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

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 Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 GA help: 1, 2 Nominations/Instructions: 1 Search archives

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

In the past, I've objected to hard caps on how many nominations someone can have open at once. My reasoning was that it's unfair punishment to our most active content creators and that it only masks the problem. After running the numbers, I believe these arguments are outweighed by other factors.

As of the most recent GAN report, there are 677 nominations under review or awaiting a reviewer. There are 58 nominators with at least three nominations, making up 340 noms in total. We make up almost exactly half of the backlog. If we emptied the "Nominators with multiple nominations" section by reducing everyone down to two noms, the backlog would instantly decrease by 224 nominations, bringing us down to 453. That's one third of the total backlog just made of those extra nominations. If we limit it to a more generous five noms, that's still 95 extra nominations beyond that limit.

To the argument that limiting noms only hides the full backlog, it's about how the noms are weighted. Right now, these "power users" make up half the backlog despite being a minority of the total nominators. This is unfair to the people who wait months longer in line just so we can double, triple, quadruple dip. To the argument that it makes it harder for efficient nominators to nominate, there's a way to make your nom a higher priority: review! Review the noms above yours in that category, or just review in general to lower the backlog. Even if new noms instantly take their place, those will have a more recent nom date. This way, there won't be one person who still has eight other nominations ahead of you after you review one of theirs. Or you could review for people who only have one nom and won't immediately replace it, which is often a new nominator who should get priority anyway. Alternatively, there's Wikipedia:Good article review circles where you can get a reviewer much more quickly.

Once my current nominations are done, I'm going to voluntarily limit myself to no more than five at a time. But these limits only have significant effect if we adhere to them collectively, and I'm switching to a support !vote on such a measure. I'm also going to ping the few people who have more open noms than I do in case they'd be interested in a similar voluntary limitation: Magentic Manifestations, Chiswick Chap, Aszx5000, Gonzo fan2007, Ippantekina, Aintabli, Epicgenius. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think this is not a very good idea. The "power users" are often our most experienced and dedicated contributors - so notably, they tend to have articles that are high quality to begin with and thus easier to review. Reviewing a newer editor's GAN is often far more difficult, because they aren't used to all the inns and outs yet - this takes an entirely separate skillset from reviewing an Epicgenius or Chiswick GAN (namely, that only an experienced reviewer would be as good at it!) I really don't looking at reducing the backlog as a numbers game is beneficial; what's important is getting articles reviewed in timely manner, which I don't think the "power users"' GAs are contributing to. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, this old chestnut again. I'll just say that it's bound to have something like the Poisson distribution, that's just how nature is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, generally an experienced editor's work is easier to review, given that the length and complexity of the article are the same. But by sheer volume, one experienced editor with lots of noms, myself included, is going to squeeze out those newer nominators who need the most attention. And like I said above, reviewing those nominations would be incentivized relative to an experienced nominator, as newer nominators wouldn't immediately have another nom ready to go. It's not a numbers game, it's about weight, and it would be fewer articles at a time being reviewed more quickly than a whole block of them being reviewed slowly.

And to approach from the other angle, I believe we should more readily (quick)fail nominations that aren't ready for GAN. It shouldn't just be "is it far from the criteria" but whether it fails the criteria in a way that puts an undue burden on a reviewer. These are ones that probably shouldn't have been nominated anyway, but they take up a disproportionate amount of reviewer time. When nominations aren't ready, we can direct editors to peer review, GOCE, the Teahouse, help pages, or wherever depending on where its weaknesses are. I'd say a limit on max noms plus holding nominators accountable for making sure nominations are ready is the best combo. We could get nominations in and out much more quickly that way while using GAN as a lightweight quality assurance/verification process instead of as Peer Review 2. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the trend has been to increase GA standards rather than to accept that GAs aren't expected to be perfect (and that no article is, honestly). I doubt we'll secure any kind of consensus for returning GA to the lightweight process it was written as. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given how little oversight there is, there's really nothing stopping individual reviewers from deciding how strict or lenient they want to be with the criteria, with failing, or with how they think the process should work. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I'd agree, except that people who are "caught" doing reviews that others find inadequate are regularly dragged here and castigated. And when mistakes are caught in a GA that passed, reviewers catch flak for it.

On the other hand, people don't like being the "bad guy" and failing articles that aren't ready, so we give infinite time and chances for articles that frankly aren't up to snuff. Some noms will get upset that you failed their article, and nobody likes being on the other end of that conflict.

Basically, there's a competing social pressure to be incredibly thorough yet infinitely forgiving. Reviewers can't win, they get discouraged, and difficult articles sit around for ages. We need to change the culture around GA reviewing if we ever want to make a meaningful change in the backlog. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd be willing to strike out everything I said above and go in the opposite direction. We could just as easily say it's a free for all on nominating but then be more firm with reviewing and quickfailing so weak noms don't bog us down. I'm actually more inclined toward that than a hard cap, except right now there's no consistency in reviews, and of course many nominators feel entitled to a pass. I personally am willing to be the one to say "this isn't ready for nomination" (and I have been trying to look for those nominations lately), but like you said, it needs to be part of a broader cultural change.

I'm going off on a slight tangent now, but I believe there are more sub-standard reviews that slip through the cracks than ones that get "caught". I watch many of them go by feeling like my hands are tied because there's also a stigma against accusing people of doing bad reviews, and it's gotten to the point where I just ignore them unless they start reviewing one of mine, in which case I ask them to return it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to review the new nominators, starting with the ones who have done reviews, which usually means a higher failure rate and slower reviews for the passes because they are learning. I do this because I believe in encouraging a good review/nomination ratio, but another benefit is that it is an opportunity to teach those nominators how a good review should look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree there is a stigma against accusing people of doing bad reviews. People do it on this talk page regularly, and the prospect of being publicly shamed creates a chilling effect for new reviewers.

I do want to point out the contradiction between suggesting that we use "GAN as a lightweight quality assurance/verification process" and saying reviewers should basically review how they want, but then bringing up "sub-standard reviews". We can't have speed and perfection. Either we accept that the process is supposed to be lightweight and allow reviews to be lightweight, or we keep tightening the screws and watch the backlog climb. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably part of the problem -- I can't really do "lightweight" reviews. I personally want peer reviews and suggestions to improve my articles much more than I care about another green plus, and so my reviews tend to be in depth and address more than the GA criteria. And nobody calls me out on this, even for monstrosities like Talk:Chinese characters/GA1. I am not sure whether dedicated coordinators who look at every review for some quality assurance would help or harm, but this might be worth brainstorming about. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect coordination would start off at what we are de facto doing now in a haphazard and likely arbitrary manner, which is checking that reviews are 1) not checklists, 2) do source checks. I doubt it would crack down too much on being over-picky, especially as there is a lot of grey zone in the criteria. CMD (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK to point out issues that go beyond the GA criteria, so long as the nominator is clear that those comments don't need to be addressed to get the article to GA, and so long as there are not too many -- some nominators don't want to bring the article up to FA standards and shouldn't be asked to. But letting them know that a link is dead or MoS issues that are not in the GA criteria is fine, so long as they understand what's a GA comment and what is not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the backlog by artificially throttling nominations does nothing to increase the rate of promotions of GAs. It is hiding the problem (we aren't getting enough GA reviews done and enough GAs promoted) by addressing the symptom of the problem rather than doing anything to improve the unwillingness of editors to do more reviews. We could decrease the backlog to zero by shutting down the whole GA process and cancelling all current nominations; do you think that would be an improvement? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the argument that limiting noms only hides the full backlog, it's about how the noms are weighted. Right now, these "power users" make up half the backlog despite being a minority of the total nominators. This is unfair to the people who wait months longer in line just so we can double, triple, quadruple dip. – Right there in the original post you're replying to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no line. Nobody requires review be done chronologically. Nobody will yell at your reviewer and you if your nomination attracts enough interest to get reviewed quickly. And we tried prioritizing frequent reviewers and new participants instead of listing nominations chronologically; it didn't help. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with David Eppstein here. When we tried to push first-time nominators and frequent reviewers to the front of the line, it just increased the number of GANs that had been sitting in the queue for six months or longer.

I think the issue here is that the review process is still fairly daunting. No one wants to be yelled at for looking at an article, determining that there are no (or very few) problems, and then quick-passing the article. Conversely, no one wants to be yelled at for looking at an article, seeing that it's riddled with problems, and then quick-failing the article. Quick-passing and quick-failing articles are both seen as problematic, even though there's nothing wrong with the latter.

Therefore, many reviewers find themselves having to conduct intensive reviews, which means that fairly long articles are often skipped over by all except the most experienced reviewers. Many of these long articles come from power editors, which may be why it seems like the power editors are dominating the GAN queue. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to suggest a return to the old sort order (though I did prefer it), but I think it's wrong to say that "all it did was increase the age of the oldest GANs". That's exactly what you would expect from reducing the importance of age in the GAN sort order. It doesn't mean the old sort order achieved anything else, but neither is it evidence that it didn't make a difference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say that the change in sort order increased wait times for nominators near the bottom of the list. Currently, the newest nominations are near the bottom of each section, and the oldest nominations are near the top. Back when we were using the other sort order, we were grouping the nominations by username, so users near the bottom of the list saw their wait times increase. Granted, the other sort order did help decrease wait times for first-time nominators, but I think that came at the expense of everyone else, which is what I was getting at. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that the point? If the sort order was causing those with better review ratios to have their wait times decreased (new submitters having a perfect ratio), then the system was achieving what it was meant to do. CMD (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in that respect, it was working as intended (i.e. people with better review-to-nomination ratios didn't have to wait as long).

I was trying to make the point that reviewers' limited time was diverted to people who have a lot of reviews and relatively few or no GAs. If someone was a prolific reviewer but an even more prolific nominator, they would be disadvantaged; e.g. if they had 100 reviews and 200 nominations, they were pushed further down the review queue than someone with 100 reviews and 10 nominations. Power users are more likely to have dozens or hundreds of GAs, so under the old sort order, they would be inherently disadvantaged because of the raw numbers of GAs that they had (unless they conducted even more reviews to make up for this).

Perhaps it may be a good idea to consider formatting the GAN lists as sortable tables. That way, reviewers could decide on whether to review nominations by people with better review-to-nomination ratios. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius We could make User:ChristieBot/SortableGANoms more prominent somehow. Right now it's just a link above the nominations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. That is exactly what I was thinking, but I didn't even realize it already existed. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was also unaware of this page until now, and second Epicgenius' comment immediately above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, Epicgenius, Trainsandotherthings: this would be easy to do, and I agree it might be beneficial. That part of the layout is hardcoded in ChristieBot at the moment. If someone mocks up a GAN page header they think would be preferable, I can change the bot to hardcode that text, or possibly to transclude it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quickfails are not problematic in the slightest, as long as the reasoning is there. The difficulty is merely in the length of the average review. When people say "I'm not good at reviewing", what they actually mean is "I find reviewing tediously boring and don't want to do it", which is perfectly understandable.

To prevent WP:DCGAR happening again, we have decided that quality reviews must be directly enforced through the GA criteria. Now, each review must go over the prose, images, sourcing, and do a source spotcheck. At FAC, this is handled by multiple people, and the source spotcheck is not needed after the first successful nomination. We have got ourselves into a situation where the "lightweight review process" is multiple times more onerous than the heavyweight process.

Is there a better way? After DCGAR, I remember that SandyGeorgia was encouraging the institution of GAN coordinators who would check reviews, as the FAC coordinators do. I think that option, in combination with lowering GACR standards, could help encourage reviewing—but only, of course, if editors with high nomination/review ratios want to pick up their own slack. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, quickfails should not be problematic if done correctly. However, I noticed that nominators sometimes challenge GAN quickfails even if the reviewer has done everything correctly, e.g. this thread from a few days ago. I was trying to make the point that some reviewers may be afraid to quickfail articles because they fear being confronted by the nominator; sorry if that isn't clear. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and not even just quick fails, but any fail that takes less than a day or two. There are a couple of noms I've had on my mind for awhile that have been submitted with eg. unsourced sections, but the idea of pulling them out and failing them feels like more effort than it is worth. CMD (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Some thoughts generally agree with the above discussion that throttling noms doesn't solve the problem, that being stricter on reviews (i.e. quick failing) may push people to improve the quality more before nomming and that having a backlog in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. My own reflections on the challenges of WP:GAN come down to a lack of incentive for reviewing articles. When I started nomination articles at WP:GAN, I told myself that I would keep a 2-to-1 ratio of reviews versus my own GAs. I did that mostly out of fear of being ostracized by the community for not reciprocating. WP:DYK and WP:FLC provide good examples of the extremes (where WP:GAN is in the middle). DYK requires QPQ, increasing the QPQ requirements for frequent DYK users during backlogs. WP:FLC on the other hand, limits you to one active nomination at a time (allowing for a second nom after your first has substantial support). I would argue that neither process is running very well, with backlogs or lack of reviews still being a challenge.

I think the most important thing to remember is that the purpose of recognition is to incentivize and encourage content creation. So long as WP:GA encourages me and others to create fairly well-written articles, it's doing its job. To conclude on that point, I wouldn't support any changes that would limit the incentive for users (especially users who create a lot of good content) to keep writing. That little green icon will get up there at some point, it really doesn't matter when though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the replies, I can say that I'm back in the "I don't know" camp, but at least we got a discussion going! I'm sympathetic to PMC's point above, and others that have expressed similar thoughts, that it's more of a cultural issue than anything that can be directly solved by fiddling with how we organize nominations. But it just happens that most of the people close to GA's "culture" monitor and participate in this talk page, so this is where any concentrated change would happen. Personally I've been trying to be more open to failing nominations that weren't ready to be nominated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to myself so I can think aloud and express general thoughts. My takeaway here is that consensus is against limiting our own nominations as a means to reduce the backlog, and instead we should be more willing to fail nominations if they're not ready for a GAN review. Maybe we should be a little more firm with nominators who make a scene about reviewers who fail a nom, in the same way that we're being more firm with nominators who make a scene about inadequate reviews. I still don't love that the most active content writers have such a disproportionate number of nominations, but good points have been raised about other factors at play there. At the end of the day, like SusunW said, there's really no way to incentivize reviewing for someone whose focus on Wikipedia isn't reviewing and trying to do this can be counterproductive. And like I've said before, GAN reviewing is harder than other reviews because all of the pressure is on the one reviewer, even if they're better at reviewing some aspects than others (looking at you, source reviews). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to this problem has been the same for a while now: I don't review nominations of those who refuse to meaningfully contribute to reviewing (and have a decent number of GAs, I'm not punishing people doing their first ever nomination). But when I see someone with 50 GAs and 0 reviews, I cannot in good conscience ever take up one of their nominations. I work hard to keep my review/GA ratio close to 1, so I'm not expecting anyone to do something I wouldn't do myself. We need a cultural shift towards this mindset, in my opinion (and some will disagree with me, which is their right). We also have the age-old problem of how to incentivize reviewers, which many brighter than I have tried to solve.

I think large numbers of open nominations are in part a symptom of these known issues, excluding the (thankfully rare) bad actor nominating crappy articles en masse (and I'm sure some of you know exactly who I am referring to). Bottom line - when I see people argue so strongly against any reform yet refuse to do any reviews themselves, I really have no sympathy for them. If you don't want to do reviews, fine, but don't expect others to prioritize your nominations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

been watching this conversation quietly - completely agree with the above that this is a cultural problem that really needs a broader informal shift rather than acute reforms addressing only the symptoms. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Every time these discussions come up I am less inclined to participate in the GA process, if I am being honest. I find the pressure to review more articles disheartening. Encouraging reviews is fine, reforming the processes is good too, but discouraging writing and limiting collaboration for improving articles is counter-productive. The entire point of GA, IMO, is improving article quality, but if all we are to do is focus on pushing reviews through, the processes begins to focus more on quantity, which to my mind is how we end up with so many poorly written articles to begin with. We are a very diverse community of volunteers. Not everyone's skill-sets are the same and assuming that we can all do the same tasks equally well fails to recognize our diversity. The constant chastisement of people who don't review more doesn't encourage people to participate, but in fact does the opposite, at least for me. (For the record, I have nominated only 1 GA all year (at the request of the reviewer). Although I have written articles that would benefit from collaboration, I have not nominated them, but forced myself instead to review other's work. I spent over a month helping an editor at peer review prepare their first FA nomination, reviewed 5 FA/GA nominations. Not big numbers to some people's standards, but that required a huge amount of effort for me, as my reviews are meticulous, and I am incapable of making them less so. I see no value in holding anyone to my standards, but rather think that all contributions which lead to a better encyclopedia are valuable.) SusunW (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not directed at you, I specifically pointed the finger at people who refuse to review at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trainsandotherthings, I didn't mean to imply that it was. If I did, I apologize. Communication is sometimes quite challenging SusunW (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I think we should try to be more positive about all contributors here. Perhaps we should celebrate reviewers more (COI alert: I tend to review more than I write) instead of looking down at non-reviewers (although it is a very human thing to do). I like reviewing SusunW's biographies (and I really enjoy working with her) so I am sad there have been so few of them here recently.

I am very interested in seeing whether the review circles idea can work as a (completely voluntary) way where people who are OK with doing some reviewing get their own nomination reviewed faster. If this becomes popular, people will have a choice: do a review to get your own nom reviewed very soon/put your nom on the pile with no questions asked about reviewing (and that means you may have to wait until the next backlog drive). —Kusma (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kusma I enjoy working with you too a lot. I am going to rip a bandaid off here and be vulnerable for a minute, but maybe it will help some people understand that reviewing is not simple for everyone. When I review I file, I tell myself, this time I am just going to read it, make comments, do a spot check and move on. But that never happens, ever. I read through the article. I start a 2nd read through and when I get to the first citation, I check it. I tell myself at the second citation to just accept it, but my brain says, what if it doesn't verify the information or has a copyvio? You have to sign-off that it's okay, so I check it. And this continues through every single citation. If I find an inconsistency, instead of just asking the question do you have a source that supports this?, I must know if there is a source. Or, I encounter something that the context is unclear. If a source is off-line do I AGF? Totally depends on whether other checks have had no problems. So I research (sometimes for hours) to find a reference that supports the data, provides context, or is accessible. Only if I cannot find a source do I just ask the question.

By this time, an entire day has passed and I am probably only 1/3 to 1/2 way through the article, so I post what I have from my notes to WP. I rewrite each query to make sure that what I am asking is clear and a suggestion, not a demand. I preview it and rewrite it again before I finally save it and move on. Day 2 and Day 3 are more of the same until I finally reach the end of the article, drained and exhausted. I hope that the nominator will take at least a day to respond to give me time to regroup. I review the responses as meticulously as I did the queries and finally make a decision on the outcome. Instead of feeling successful, my feeling is relief that it's over. And then I see a post on this page, admonishing people about not doing enough reviews and I force myself to do it again. The struggle is real, and it is hard. Howie Mandel once said I know my approach is not logical, but in spite of that I am compelled to do the illogical. That's me. We cannot assume we know why people don't do reviews, but we can change our approach to one which encourages people to do what they can. (And yes, I rewrote this 5 times.) SusunW (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to write this out Susun. The work you have done over the years to improve articles on here has been amazing and very inspiring, it has always been a pleasure to read what you have written and to work with you not only on reviews but other projects too. It's heartbreaking to hear you have been so discouraged by these periodic discussions on reviews, and I apologise profusely if I have contributed to that discouragement. Discouraging others from doing such good work should never be what we aim to accomplish here, and it is not a good sign if we are going in that direction. I agree completely that we need to reevaluate how to encourage more reviews without discouraging nominations, and to be more holistically positive towards each other. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So—to be direct—you find GA reviewing difficult because you don't actually do GA reviews. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grnrchst we're all good. I honestly just wanted to offer a different perspective to remind everyone that we don't all have the same access and abilities. The internet has been a great bridge but its anonymous nature can also make us forget that there is a real human on the other side. I don't often speak of my struggles, but perhaps it can help us be more "holistically positive towards each other". AirshipJungleman29 I am uncertain what you are saying, I do and have done GA reviews. SusunW (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My two centimes: Since my foray into good article nominations, I have tried to maintain at least 2 reviews for each nomination. Not only do I enjoy reviewing articles, because it gives me a way to read in-depth on subjects that I normally wouldn't have spent more time on, but I also try to be a net contributor to cutting down the backlog. My frustrations with the ever-growing backlog has, at least in part, come from a selfishness on my part.

Off the top of my head, there are at least a couple dozen or so articles that I have written to (I think) a GA standard, but which I haven't nominated due to the length of time it takes for nominations to get reviewed. Often I'll end up finishing an article, having polished off its prose and gone through every source I have in a number of languages, but then I just don't end up nominating it because I already had a number of months-old pending nominations that I was anxious to get reviewed. I think the only time I have exceeded five open nominations is during the ongoing WiG edit-a-thon.

I seriously regret that I have let my frustration at this process bubble over into support for certain restrictions, so I can't rightly support TBUA's proposal, despite understanding where he's coming from. The reason I want the backlog to be reduced is so that we can get more articles nominated, not restrict incoming nominations and punish some of our best writers. I would like applaud GMH Melbourne's recent review circles initiative, which I think could be an excellent way forward with encouraging more reviews. Let's consider making more positive projects like this, rather than imposing negative restrictions. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have only seen the ping for me by the op of this thread. I am new to GA, so if I have made too many nominations, I can certainly take some off, and don't want to be disruptive. Given my nominations are in the niche area of climbing, I felt that I needed to give a range of noms to attract/tempt some interest from reviewers. Two of them have been given GA status (and a third is almost there), but I never considered that I would be able to do the reviewing, is that something that I am meant to be considering at this stage? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aszx5000, reviewing is entirely up to you, and I was just trying to open another discussion on how to get articles reviewed more quickly. Based on the discussion above, it seems that we're largely okay with lots of nominations at once (and personally I'm glad to see more niches showing up). If you're interested in reviewing other people's nominations but not sure where to start, you can make a post at the mentorship page so someone can help you with your first review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Thebiguglyalien. I though I would have to have more GAs under my belt before doing reviews. Let me get through a few more as I am still learning new things, but would love to give it a try later, and will follow your steps. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's happening! I'd apologize for the short notice, but a July backlog drive has been on the backlog page since April, so instead I'll apologize for disappearing for most of May-June and not getting to this earlier.

The aim this time around is to encourage participation by people who haven't done many GA reviews before. Experienced reviewers are encouraged to assist newbie reviewers with their reviews - but if you want to ignore the theme and just bang out a bunch of GA reviews as usual, go right ahead. This format is obviously somewhat experimental, so if anyone has suggestions, please do suggest away. And if anyone else would like to volunteer as co-ordinator, so far it's just me by my lonesome and I'd love to have you. -- asilvering (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, is it possible to get a list of all editors who have reviewed 1-4 GANs? A list of editors who have GAs but have never reviewed would also be really helpful. I have no idea how to generate either of these. -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, does User:GA bot/Stats give you what you need? For the second, yes; do you want it restricted to editors who have a GA in the last N years, for some value of N? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the first one, that's fine. Though if there's some way to restrict the list to only active accounts, that would be even more useful. For the second, yes, a restriction like that would be useful, though I'm not sure exactly where I'd draw the line. The last two years maybe? Or if there's a way to only get active accounts, that would be useful too. Define "active" however seems workable. My aim is to come up with a list of people who might be interested in participating in the backlog drive as a newbie reviewer. -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- it'll be a few days, as I'm traveling, but I should be able to get you the data by some time this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I've never been a co-ordinator of a GAN backlog before, but I have participated in previous ones, so I'm interested. What and where could I help? Vacant0 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you! I'll add your name to the backlog drive page. While I'm at it, pinging @Ganesha811 and @Vaticidalprophet, who were also co-ords of the last one - are you folks interested?

The main part of the job is checking off reviews as editors post them as finished on the drive page - checking to make sure the reviews aren't seriously inadequate, and double-checking what additional points for length might be given, or if you think the review is so good you ought to give it a discretionary bonus point. Since this drive is specifically encouraging collaboration between newbie reviewers and more experienced reviewers, this will be a little (but only a little, I hope) more complicated than usual, since you'll also have to award a point to the assistant reviewer. I anticipate also that there will be more questions than usual and that we may need to assist with matching newbie reviewers with experienced ones.

Also, if you'd like to revise the barnstar awards list, that would be great! I just copied the one from the March backlog drive. But I think it would be nice to tailor it a bit - for example, we could have a barnstar for the editor who assisted with the highest number of reviews, some kind of special "thanks for joining" barnstar for newbies (I think there's a "promising newbie" barnstar somewhere?), or so on. I haven't put any further thought into it than that, so if you want to go ahead and rework the list, it's much appreciated, and all yours! -- asilvering (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that assistant reviewers will get one point per review, I could create a couple of barnstars (e.g. a 5 point one, a 10/12 point one, and the one that reviewed the highest amount of GANs). Or we could only stick with one barnstar for assistant reviewers.

The only barnstar that I could have found similar to "promising newbie" is {{The New Editor's Barnstar}}.

Also, do we want to include qualifying old articles, like for previous GAN backlog drives? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm too bad re: promising newbie. Since I imagine most GAN newbies will not actually be new editors. Whatever you find that you like, go for it.

This drive deliberately doesn't have points for reviewing really old articles, to keep the focus on bringing new people into GA reviewing. Earlier, when we discussed having multiple backlog drives as part of the broader discussions about what to do with the backlog, there were concerns about reviewer burn-out or reviewers holding off on doing reviews when there aren't backlog drives (since another one will be around the corner). So the idea is that the January drive is the "main" drive, the mid-year one is focused on recruitment, and the fall one addresses a specific portion of the backlog, to be determined closer to the date, depending on what looks like it needs the most help. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before uploading anything, I'll send it first on Discord in case of possible corrections . I'll be busy tomorrow so expect barnstars to come during the weekend. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to assist as a co-ordinator, but I do have some work travel in July which means I'd have to take on more of a background role - checking a few reviews where I can, not making any big decisions. If that's ok, feel free to add my name! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, are you available to update the progress tracker for this drive? If you are, that would be great! If not, no worries of course. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811, thanks for asking. I'm going to be away the first week; though I might be able to log on at night, it won't be as timely as usual. Another difficulty is that I would be required to make the second column the number of old nominations (90 days or more) rather than the number of unreviewed nominations (which we have always done before), per the general RfC that was held earlier in the year, so rather than just taking the number from the Reports page and adjusting back the hour), I'd have to do a more manual calculation. I'm not sure I'll have the time to deal with the extra work involved. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, good point. And since we aren't targetting old noms specifically this time around, maybe we should rethink the progress list, at least for this drive. A running total of reviews opened/ended might be the way to go this time. I'm happy to do that one, since I tend to be around when a new day starts on UTC time. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering, I'm not sure how that would work with the current {{GAN changes}} template in terms of display. You may need to create your own table. But I would keep the total number of nominations as the first column, since that tracks how many are outstanding at the beginning of the drive, and all the way through to the end. Good luck! I'll sit this one out, then, unless you change your mind on how you want it to work. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Grade (climbing) into the GA queue, which I overhauled and expanded, but given what happened with my GA nomination of Rock-climbing equipment, I wonder if it is really a list, and therefore maybe an FLC? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an article (with some incorporated list-like material) to me, without any obvious flaws of a type that would lead me to quickfail it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I will leave it in the GA queue. Feedback is much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping these here, if no further comments or consensus is reached I plan to implement these at the end of the month, before the backlog drive starts. CMD (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video games[edit]

Wikipedia:Good articles/Video games is one of two long lv2 categories with no lv3 split (the other is Lang & Lit), and one that feels it has a very obvious split: between the Video Games (and series) themselves, and everything else (provisionally I propose "Context and content"). Regarding the lower splits, the video games are currently divided into five-year blocks, some of which are getting very large. There's no clean split there, but if there is a desire to maintain the chronological split it could transition into two-year chunks for at least the 21st century, imitating Music. The other large sections is "Video game characters", currently at 200. This seems a simple candidate from pulling out series, with the two obvious candidates being Pokémon (26) and Final Fantasy (at least 34, I think, it's a complicated series). 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC) CMD (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe break out some entire series into their own subcat? Eg you could put all Final Fantasy, Mario, Pokemon, etc grouped together (both games and game-adjacent articles). That seems more helpful to me than these huge by-half-decade chunks. -- asilvering (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would invalidate my lv3 split, but I'm not in opposition. I have pulled out just the characters for now, which can be a start for pulling relevant articles out from the other subsections too. Pokémon is easy enough, the games all include the word Pokémon, Final Fantasy has a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix. CMD (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would go the other way on this - games should be listed strictly chronologically. Having some sorted by series, and some sorted by chronology, seems strange and "surprising" (in the bad sense) to me. SnowFire (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a better idea for how to separate them? The issue at hand here is that when the categories get super long, they should be subdivided. But the chronology sections are already divided in 5-year blocks. We could make the categories shorter by shortening that to 2-year blocks, I suppose, but I don't think that's likely to be helpful to anyone. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate lvl3 split could be "by date" and "by series", in that case. I do agree that your originally proposed lvl3 split is better than no lvl3 split at all. -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport - time for some splitting?[edit]

In Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology#Transport, we have 208 articles classified under "rail transport" and a whopping 243 articles under "Rail bridges, tunnels, and stations: United States". I think we should discuss breaking these into subcategories. Some ideas I have for breaking down the general rail transport category are "rail lines", "rail accidents and incidents", "rail companies", and "rapid transit/tram systems". Rail bridges, tunnels, and stations: United States could be divided into rapid transit stations and heavy rail stations, while we could add a "bridges, tunnels, and facilities" section to hold pretty much everything else, including freight facilities (I think the only one is Northup Avenue Yard, my nomination). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note the general rail transport category is basically an "others" group for all rail-related pages that don't fall within a subcategory. The proposed subcats make sense in the abstract, at a glance I can see a lot of incidents. Unsure if I'd cleanly split rail lines and rail systems, something encompassing systems and lines like it could pick up related articles like Northern line extension to Battersea too? Can't at a glance figure out how many company article there are. Splitting stations from bridges, tunnels, and facilities also sounds sensible, to the point it raises the question of whether to split them entirely rather than just in the United States, but that doesn't mean the smaller action won't work. CMD (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was I'd throw out some ideas and we as a community evaluate which make sense. A separate rail accidents and incidents section seems like a no-brainer to me, as does one for bridges, tunnels, and facilities. A lot of the U.S. articles on railroads cover both a company and the line(s) it operated in a single article, making them hard to split between lines vs. companies. We can always make more changes in the future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the facilities etc. from the United States, a heavy/rapid station split will require more time and/or a subject matter expert. I looked at accidents and incidents quickly and only found 9 so left those alone for now. If splitting lines/companies/systems becomes a bit complex, perhaps splitting off just the United States here as well would be helpful. CMD (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking over the GAN's in the Biology and medicine category and noticed that 11 of these were started by Wolverine XI, all within the span of five days (June 10th through 15th). I thought to bring this up here because I'm concerned that the quality of these reviews will suffer from the quantity that this user has taken on, which I think is more than evident in the fact that 8 of them haven't even been started yet. Some of these reviews have received no comments for two whole weeks since their inception.

While I commend their ambition, I don't think this practise is conducive to the standard of quality that the Good Article system should uphold. Perhaps something can be done about it? The Morrison Man (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy with another project (at the moment). I should have all these articles reviewed by Saturday. After that, I'm retiring from reviewing GANs. Reviews can take some time, so people should be patient. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't really gotten started on some of those, you may want to CSD them so that another reviewer can pick them up. You don't need to rush yourself to get through them all this week. You can call this a learning experience and toss some back into the queue. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is Saturday (at least where I am): I can see that Wolverine XI has managed to make comments on two of the open reviews, but the remainder appear to be blank. Wolverine XI, I would echo the concerns here that you may have taken on too much here: the reviews you have done (see e.g. Talk:Enchylium polycarpon/GA2) are really a short list of isolated prose and content points rather than full reviews. In particular, we need some evidence of source checking, image review, copyvio checks and so on. In other places, the comments are so brief as to be of little help: writing "please write a proper measurement" against that are 5–7 x 1-1.5 μm doesn't really tell the nominator what is wrong or how to fix it. Similarly, I don't think the review on Talk:Charles De Geer/GA1 really gave the nominator a fair go: the article looks very close to GA standard to me and I would have thought it an excellent candidate to get up to that status in the course of the review.

As the other commenters here have said, reviewing is a learning process and we always have to go through practice to get good at it, but it would be polite to delete those review pages so that others can take them on, or return to them once you have finished your active reviews more fully, if they are still un-taken. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I brought this up on their talk page, and I was not reassured by their response. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having read it, neither am I honestly. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wolverine XI seems not to understand the issue and is still editing without addressing the concerns here, I suggest the blank reviews be deleted. We may also wish to go over their completed reviews, as the ones they've worked on indicate that they don't totally understand how the review process works. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete them; I have other projects—both on wiki and in RL—to complete. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the empty ones for deletion. Regarding Talk:Enchylium limosum/GA1, Talk:Katablepharid/GA1, and Talk:Enchylium polycarpon/GA2, Wolverine XI left comments indicating some improvements needed on 15 June which have not been responded to, so my preference is to close those as failed. CMD (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good solution. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem like the best course of action, yes. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#GA-banned user violating topic ban which you may be interested in. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some long-outstanding review pages that don't have any real activity on them at all. Normally, another editor will come in and check up on them, and eventually they get CSD'd when there's no response from the reviewer. Here is one where Thebiguglyalien just came through to do just that. But in the interests of not dragging out this procedure unnecessarily, could we perhaps institute a general guideline for when we should simply nominate these for CSD without further discussion? How about one month? To be clear, I'm talking only about reviews that have not been started at all, beyond the usual "I'll take this review" opening comment. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a page from BlueMoonset's book (as it's mostly just them doing it) and nudged some of the inactive reviews, but I didn't give more specific instructions specifically because we don't have an agreed upon procedure like this. Anything like this should also apply where the reviewer has set up a template or headings but didn't fill them in with a review. For the ones where there was activity, we might also consider talking about second opinions, because right now the second opinion system is kind of useless. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't mean to imply you'd done anything out of the ordinary, I just grabbed that one as a good example of what I mean by a blank review. I'm just suggesting that we make a guideline to cut down on this extra "are you still here" "[silence]" "nominator, what do you want to do?" in the process. -- asilvering (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think having a general procedure to point to is a great idea. I'd suggest a week. If you open a review but make no comment in a week, the review can be closed and the nomination returned to the queue. No penalty or particular shame, it's just a politeness to the nominator, so that the nomination has the chance to be picked up by a reviewer who has the time to dedicate to the review at the moment. Ajpolino (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My initial thought was that a week was much too short, but on reflection, automatically clearing out reviews that are still blank a week after they were opened would probably cut down on the number of reviews that get stretched out over several months. == asilvering (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to recommend deleting without nudging, and also feel a week after opening is a bit short. Reviews can take time, and that time might only be possible on weekends or similar. That said, a week after nudging seems pretty harmless. If there is a consensus that nudging is not required, I would recommend multiple weeks, maybe 3-4, for CSD. There should be no prejudice of course to the same reviewer restarting the review page if they come back to it. CMD (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about "nudge at one week, CSD after a week of no response"? -- asilvering (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could be convinced so long as the response can just be a brief "I am working on this", although it still feels a short timeframe for a nudge. As a general thought, the same principles being discussed here should not only apply to empty reviews but to partial ones, just with a different resulting process (CSD for empty, archiving and resetting for partial except in the few circumstances 2O may be useful). CMD (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I deliberately restricted this thought to blank reviews only, since I think partial reviews should be handled on a more case-by-case basis. There are lots of reasons why a review might have stalled out. Reviews that are simply blank, however, are all basically the same "case". -- asilvering (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was thinking of past nudging of months-old reviews, but appreciate the value of maintaining a narrow proposal here. CMD (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of applying this to stalled reviews of any stripe (of course, as CMD said, we would archive rather than delete stalled partial reviews). The reviewer could always start the review again at any time. No one is being penalized. Asilvering's suggestion of one week til nudge, another week til close, sounds good to me. If the reviewer responds in any way that would reset the clock. The idea is just to return nominations to the queue if the reviewer truly doesn't have time to complete the review. Ajpolino (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything the bot could do that would help? E.g. a "stalled review" section at the end of the GAN page, listing open reviews with no edits for more than N days? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be excellent. In a perfect world, I assume we would want a blank review that gets removed (possibly even an incomplete "stalled review"?) to also be removed from the bot's count of an editor's GA reviews. Not a huge deal either way, of course. Ajpolino (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a review is deleted and another review is later done with the same page number, the prior review is no longer included in an editor's GA review count, though if the later review never happens the earlier one won't get removed from the stats. If the review is just marked as failed and the page number is incremented, the reviewer does get credit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no edits for more than n days would be helpful. If it could check "no edits to article OR to GA review page" that would probably be the most helpful way to list them. N = 7? No one's suggested a time shorter than 7 days for any of the hypotheticals we've been discussing. -- asilvering (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this some time this weekend if I get time. I think what you're asking for should be possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this some more, I'd like to get agreement on exactly what we'd want to see in a section called "Stalled reviews". Suppose the reviewer opens the review by posting a full review with their first edit -- that's not a stalled review, so is there a way to avoid including those? Some reviewers post an empty reviewing template as their first review; if they never edit it again that counts as stalled, but how could the bot tell those apart? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they both "stalled" if there's no motion after n days? -- asilvering (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think an automatic list is only going to be helpful if the entries mean that someone needs to look at the review. If the review were to be deleted, it would disappear from the list, but if the list includes reviews that aren't blank and aren't going to be deleted then it won't be possible to tell if someone has already taken action. I could remove anything from the list if someone else posts to that page -- i.e. someone not the nominator or reviewer. Would that work? CMD, any thoughts? Since you were dubious below about the process to deal with non-blank stalled reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first idea for the bot would be to place a talkpage reminders for reviews which were opened but have had no edits since. This would miss say a review where someone writes "Will get to this soon" and doesn't, but on the other hand it would have no false positives. I would not put a section on the GAN page itself, that feels a very public sort of reprimand. We already have Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report, which gives an indicator of what is stalled even if it doesn't state the time of last edit. CMD (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't think we should have automated talk page reminders for this! I thought we were talking about a line on the Report page you mention here. Reading back up, I see I misunderstood Mike Christie's initial comment, where he said "at the end of the GAN page". I don't think that's a good idea either - I was thinking about the Report page. -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did mean on the main GAN page, in a section at the end, but if it would be perceived as a reprimand I agree that might be a bad idea. The way the FAC nominations viewer does it is to have "Inactive for N days/weeks" after each entry. Something like that might be possible; it doesn't single anyone out. That would not be easy to convert into "I need to go look at this particular review", though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it could be perceived as a reprimand. The Report page, less so, I think, since barely anyone uses it. I've gone through the longest-running open reviews before both this backlog drive and the last one, and found in most of the cases that no other uninvolved editor had popped in to check on the reviews. For that reason, I don't think it would lead to significantly more people being hassled if there was a "no edits for n days" listing on the report page. I do think that having that list on the report page would allow stalled reviews to be noticed much earlier than they are now, which seems to be a timeframe of at least a couple of months. -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the speedy deletion of incomplete reviews is rather controversial whenever it gets brought up at MfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No need to CSD incomplete "stalled" reviews. They can just be closed and the nom returned to the queue. The same could be said of blank reviews of course. I don't have a strong preference on CSD vs. close-and-ignore for truly blank review pages. Ajpolino (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no intention of applying a CSD rule-of-thumb to incompletes, just the ones with no review whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I was referring to @Ajpolino and Asilvering: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Blackpink/GA1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not talking about this kind of review. That's a complete review. It's a poor one, but it's complete, not blank. -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current Talk:Blackpink/GA1 was not the one that was the subject of a MfD, the MfD was about the previous version which was essentially blank. That said, it was an MfD complicated by a new user engaging in procedurally questionable actions rather that added to the page history, so that particular case is an outlier. (The current Talk:Blackpink/GA1, being as you note poor but not empty, was invalidated and the counter incremented.) CMD (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I and the MfD were discussing the original review which was deleted Asilvering. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I suppose my confusion here is an argument in favour of not CSDing these pages... but I do strongly agree with you and jpxg in that discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw Afraid of Tomorrows for GAN consideration. The article will certainly not pass as is, and I'd rather expand it first myself than wait for a review to tell me what I already know. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've deleted the GA nomination template from the talk page; that's all you need to do if the review has not started. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, good to know. Wasn't sure if it would be removed automatically but I see that it has been. Thanks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While looking at a certain GAN nominee that needs a review (I have not decided yet whether to review it or not), I noticed that some of the statements in the article had dubious sourcing. I was able to find some sources that I felt were more reliable + had valuable information. I also noticed some translation errors; as the original language is a language I speak, I would be able to correct these translations. Would I as a reviewer be allowed to recommend these sources to the nominator + offer translation corrections? I understand that reviewers are not allowed to significantly contribute to the article before review. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguarnik, recommending sources is absolutely fine. It is always great when a GA reviewer's suggestions make an article substantially better. A problem only arises when you end up contributing so much to an article that you would have to review your own work; in such cases, best to ask for a second opinion. —Kusma (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You can certainly make suggestions to the nominator, and to be honest for minor corrections (punctuation and typos for example) I would recommend making the changes yourself, since it takes longer to type out "you have mispelt 'supersede'" than it does to correct it. However, do be sure you're right when you make such changes. I have frequently made more extensive copy edits than that when I am confident that the nominator won't mind -- e.g. when the author clearly has English as their second language, but the article is well-researched and close to GA standard, I'll do some clean up editing. This is more of a judgement call. For the translation corrections you're suggesting, you might ask the nominator if they would mind if you just did the fixes yourself, in case they disagree with your translation. Few nominators will object. One circumstance in which I will not make changes myself is if the point at issue is something I suspect the nominator is unfamiliar with -- I'd rather they made the fix so they understand the issue. None of the above is required, and many reviewers won't change a single comma on the article they're reviewing, and that's fine too -- it's your call. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are 3 days within the 7 days to contest an abrupt GA delist, so I am requesting additional editors and assistance today to resolve this delist while I simultaneously try to persuade the delisting editor to reverse their action. Another editor and I were in the middle of an appropriate GAR of the Florida State University main article. The cooperating editor and I were waiting for a subject matter expert to weigh into non-free materials assessment. All other matters were style and minor. A third editor enters and without establishing collaboration or consenus and abrupting delists the article, which has had GA status for years. Kindly help me resolve this matter. Sirberus (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State University, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Florida State University/1. CMD (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GAR was closed after two weeks of no activity on the reassessment page, and a week of no edits to the article, with copyright issues still unresolved. Closing the reassessment as delist in this situation does not seem problematic to me. That said, the reassessment has now been reopened – is there anything else that needs to be done here? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree—I have left comments at the reassessment, and will close it myself if there aren't arguments against. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]