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 to show the frequently asked questions below or search the archives below.

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.

Does anyone have time to take a look at 1971 Moroccan coup d'état attempt? I am reviewing it, and I have concerns about the prose. The nominator, NAADAAN, is not a native speaker and has worked with a friend to improve the prose, but I think it's still fragmented and PROSELINE in places. I've done some copyediting to try to improve it, but as I'm not familiar with the sources there's a limit to what I can do. I'd appreciate another opinion on whether the prose in its current state is a fail or pass for GA. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, most of the prose is fine, but the Background section could do with some improvements. Parts of it read quite stilted, as they are a series of short, simple sentences listed one after each other, almost like bullet points. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the only GA criteria relating to prose quality says "is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct", and I can't see that the article fails that. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 has agreed to do a copyedit, which I think will probably resolve the prose issues. Yes, that's why I haven't failed it -- I think it's not technically a fail on the criteria, but in practice GA reviewers tend to ask for better prose than this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally got around to making User:ChristieBot/SortableGANoms available; it contains all active nominations in a single table and will be updated every 20 minutes, like the main GAN page. I am also planning to do a version of this with sortable tables inside each subtopic, so that reviewers who only want to see the nominations in a given subtopic can find the article they're interested in. These are currently in the bot's user space, but I could move them to somewhere in the GA namespace if there's support for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! I wonder if there's a way to make it clearer what's what without cluttering it; as I'm scrolling down, I have to remind myself what number corresponds to what metric. And this might just be a personal preference, but I would also replace the abbreviations in the status column with full phrases (e.g. replacing "H" with "On hold"). The column is already wide enough that I don't think it would significantly shift the layout. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the status column; I agree there's room. Not sure what to do about the column headings -- there are Javascript tables that keep the headers in view as you scroll, but I don't think Mediawiki has anything like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think the subtopics-with-tables version will be the most useful. If they aren't in the GA namespace then maybe we could at least have a link to them from there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, I don't know how practical this would be, but would it be worth exploring something similar to sort open reviews (and maybe recently closed ones) based on the reviewer's stats rather than the nominator's? It might be helpful as a quick way to compare reviews based on how long they've been open and how experienced the reviewer is. Hopefully something like that could encourage supporting new reviewers as a more common practice instead of leaving them to figure it out themselves. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely doable if there's consensus, but I think one or two people expressed concerns about biting new reviewers if we start reviewing their reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there was consensus in favor of increased assistance for new reviewers at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 28#More scrutiny of reviews. And I'll reiterate what I said there: I think it would be helpful if there were a list of all recently closed reviews to make sure they're sufficient. Ideally such a list would also flag reviews that should be double-checked (e.g. new reviewer, short review, quickpass). Right now the only place to scrutinize recently closed reviews is at the page history of WP:GAN. I've checked there a few times to look at samples of what's getting through, and quickpasses are regularly getting through. I also think it's helpful to give new reviewers some guidance when they're reviewing, like I did here. It's already possible to check WP:GAN for open reviews by new reviewers, but it's inconvenient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll put something together, probably this coming weekend, unless objections emerge. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A new nominator has nominated this for GA, but I think it clearly falls under the scope of FL rather than GA (and isn't up to snuff in any case). What's the modus operandi in this instance, revert the nomination with a note on the talk page, or quick fail? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it, by providing some feedback and then failing it. Courcelles (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I wrote a script to highlight sentences by their reading difficulty with different colors. The script is found at User:Phlsph7/Readability.js and the documentation is at User:Phlsph7/Readability. It goes through articles sentence by sentence. Difficult sentences are colored red and easy sentences are colored green. The script also shows the readability score of the article as a whole at the top. It includes a list of sentences ordered by lowest readability to help identify where the most attention may be needed.

The script measures readability using the Flesch reading ease score. It is a very simple measure that only considers two factors: words per sentence and syllables per word. According to it, texts with long sentences and long words have low readability. This measure is very superficial and often does not reflect the actual difficulty of the text. For this reason, the script should only be used as a rough guide for potential improvements. It cannot replace human judgment. For example, some articles get low scores because their topic requires a lot of long technical terms. In this case, the point is usually not to replace long and precise technical terms with short and vague non-technical terms. It is often better to ensure that the technical terms are properly defined, even if they reduce the readability score.

Regarding the GA process, the script is probably most useful to nominators. It can help them identify potential problems in relation to criterion 1a, i.e. that the article is well-written. I'm more skeptical about reviewers using it because of all the limitations explained above. I hope it is obvious that this is in no way a quick shortcut for judging whether articles pass or fail criterion 1a.

I hope to get some feedback on potential problems, how the script may be improved, and how to discourage misuse. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also the discussion at WT:FAC. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A two-clause sentence being deemed moderately difficult makes me think that it's not even got much use as a rough guide; I can't imagine any native reader finding those hard. Kids included... I wonder if the test being developed in the '70s in the US (when, perhaps, people not in a professional environment may not read much or have learned to read - they would have grown up during a war) means it assumes too little proficiency as an average. In short, I fear for civilisation if you need a post-graduate in order to read that extract. Of course, equating the "well-written" criterion even roughly to "a child could read it" isn't really what I think we're going for. Kingsif (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! The Flesch reading ease score is very superficial and can easily lead to false conclusions. The main purpose of the script is not to tell editors which sentences are bad. But it can help them by pointing their attention at potentially problematic cases. For example, if a section is all red from start to end then the chances of finding one or two overly long and convoluted sentences are high. But many red sentences are perfectly fine and some green sentences are incomprehensible. The script has its uses but it is in no way meant to replace the judgment of editors. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If many red sentences are fine and many green sentences are incomprehensible, what is the value of the tool compared to simply reading the text? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The probability that a red sentence is overly long and convoluted is significantly higher than the probability that a green sentence is overly long and convoluted. Compared to simply reading the text, the script can make it easier and faster to find them. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Playing with the script briefly, it seems to me that Flesch reading-ease is an even less useful metric than I had previously thought. Three example sentences from Corinna (an article where I am the primary contributor, and consequently largely to blame for any infelicities in the writing):

1. Corinna's poetry is almost entirely concerned with myth.
2. Her "Orestes" is possibly an exception to her focus on Boeotian legends.
3. About forty fragments of Corinna's poetry survive, more than any ancient woman poet except for Sappho, though no complete poems of hers are known.

The first two have virtually identical sentence structures, and both are fairly short. The first gets a score of 18.94 and is highlighted in red, the second a score of 46.61 and is highlighted in yellow. Neither are, to my eye, "college" or "college graduate" level sentences. The third scores best (52.05) on the Flesch test, despite being twice as long and having a subordinate clause to keep track of. Even if Flesch reading-ease is a useful metric for a longish passage, it doesn't look to me as though the sentence-by-sentence breakdown is super helpful. The erraticness of the ratings doesn't suggest to me that it would, in fact, be faster to find overly convoluted sentences using Flesch scores than it would be by just reading the article carefully, at least for anyone who is a good enough writer that I would trust them to interpret these scores properly! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this analysis. You are right, this kind of sentence-by-sentence comparison by exact score is often not very helpful. I'm sure there are many more examples in the article Corinna for which the score is not helpful. Here are some ways how the script can be useful:

The list of sentences ordered by lowest score for Corinna has the following 4 sentences on top:

1. According to this theory, when she was rediscovered and popularised in the Hellenistic period her poetry would have been re-spelled into contemporary Boeotian orthography, as her original fifth-century orthography was too unfamiliar to a third-century audience.
2. Her poetry often reworks mythological tradition – according to Derek Collins, "the most distinctive feature of Corinna's poetry is her mythological innovation" – frequently including details which are otherwise unknown.
3. The three most substantial fragments are preserved on pieces of papyrus discovered in Hermopolis and Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, dating to the second century AD; many of the shorter fragments survive in citations by grammarians interested in Corinna's Boeotian dialect.
4. If Corinna was a contemporary of Pindar, this use of the local vernacular as a literary language is archaic – though the earlier poets Alcman and Stesichorus wrote in literary dialects based on their own vernaculars, the fifth-century choral poets Pindar and Bacchylides both wrote in Doric despite it not being their local dialect.

I think each one of them could benefit from some copyediting.

Looking at the colors, the following paragraphs could be checked:

• section "Life": 3rd paragraph
• section "Poetry": 2nd paragraph
• section "Reception": 2nd paragraph

It doesn't mean that there are any problems with them. But if you have limited time and don't want to check the whole article, you should probably check them first. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to say that none of these sentences or sections could be improved, because I'm sure they could. But really what this tells me is that the parts of an article which are trying to explain complex ideas, use long proper nouns and precise technical terms do badly on the Flesch reading ease score. The easiest way to make any of these sentences or sections score better on the Flesch reading ease score is to either get rid of details or be imprecise. There comes a point where trying to explain technical concepts in simple terms is more confusing than using the correct technical terms that people are familiar with and know the meaning of.

To be fair, I think your documentation does do a relatively good job of pointing out some of these limitations, and I would hope that the kinds of people who read this talkpage and install user scripts to help their editing have the common sense required to not make text worse in the name of improving some sort of arbitrary metric. I just don't know how helpful I will find the script. (I've also found that calculating readability scores for particular sentences by hand I frequently get signficantly different results than the script does, which I suppose speaks to computers' difficulties in counting syllables in English!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there are some topics that will generally do bad at the Flesch reading ease score. And trying to get rid of long technical terms for the sole sake of increasing the reading score is a good example of how the script could be misused. I hope this won't be too common since most script users are experienced editors who are aware of such issues.

There are various other websites that calculate the Flesch reading ease score. Their results often differ from each other and from my script. The syllable count is one important factor for this. It's relatively easy to get a rough syllable estimate, which is enough for many purposes. But it's very difficult to get a precise count since there are many different cases to be considered in the English language. One example is the word "business": the script thinks the "i" is pronounced and counts 3 syllables. If you want to test the script, you can put a single sentence in your sandbox. You can compare the syllable count and word count from the overview table with your manual count. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently WP:GACR says (footnote 3): "Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied so that the reviewer is able to identify the source." I take this to mean that as a reviewer I can't complain about a dead link in the sources just because it's dead, unless it's just a URL. I can complain about a dead link if I happen to spotcheck it and can't because the link is dead, but not just because it's dead, so long as it's formatted as a web citation.

I propose changing the footnote to read "Dead links in the sourcing are acceptable only if they are not the only source of the data. If the citation is to an offline source such as a book, or the information can be verified via an archive of the URL, there is no requirement to change a dead link. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied so that the reviewer is able to identify the source." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. Ultimately, we need enough information for verifiability. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would move us a bit further ahead of what I read as the general consensus around WP:V. The GAN process shouldn't be a leader in this regard. CMD (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. A dead online source with no means to verify what it used to say just isn't a source. —Kusma (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this mentality - how is an online source that has no current backup any less readable than a book that is unreadable. This would need to be a sitewide debate on whether deadlinks are suitable to be used, rather than a discussion bound to GAN. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A book that isn't in any library worldwide also isn't a suitable source (say, a Lost literary work like Aristotle's book on comedy). A book that is provably accessible in some library in Romania is fine. —Kusma (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, CMD, what about if it's not just the URL but the whole site that's inaccessible, meaning it can't be assessed for reliability? That's what prompted this suggestion. I was doing a review and didn't recognize a couple of websites, and found that for one of them there were no traces of the site left at all, either live or in the archive, so I had no way to tell if it was a fansite, or a blog, or whatever. I can see that if the page is down but the site is up one can still determine if the site meets reliability standards, but otherwise I think it's reasonable to require evidence the site is reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the likely context. There aren't many websites around that have zero pages archived by wayback machine.

Here's an example of what's happened to me. The Euro Tour decided to change their website a few years back, and they completely took down the old one, with the idea to merge the info from old events - which never happened. Trying to cite a tournament draw, which was cited to this page is now impossible, as the particular URL is inaccessible and not archived. Should that information now be deemed not suitable at GAN? I get that contentious information might need viewable information, but things on the internet can be changed (that's why access-dates are so important). If there are no archived URLs at all from a website, unless we know anything about the organisation - it's difficult to say it's reliable. I doubt any reliable source would have no way to verify this though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter for WP:RSN, not for GAN. If a source is reliable, according to consensus at RSN, then it is reliable. If not, then not. We already have rules requiring all sources to be reliable. We should not be attempting to make our own local rules about what is reliable or not. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care how reliable a no longer extant source used to be. Anything based on such a source is by definition unverifiable. Does RSN deal with WP:V violations? —Kusma (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, nothing at WP:V suggests that deadlinks are considered to not be verifiable (as weird as that sounds). It currently says in the lede about "previously published", which doesn't necessarily mean still accessible. I suspect this should be discussed at WT:V as this isn't a GAN only thing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEADREF item 6 says material cited to dead links is considered unverified after 24 months. —Kusma (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'd never seen that. Perhaps that's all we need to retain if it's been discussed previously. I can see 24 months being a suitable time period to know if something is retrievable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David that we can't change RSN by a conversation here. What I meant to suggest was only a change in the GA criteria. The FA criteria, for example, require no deadlinks; all claims have to be verifiable at the time of the review, which in practice means no deadlinks are allowed at FAC. I have no problem assuming good faith on the original addition of a source that's now dead, but if I'm a reviewer, I can't review a deadlink. If it's valid to request a dead link be addressed if I try to spotcheck it, doesn't it make sense to ask for any other dead link to be replaced too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to be able to request replacement of deadlinks, WITHOUT trying to spotcheck them? What would be gained by adding such a rule, in exchange for the unnecessary WP:CREEP? How long does it take to spotcheck a deadlink and verify that it is a deadlink? If it's already tagged as a deadlink and you don't want to spotcheck it, doesn't it already fall under the criterion of not having valid cleanup tags? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would be gained, I thought, was that I as a reviewer would have more faith in the quality of the article. I don't think this is important enough to push it if it seems to be a creeping increase in the GA standards; I do want to keep GA reviews lightweight. It just bothers me, as a reviewer, that I am signing off on the quality of the article, when there's something about it I can't look at even if I want to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why do you think you have to sign off, under the existing rules? If you can't spot-check the reference you can't verify criterion 2(c) and 2(d). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow -- are you saying that if I happen to notice a deadlink I can fail a GAN under 2(c) and (d)? Or just that I can do that if I happen to pick that citation to spotcheck? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the distinction you are trying to make between "notice" and "spotcheck". What do you do differently to notice that something is a deadlink, versus attempting to spotcheck that reference and determining it to be a deadlink? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reliability of sources, I click through to every site I don't recognize and try to determine if it's reliable. At that point I will notice if it's dead and won't be able to evaluate it. For spotchecks, I pick a few footnotes at random and check source-text integrity. If I check something for reliability I don't necessarily pick it for a spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion confuses me. Many Good Article criteria require things beyond what our polices and guidelines sets as minimums so why couldn't deadlinks be such a place? And why would the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have to weigh in on this? That is a noticeboard for This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. and we're talking about a generalized context for all kinds of sources. In terms of the merits of this proposal I have more ambigous feelings, but the discussion about whether it can be done and whether RSN would have to weigh in have just left me so puzzled I'm not even going to give my thoughts on the merits. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Barkeep: obviously we can choose to make the GA criteria stricter than the absolute minimum required by policy. Whether or not we should in this case is a question that reasonable people might differ on, but the GA criteria are absolutely something for people involved in the GA process to determine. If the consensus is that criterion 2 should simply be "complies with the letter of WP:V" that's one thing, but it seems silly to say "WP:V allows deadlinks, therefore we shouldn't even discuss whether the GA criteria should forbid them". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has suggested quashing discussion here. That said, we have had previous discussions on spotchecks which were not even able to come up with consensus on a minimum number. Forbidding deadlinks would presumably require all web links be checked. Less onerous individually than a spotcheck I suppose, but still a substantial task. (Unless it's automated I suppose.) CMD (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hadn't thought about the fact that for some types of article (e.g. music) one can have hundreds of links. What I'd like to be able to do, as a reviewer, is ask for a deadlink to be fixed at my discretion. I already do this for spotchecks, but GACR doesn't authorize me to do it just so I can check the reliability of the source. I'm OK with leaving deadlinks in the article, per V and RS, if the source is something I know is reliable. E.g. for music, a cite to Consequence of Sound that has a deadlink is fine because I already know that site is reliable. This is an example of a link I'd like to complain about in a review I'm currently doing. I've actually noted in the review that the link is dead. I don't think it should be the reviewer's responsibility to ferret around in archive.org and try to find an archived page that matches what was cited, in order to determine if the source is reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're unsure I don't think there's any harm in asking, perhaps the nominator might have more information. Whether such specific cases can be generally written into the GACR is a trickier question. Individual cases will depend on what the link is, what it is being used for, and so on. My view on your specific link is that it appears to be a primary source, likely non-independent, and unlikely to have had much detail. Depending on what it's citing, I feel you could query on those grounds. CMD (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the proposals approved in the GA proposal drive, these have not been fully implemented:

• We nominally accepted "Make spot checking a requirement" and added it to the instructions, but we still allow reviews to do without them.
• Wikipedia:Exceptional reviews was approved, but then died before it began.
• Revitalization/reform of the mentorship program was approved, but no implementation was attempted.
• To my knowledge, invitations to review have not been created or sent.
• GA status has not been made more prominent in main space (such as GA icons in mobile view).
• GA by month categories have not been created.
• Wikipedia:Former good articles has not been created.

There have also been other proposals since the drive that gained some level of support on this talk page but have not been implemented:

• Increase citation standards to match those of DYK (got to the RfC drafting stage before going stale).
• Make an auto-updating report of potential drive-by nominations.
• Some way to catch, address, or prevent checklist reviews.
• Run a backlog drive, possibly with additional automation.
• Add the nominator's name to the GA review page or the article's talk page.
• Make an auto-updating report of open and/or recently closed reviews so that they can be checked.

I thought it might be helpful to list these in one place in case there are any we want to revisit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into implementing the GA by month and former GA categories and didn't see a reliable way to do it, but if we can come up with an algorithm, I can probably get ChristieBot to create them and maintain them. I would still support adding each GA nominator's name somewhere, for traceability, though the {{GA}} and {{article history}} templates seem the natural place to me (which would also allow for conominators to be recorded). I can implement the reports to catch drive-by nominations and/or recent reviews if there's consensus to do so, but I don't think there was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per GA proposal drive, consensus was achieved to send a message to editors who have 2-5 successful GANs, inviting them to review articles. I suggest that a general message be drafted that can be posted to an editor's talk page, and be sent to those who either have a reviewing-to-GAN ratio lower than 1:1, or have 0 reviews. Here's a draft below that we can use as a starting point:

Thank you for nominating articles for good article status. GAN is experiencing a backlog and needs editors like you to help clear it. Without reviewers, articles remain nominated for months without feedback, discouraging others from joining this process and possibly causing them to leave Wikipedia in frustration or disappointment. We noticed that you have nominated more articles than you have reviewed, contributing to this backlog; as an experienced GA writer, we hope you will review some articles and help editors create excellent content. Instructions on how to review are found here. If you have any questions or concerns, please go to the GAN talk page. Thanks and happy reviewing!

It would also be great if someone (GAN co-ords?) follow up a month after this message is sent to those who chose not to review and attempt to get feedback on why they are not reviewing. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should be careful not to use any language that feels like it's guilting people into reviewing. That's more likely to create resentment than it is to create frequent reviewers. I think it should just be a friendly "you might be interested" type invitation, similar to those used by WikiProjects, and then maybe a sentence toward the end about the backlog problem and how much their help would be appreciated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Softer version below, with the section about nominating articles removed. Editors can decide which approach GAN wants to take:

Thank you for nominating articles for good article status. GAN is experiencing a backlog and needs editors like you to help clear it. Without reviewers, articles remain nominated for months without feedback, discouraging others from joining this process and possibly causing them to leave Wikipedia in frustration or disappointment. As an experienced GA writer, we hope you will review some articles and help editors create excellent content. Instructions on how to review are found here. If you have any questions or concerns, please go to the GAN talk page. Thanks and happy reviewing! Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit this post. I removed the phrase discouraging others from joining this process and possibly causing them to leave Wikipedia in frustration or disappointment and made a rough draft template (User:Rjjiii/Invitation). Everything below is via template:

Thank you for nominating 11 articles for good article status. GAN is experiencing a backlog and needs editors like you to help clear it. Without reviewers, articles remain nominated for months without feedback. As an experienced GA writer, we hope you will review some articles and help editors create excellent content. Instructions on how to review are found here. If you have any questions or concerns, please go to the GAN talk page. Thanks and happy reviewing! Rjjiii (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly getting there. I wonder if we shouldn't simply say something like that on the GA1 (GAx) page whenever a GAN passes? I suspect we're getting close to the point where we should simply begin a QPQ, articles are languishing in the queue for 6 months at a time at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last week, User:ErnestKrause took on the review for Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1. Their first action was to stop the review because a few words weren't capitalized. After I fixed this, they didn't review the article, instead using the review to suggest that several articles about different works in a series should be merged because they're often talked about at the same time. After I challenged this, they began reviewing a different article that I've never edited and seemed to expect that I improve that article before this one be promoted. I declined. In response to that, they not only quickfailed the article I nominated, but two of my other nominations (Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1 and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1). Apparently, they took issue with my promoting them from Start class to B class because I was "involved", coming up with some non-existent policy that someone can't set an article they've written as B class. They said that these articles still need work and quickfailed them, insisting that they can not go past start class unless they are merged. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is total nonsense and ErnestKrause is extremely out of line. News flash - nobody gives a damn if you assess your own article as B class. It's stupid pointless bureaucracy to assert otherwise and everyone knows this. And if they're being promoted to GA then it doesn't even freaking MATTER what they were rated before!!! The copy-pasted fail messages that have nothing to do with the articles they're purportedly GA reviews of is insanity. Calling articles of 1566 words and 1322 words "still being start/stub articles" is total nonsense and makes me question if ErnestKrause should be reviewing anything at this point. All of these reviews need vacating and I would probably support sanctions against ErnestKrause for this showing of extremely poor judgement and behavior. This is one of the dumbest hills I've ever seen anyone choose to die on in my ~2 years on this website. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that this is poor form on ErnestKrause's part, and I would suggest that he self-revert. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted ErnestKrause after looking at the reviews and articles in question. As a general point, GAN does not assess notability. It might consider article structure, but this is difficult to do if extending across multiple articles, so a wider venue is needed for that. While the reviews have their flaws, very little discussion has happened so far. It's a bit much to jump straight to sanctions. CMD (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was egregious and I would 100% support sanctions unless ErnestKrause self-reverts. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stub articles? Poor lead sections? Improper nominations? "Procedural quickfails" based on utter nonsense? ErnestKrause needs a {{whale}} to the talk page at the very least. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was made in agreement with two other editors, Z1720 and Cecropia. User:Z1720 has listed a GAR for problems with the Federalist Papers article. I agree with Z1720 about the problems with the main page for the Federalist Papers and its sibling articles. When I asked BigAlien to look at this main article for purposes of his sibling article nomination he refused to look at it, apparently stating that the article was not the one he nominated and that therefor he would refuse to look at it. User:Z1720 has plainly stated his reasons for seeking a GAR. My agreement is with Z1720 for listing it and bringing to everyone's attention the problems causing the GAR for the main article and its relation to its close sibling articles.

After BigAlien refused to look at the main article for the Federalist Papers, I then asked him to look at the relevant comments from Cecropia on the Talk page for the Federalist Papers regarding useful suggestions for the organization of the sibling articles for the Federalist Papers, and I'm in agreement with Cecropia's comments. BigAlien again refused to look at that Talk page and Cecropia's comments even though I asked him twice to look at the comments specifically about Federalist Paper #2. BigAlien refused again apparently for the same reason that it was a different page than the specific one which he nominated and therefore he seems to believe he has no need to look at those closely related sibling articles. My agreement is with the comments and outline presented by Cecropia about the better organization of the Federalist Papers and the closely related sibling articles, which BigAlien refused to look at during the peer review. This is the Federalist Papers table as presented by Cecropia which I'm in agreement with:

The organization of the 85 Federalist Papers from User:Cecropia on 21 June 2004:

This table correctly shows that many of the individual Federalist Papers are very closely related; in the case of Federalist#2, it is listed as part of a full sequence of essays written by John Jay, with the understanding that these papers should be grouped together. My attempt to get BigAlien to look at this was again refused by BigAlien. Given these multiple and repeated refusals by BigAlien to even look at the useful edits made by Z1720 and Cecropia the article appeared to be making no progress toward GAN and I then closed the assessment due to non-participation by BigAlien and the other reasons given. The article would benefit significantly if a knowledgeable editor could combine these articles as properly suggested by Cecropia; when that is done then it can be re-nominated as being in agreement with Z1720 and Cecropia's useful comments. I'm in agreement with both Z1720 and Cecropia, which BigAlien has chosen to fully ignore. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 and Cecropia:, do you mind confirming that these quickfails were done with your agreement? For myself, I cannot fathom how opening a GAR on a separate article or outlining a possible layout nineteen years ago could possibly consist of "agreement", but perhaps EK possesses some sort of telepathy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation at Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1 is quite short. I don't interpret it as the series of refusals it is being presented as above. It is unclear in that discussion that you were referring to the various items specified above, so I don't think there was refusal so much as the message not being conveyed. I posted on your talkpage about the limited considerations of the GACR compared to wider content debates, did you have a chance to read that? CMD (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I'll address a couple of ErnestKrause's comments below, with quotations from EK's comments above:

• "My edit was made in agreement with two other editors, Z1720 and Cecropia." No, I did not agree to quickfail the nomination and I have not evaluated (nor have I read) those articles.
• "User:Z1720 has listed a GAR for problems with the Federalist Papers article. I agree with Z1720 about the problems with the main page for the Federalist Papers and its sibling articles." Yes, there are problems with the Federalist Papers article and I listed it for GAR. No, I did not state any concerns with its sibling articles because I have not evaluated them.
• "When I asked BigAlien to look at this main article for purposes of his sibling article nomination he refused to look at it, apparently stating that the article was not the one he nominated and that therefor he would refuse to look at it." BigAlien does not need to improve the main article before the daughter articles can pass GAN. There is nothing in the GA criteria that states that parent articles need to meet any quality for an article to be a GAN.
• "My agreement is with Z1720 for listing it and bringing to everyone's attention the problems causing the GAR for the main article and its relation to its close sibling articles." When I nominated Federalist Papers for GAR, I did not know about the sibling/daughter article GANs. My concerns about the article are unrelated to the status of the daughter articles; instead, my outlined concerns were the FP's lack of citations, bloated sections, and lack of comprehensiveness.
• "Given these multiple and repeated refusals by BigAlien to even look at the useful edits made by Z1720" I do not think I have edited any of the mentioned articles, other than initiate the GAR, and I am too busy in real life to undertake this task.
• I don't think the GANs should have been quick-failed. Rather, if there is disagreement on if the articles should be merged, a WP:MERGE discussion can be initiated. Once that has been settled, then the nomination can be quick failed (if the articles are merged) or proceed (if the articles are not merged). I have no comment on whether the articles should be merged. The nominations should not be quick failed because of BigAlien's refusal to work on the Federalist Papers article because that is not the article that is nominated.

Those are my responses. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your precision, Z1720. While we wait to see if Cecropia will respond, do you have anything to say in response to Z1720's comments, ErnestKrause? Possibilities include: admissions of error, strikes of false statements, revertions of failed GANs, or perhaps a refusal to do any of them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this line of argumentation again. I've seen it at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. I refrained from commenting this morning, but this response merits refutation.

My edit was made in agreement with two other editors, Z1720 and Cecropia is nonsense. Cecropia posted a list to Talk:The Federalist Papers#Table of Contents twenty years ago. That list was not created by Cecropia. It was copied from a list article that is now a redirect[1] that was incorporated into the The Federalist Papers article eleven years ago and has retained the same form since that time. Z1720 posted a GAR for the The Federalist Papers article because it contains numerous unreferenced claims, an overlong lede, and fails to meet GA criteria for broad coverage. They made no comment about any of the sibling articles or their nominations. As any editor will be able to discern. The cited comments have nought to do with the three GANs. Thebiguglyalien has no reason to address either of these comments, because they are unrelated to his nominations.

This is a pattern for Ernest Krause in a dispute. Claim that their disputed edit has the support of editors, who usually have no awareness of it. A recent example of this tactic is found in in this discussion, during which I issued a 3RR warning. They claimed to be supporting several editors, with those editors then rejecting the claims.

The minimum action to be taken here is for those nominations be re-instated as if no review had taken place (because no adequate review has taken place). Mr rnddude (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but seeing as this sort of disruptive editing has clearly happened on more than one occasion, is a visit to the drama swamp necessary for some sort of sanctions? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. This is ridiculous behavior and clearly disruptive. ErnestKrause seems to believe they can bend other editors to their will and acts out (and lies) when that doesn't work. This behavior is not compatible with a collaborative project. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everyone else that none of these appear to be valid quickfails. It's hard to work out exactly what grounds the quickfail is being made under, but I presume it must be the first, It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria, as the others are all clearly inapplicable. The only substantive comments on the article seems to be that they have poor lede sections, and very rudimentary contents barely covering material being useful; I don't see that the leads are "a long way" from complying with MOS:LEAD, or that there are sufficient obvious omissions from the article that a quickfail on grounds of broadness of coverage can be valid.

I'm not sure what the best course of action is going forward: ideally I think ErnestKrause would self-revert and we could delete the invalid review pages. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm carefully reading your comment, Caecilius, and I'm not sure that your ideal self-revert would work due to the interedits done by other editors and the way that Wikipedia scripts work, given their limited ability to reset location setting in the GAN queues and the page number tallies used by internal Wikipedia scripts. If you are asking instead for the full report of BigAlien's refusal to answer edit requests which I made, then I need to state that my belief is that it would be more beneficial for Wikipedia for me to endorse fully the suggestion offered by another editor above that a WP:Merge discussion be initiated prior to any re-nomination of the articles. The difficulty remains that BigAlien has fully refused to discuss this issue regarding the strong relation between these sibling articles which are very closely related to each other. For example, during the peer review for the Wikipedia Rolling Stones article last year, I pointed out to the editor that the edits should be consistent with the Wikipedia sibling article for Mick Jagger; that editor thanked me for the observation and added a half-a-dozen to a dozen edits to the Rolling Stones article which was eventually successfully promoted. BigAliens idea of fully isolating sibling articles from one another because they are separate articles does not appear to be the best option.

BigAlien has also stated that he believes that cutting up the individual Federalist Papers at the joints is the only approach that he likes because some other editor long ago decided to simply break up the Federalist Papers at the joints into separate articles; BigAlien's view is made even though the Founding Fathers themselves indicated that the individual Papers were in numerous cases (as presented by User:Cecropia) fully associated in sequential order, the one Paper with its following Paper. BigAlien has rejected this viewpoint indicated that he is opposed to seeing any relationship between these sibling articles because they are separate nominations. My support is for the suggestion for someone/anyone to start the WP:Merge discussion mentioned above by another editor as a useful option and I'll support them in doing this. I'm conscious of the fact that there of six of you who appear to love all the edits from BigAlien under any circumstances, however, I think that Z1720's suggestion to start the WP:Merge discussion should be supported. I'm also fully supporting Z1720's published request to review the main article for the Federalist Papers for possible delisting at this time; this opinion of Z1720's is useful for someone/anyone to initiate the WP:Merge discussions mentioned above. Once that's done, then the new nominations can be renominated by any editor and all the Wikipedia GAN scripts will be reset automatically. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per a conversation higher up the page, I've just created User:ChristieBot/RecentGANActivity, which shows the last seven days of passes, fails, and review starts, along with review count, GA count, and edit count numbers for both nominator and reviewer. If there are no objections, I'll set this to refresh once a day (or more often if there's a desire for that). Like User:ChristieBot/SortableGANoms I can move this under the GA project space if we want to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks useful. Would it be possible to make the 'Title' column link to the GA review, and would it be possible to add a column for review character length? That might help to highlight any more likely issues. (Obviously review length is far from the be all and end all, but...) Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to both; I'll do that tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. For the review length, I've attempted to give the number characters added by the reviewer and nominator; that includes subtract the length of the review template if it's been used. If a reviewer deletes part of the review template this could result in negative lengths, but I think it's more useful to give the length of added text than length of the overall review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A brief look suggests to me that passes with a size under 2,000 warrant scrutiny. Currently, that includes:

• Talk:Centipede/GA2 – A great example of why why need to rework the mentorship program; this reviewer clearly wanted help but had nowhere to get it.
• Talk:Visa policy of Azerbaijan/GA1 – Almost a checklist review.
• Talk:Weaving a Story/GA1 – Almost a checklist review.
• Talk:Shovel Knight Dig/GA1 – Not even a checklist review.
• Talk:Makoto (Street Fighter)/GA1 – Checklist review.
• Talk:Mega Man X5/GA1 – Conducted on user talk.
• Talk:Marjorie Lynch/GA1 – Seems justified.
• Talk:Lady Dimitrescu/GA1 – Conducted on user talk.
• Talk:County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan)/GA1 – Seems justified.

I suspect this is pretty normal for what gets through GA in a given week, and that it's gone on for years without being caught. Interestingly, I don't find first time reviewers to have a strong correlation with bad reviews, though the sample is admittedly small. But as I said earlier, I think some of the value in a tool like this is the ability to help new reviewers earlier in the process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the author of Talk:Centipede/GA2 noting they can reach out for advice here, I don't think more is needed there. Talk:Visa policy of Azerbaijan/GA1 gives me AI vibes, although it has typos so that suggests it's not AI. CMD (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Mike Christie's log above, I came across this. Seems very cursory to me, with no actual 'review' present. It does reference a user talk page for the issues raised, but even there the content seems minimal, and this seems like poor practice generally. Any thoughts? (Courtesy pings for the nominator and reviewer: Kung Fu Man / GlatorNator.) Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave feedback on his talk page prior to the review, granted it was only the second GAN I'd done in all these years, but he'd fixed the issues accordingly and it just needed a light copyedit. If this were FAC I could understand harsher scrutiny towards an article's content but if everything lines up it should be fine for GA afterwards, shouldn't it?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you spotcheck any sources to make sure they supported the content without copyvio? If so it would be great if you could note those on the GAN page. CMD (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Spotcheck shows no copyright issue. Thou, it seems like this article [3] copied Wikipedia. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 15:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a spotcheck, a spotcheck requires actually checking a source. CMD (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, he responded below to Caeciliusinhorto anyway. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 20:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's probably worse than this review. I believe KFM already know mostly about the writing style and sourcing of video game articles. All of the sources in the article are reliable per WP:VG/Sources, In addition, half or most of the content was also written by an experienced editor, Haleth. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some of the review was conducted at User talk:GlatorNator#Thoughts on Lady D:. In general it's probably bad practice to do that – keeping the review on the review page makes it easier for future editors to check – but those comments do at least suggest the reviewer at minimum checked criteria 1, 2, and 3 to at least some degree. I agree that the review could be better (I'd like to see some evidence of e.g. spotchecking source-text integrity, checking source reliability, and checking for copyright issues) but I've seen more cursory reviews! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I do apologize, I've had reviews of my GANs that were either done in a similar or just no commentary so hadn't realized things had gotten a lot more intensive since my return. That said did check the sourcing to make sure they were from reliable outlets and used appropriately, said what they were supposed to, and the text was not directly copied from a source. Special attention was given to the development and reception sections primarily (moreso the latter) while doing so.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Could you please include such detail, and perhaps the [X] number at time of review, on the GAN pages rather than simply saying a spotcheck was performed? It ensures that those looking at the GAN in the future know what was checked. CMD (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: How's that looking, does it fit the style you're looking for?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great to me. CMD (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a month since one of my GA nominations was picked up, and yet the reviewer hasn't proceeded with the review or made any edits since then. What should be done here? Bneu2013 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the article? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Talk:Tennessee State Route 397/GA1. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is a pattern with this particular reviewer... For future reference, if someone keeps you waiting more than a week or two raise the issue here so someone else can take over. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd like for someone else to take over. I'd like to get this review through with quickly. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is it. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a draft for a reviewing guide at User:Thebiguglyalien/Good article reviewing guide. Current attempts to provide instructions for reviewers at WP:GAI and WP:RGA have a serious omission in that they don't actually describe the reviewing process itself. RGA is also quite outdated, and it would probably be better suited as a guideline to govern GA rather than as an instruction manual. The guide I've written draws from GAI, RGA, and WP:GACN, and it provides additional detail on each thing that needs to be checked so that this information is in one place. It also includes links to guideline and advice pages for each thing that needs to be checked so reviewers can get further information if needed. I'd love to get some feedback on it and what it might need to be useful for new (or experienced) reviewers. It's in my userspace right now because it's still a rough draft, but anyone can feel free to edit it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking good. The only thing I see that I disagree with is the suggestion that There should be a {{short description}} at the top of the article: this isn't required by MOS:LEAD, it's not in the GA criteria, and I don't know of any consensus that it's required for GA standards – unless I've missed a discussion?
  I also wonder if we can be clearer about MOS:WTW: it's all very well saying "make sure the article doesn't inappropriately use words that introduce bias", but it may be useful to point to some guidance about what we mean by "inappropriately" here: it wouldn't be inappropriate, for instance, to describe the Fiji mermaid as "supposedly caught near the Fiji Islands". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. How about adding in a step to check that the nominator has "contributed significantly to the article" (or at least attempted to get the consent of significant contributors for the nomination)? I see that there is a note about this at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to fix a bug in ChristieBot caused by a user being renamed. The nomination is for Liu Ji'en; the nominator is (or was) user Mucube. The bug is that the bot tries to look up the last edit date but there are no edits for the original user name. The bot records the error at User talk:ChristieBot/GAN errors. Because I can't reliably determine the GAs and reviews for a non-existent user, the bot sets them to 0 and 999 respectively. The username is of course a red link.

When this happens, it usually just means that either the nomination template should be updated with the nominator's new name. In this case though the user is invoking their right to vanish so I would assume we just delete the nomination from the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the GAN. CMD (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]