That FAC ultimately took two tries to succeed. Mentorship for FAC is a lot of work, since you essentially need to review the entire article and all its sources. I'd hope that people could simply look at existing GA reviews as a basis for how to do reviews of their own. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A similar idea has been tried: Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor. Fell out of use because, quite frankly, GA reviewing is not a very difficult thing to do. There was support to revive it at WP:GAPD23, but no one cared enough to do the donkey work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I retracted as a reviewer and copied the GA review discussion to the page talk. Still, a new reviewer should get a non-existing GA page Talk:Mammalian kidney/GA1, but I cannot delete it. Can an administrator please mark this page as deleted, preserving history, so the new reviewer will start the review from scratch? Emptying the page didn't because a potential new reviewer would not find a page pre-filled with the required templates when clicking on the review link. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't they either get to continue on the review page, or a /GA2 instead? Is deletion particularly healthy in a process which often depends on knowing what's happened previously (e.g QF#5)? ——Serial 17:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I copied all the discussion, and deletion can preserve the history, so no information will be deleted, the page is now blank anyway, it should be like a status change; GA2 might have screwed the bot that updates various pages, it is not actually a second review; the bot does not seem to be aware of retractions. Second opinion is not suitable for this case. I therefore asked for a deletion that preserves history whereas the textual information is already saved on the talk page where GA review are transcluded, so no information is lost. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice to delete GA review pages that are non-reviews (typically this includes pages created in error by the nominator, or pages created by editors who have no intention of reviewing, or who drop out of reviewing for whatever reason before doing any reviewing), so the article goes back into the pool of nominations without losing its place. If there's been actual reviewing done, then a second opinion should be requested, rather than the page being deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I initially requested second opinion, but later I understood after reading rules mentioning it that the second reviewer is more like a consultant to the first reviewer. Additionally the review is counted as done only to the first reviewer anyway. Thanks to AirshipJungleman29 who explained that I should have followed the procedure of "abandoned" review. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you do ANY of this, instead of simply following the relevant part of the GA instructions? You are not the unilateral arbiter of the GA process, and simply writing many WP:WALLOFTEXTs does not give you the power to hide your disputes when you want! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4a have been implemented, and your changes reverted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Please consider apologizing for your false accusation on hiding disputes, or provide the proof. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: Please consider apologizing for wasting several editors' time. ——Serial 23:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for spending the time, actually! I didn't think it will turn out this way! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But now I know how to do that and will no longer spend time. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Talk:Eileen Niedfield/GA1. On top of everything else they've done, they took on this review. They found some missing dates and decided to fix it themselves, sourced to ancestry.com, which is such a well-known non-RS it's got it's own shortcut: WP:ANCESTRY. This guy is a menace. Either he's trolling us or this is the worst case of WP:CIR I've seen in a long time. Either way, he can't be allowed to continue to wreak havok on GA. I'm way too WP:INVOLVED so I can't block them. Could some non-involved admin please deal with this? RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think they've got what the kids call "main character syndrome"-they're convinced that because they've thought it, they must be completely correct (no need to ask anyone else/do their own reading). Look at this heap of vapid puffery they added to the article they were reviewing for GA status. But of course, they thought it would be nice to have in the article—no need to worry about core content policies or any of that. I think it's a WP:CIR issue covered up by a superficial veneer of long words. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentoring. I removed the previously uncited dates and the paragraph I added, the issues you pointed out. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also told about this case to to the nominating editor User_talk:Fortunaa#Review_descrepencies.

Do I need to do something else? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maxim, perhaps you might consider slowing down here. From what I understand you have only started reviewing in the past few days, and have run into a few different issues now on these separate reviews. It is worth stepping back and getting a better understanding of the usual processes, perhaps looking at a few other reviews and working on the GANs you are the nominator of when they are picked up. CMD (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be best to revert the review, and let someone else carry it out; pinging the nominator, Fortunaa—would that be okay? On a quick look I can see issues that should have been picked up during the review, such as incorrectly tagged images, layout problems, and somewhat confused prose. To be clear, these are not disqualifying problems, but the review should resolve them instead of introducing new ones.

Maxim Masiutin, in case you are unclear, you need to engage "in-depth" with the article, and systematically compare it to the GA criteria. If you take on reviews in the future, after better understanding what you are expected to do during a review, there are templates available which will help you structure your work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]