I've been considering reviewing some GAN's for a while, but I would like some comments about this article I'm considering reviewing

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead doesn't mention the history

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Many of the refs use fultonhistory.com, which is giving me server errors every time I open one. (Can't verify)
   Would ref 20 need page numbers?
   At the end of the history, there is a couple sentences with 7 sources cited. I think the first one covers it well enough.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The map image doesn't specify why it is pub. domain (No US pub. domain tag)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for reasons stated above

Did I miss anything (or make any errors) for this? Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone has reviewed it already. Username⁶⁸⁹² 19:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Username6892, In future I'd advise you to open the review page, start a review, and then ask for a second opinion for feedback. Vami IV—just so you're aware of this. buidhe 19:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

AGH. I had no idea, sorry. Good catches; Buidhe's advice here is solid, bullet-proof platinum. Be bold, but not reckless. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm reviewing This article, and there are more fultonhistory.com links (Server error). Should I mention them in the review? Username⁶⁸⁹² 21:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC) I've requested a 2nd opinion Username⁶⁸⁹² 21:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging involved users: @Dyveldi and Chiswick Chap:. The reviewer at Talk:Troll (Middle-earth)/GA1 was very involved at a recent AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll (Middle-earth)) and would as thus be disqualified from reviewing the article. I was also involved with the AfD, so I'm not posting this at the review page because I'm also not an eligible reviewer for this article. Would someone mind popping over there and picking up the review? Hog Farm (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Answering to ping. Sorry, I reviewed it because I had read the article and the sources. In addition I read some sources not used in the article. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 07:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

thanks Hog Farm, that might be the best thing, yes. Meanwhile, I'll work on Dyveldi's comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree: this is completely unacceptable behaviour from Dyveldi, and a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Chiswick has a whole plethora of GAs to his name, and shouldn't need to bother with a frivolous "review" like this. Dyveldi's comments are of no merit, and I would advise them to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. The article was kept, with an almost unanimous consensus. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 09:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. It confirms that my decision to back away from the article have been correct. Due to the comments I have had a suspicion that it would behave like a battleground. Chiswick Chap have taken my comments in good faith for which I am very glad. Otherwise I am not happy about the discussion at all. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 10:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? (I don't think so) Username⁶⁸⁹² 16:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like "Robert Schwandl"'s personal website, based on a note at the bottom, so likely not. Generally, the best place to ask these questions is at WP:RS/N. Hog Farm (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The nom already removed it. Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the ongoing backlog drive, I thought I'd post an extended list of the oldest unreviewed nominations. This includes all pre-November 2019 nominations (41 total). If anyone is inclined to review any of them, please feel free to strike them from the list. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Article	Date nominated	Comments
Iowa	26 May 2019	2nd opinion requested - Chiswick Chap gave second opinion April 5
Cultural racism	9 August 2019	Taken.
Istro-Romanians	23 August 2019	Taken.
Joseph Lonardo	24 August 2019	Taken. Harrias talk 07:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Haining Library	27 August 2019	Taken.
DMC DeLorean	30 August 2019	Taken.
Everything in Transit	30 August 2019	Taken.
Exodus Collective	1 September 2019	Taken.
Doctor Who (series 7)	3 September 2019	Taken.
Afrobeats	6 September 2019	Taken.
Kim Sung-uk	12 September 2019	Taken.
Four Star Favorites	13 September 2019	Taken.
The Glass Passenger	15 September 2019	Taken.
Phish	18 September 2019	Taken.
Freud and Philosophy	22 September 2019	2nd opinion requested
Outside (Burna Boy album)	22 September 2019	Taken. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Naledi Pandor	24 September 2019	Taken.
Logan International Airport	25 September 2019	Taken.
Ross Perot	27 September 2019	Taken.
Basic economy	1 October 2019	Taken.
Maria Grzegorzewska	2 October 2019	Taken.
Yoga Makaranda	2 October 2019	Taken. Hog Farm (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Johannes Latuharhary	4 October 2019	Taken.
Stephen Dee Richards	8 October 2019	Taken.
Grand Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad	11 October 2019	Taken. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar	11 October 2019	Taken. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Bradford Shellhammer	14 October 2019	Taken.
Marie Smallface Marule	14 October 2019	Taken.
Shelby Starner	14 October 2019	I got this. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Silver Line (MBTA)	15 October 2019	Taken.
Mandarake	19 October 2019	Taken.
Yin Yoga	21 October 2019	Taken.
Khwaja Usman	22 October 2019	Taken.
Pacific Mall	23 October 2019	I got this. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
James Cameron	25 October 2019	Taken.
Mindful Yoga	26 October 2019	Taken.
Big Brother 21 (American season)	27 October 2019	Taken.
Eurovision Song Contest 2019	28 October 2019
Bad Genius	29 October 2019	I got this. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Arina Tanemura	31 October 2019
Bib Fortuna	31 October 2019	Taken.

This is convenient to have here, but I thought it would be worthwhile to let people know that they can also get similar information on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report page. While it doesn't give nomination dates, the Oldest nominations section at top shows the oldest ten unreviewed nominations, and in the Exception report, the Old nominations section shows all the nominations at least 30 days old (the ones without icons are the ones waiting for reviewers), along with how many days it's been since the nomination was made. People can go to that page at any time; from this page, just click on the "Report" tab at the far right of the top tabs. The page is updated daily at 01:00 UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

As 39 of the 41 pre-November 2019 nominations have now been claimed(!), I thought I'd update the list to include all unreviewed 2019 nominations. The list comprises 39 nominations. As BlueMoonset has pointed out, a more detailed list of nominations is found under the Report tab. This list is intended as a temporary subset of that list to aid anyone who wishes to help cull the list of old nominations during the backlog drive. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Article	Date nominated	Comments
Freud and Philosophy	22 September 2019	2nd opinion requested
Eurovision Song Contest 2019	28 October 2019	RIP Wogan. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Arina Tanemura	31 October 2019	Taken.
Karaikudi S. Subramanian	3 November 2019	Taken.
Kannada cinema	5 November 2019	Taken.
Sandaime J Soul Brothers	8 November 2019
Marie Lang	11 November 2019	I took this one. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Shift-and-persist model	16 November 2019	Taken.
Plumb (Field Music album)	16 November 2019	Taken.
Good Morning (Kanye West song)	23 November 2019	Taken.
Alan Winde	23 November 2019	Taken.
School belonging	25 November 2019	Taken.
Jasraj	26 November 2019	Taken.
Cognitive inertia	28 November 2019
Social class differences in food consumption	28 November 2019	Taken.
History of East Texas State University	1 December 2019	Taken.
Haya people	2 December 2019	Taken.
Gebel Ramlah	2 December 2019
Affect labeling	2 December 2019
Kahlil Gibran	3 December 2019
British subject	3 December 2019
Windows Speech Recognition	7 December 2019	Bill Gates is paying for this one. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Bladder cancer	10 December 2019	Taken.
Blond Ambition World Tour	13 December 2019
Rick Dantzler	14 December 2019	Taken.
Angel Sanctuary	14 December 2019
Miriam Weiner (genealogist)	14 December 2019	Taken.
Black Monday (1987)	15 December 2019
Rihanna	16 December 2019	Taken.
Chandrayaan-2	19 December 2019	I took this one. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
New Body	20 December 2019
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold	23 December 2019
Homeopathy	25 December 2019
Stephen Vogt	26 December 2019	Taken.
Douglas P. Woodlock	27 December 2019	Taken.
Jamal Crawford	28 December 2019	Taken.
Circle dance	31 December 2019	Taken.
Bikram Choudhury	31 December 2019	Taken.
Aaron Hernandez	31 December 2019	Taken.

A comment pointing to an individual reassessment of Joe Biden was posted at the reassessment talk page. I looked through it and was not happy with how it was conducted so have now opened Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joe Biden/1. The individual reassessment attracted a lot of editors not really familiar with the good article process so it would be nice if some regulars were willing to venture over there and make sure the comments align with the GA criteria. it also begs a deeper question on how the stability criteria applies to delisting articles that we should probably address a bit more formally at some point. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Does this section give undue weight to the history of the square (and not the station itself)? Username⁶⁸⁹² 15:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The nom has trimmed it Username⁶⁸⁹² 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi reviewers, would anyone be able to:

• Give a second opinion on Talk:Tocomar/GA1, about a phrasing concern that, after long discussion, the nominator and I can't seem to solve. Details at the review page.
• Take over reviewing Talk:Silver Line (MBTA)/GA2 - I left some preliminary comments and got a 'no' to them all; leaving the review is an amicable split, it seems like a simple disagreement, but obviously one where nothing will get done if I proceed and it would be a waste of time for me and the nominator.

Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Users may find this monthly graph at User:Eddie891/GAGraph of interest. Comments are welcome, I think there's something off around October '09... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Very interesting chart, Eddie891, thanks for putting it together. It's fun to see the sharp drop from the ongoing backlog drive—although I see there was a sharp incline following the last one. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It happens after every backlog drive, and if anything the backlog returns even higher than pre drive levels. It tends to level off at some point, but that leveling off limit has been getting steadily higher every year. The bot was down briefly in 2009, which is probably why the data there looks off. See File:Good Article Backlog graph 2011.jpg for a early graph. AIRcorn (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to measure the total number of nominations per month, and the total number of reviews? I wouldn't be surprised if there's some fatigue after backlog drives—after squeezing two months of reviews into one, for example, perhaps regular reviewers take the next few weeks off. So perhaps the number of post-drive nominations remains about the same, but the number of post-drive reviews dips. —Usernameunique (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Usernameunique, The only way I can think of is by going into the history and counting the occurrences of legobot commenting "new" and "on review", which would give you an approximate count... Rather time consuming to make a graph of though Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, the "on review" count would be off beginning in late August 2012, when editor's reviews started being counted; Legobot (and GA bot before it) relists all open reviews by reviewer and nominator in its edit summary each time a new review is opened by a reviewer (and the overflows in the edit summaries because of this cause yet another snag). Perhaps using the "New" listings in tandem with the backlog numbers from the /Report page could get reasonable approximate results. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW; I did a list of reviews by person in 2019. It only measures opened reviews, but I could do such a thing per month... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, I'm not a coder by any means, but I wonder about the feasibility of taking what MilHistBot already does with tallying reviews and making an auto-generated list of all the ga reviews conducted over a certain time span (courtesy ping Hawkeye7) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The MilHistBot goes through the list of GA nominations each day and lists the ones that are marked as MilHist (whether filed under Warfare or not) on the MilHist announcements page. At the end of the month it goes through the history of the announcements page and looks at all the GA reviews listed. It is only interested in tallying reviews, so it looks at the history of each GA review page, and the creator is considered the reviewer. So a different job would be required. To tally all reviews, a bot would need to sweep through the history of the GA nominations page and examine each revision in turn. The page is very busy, which is a complication, but on the plus side the page is bot written, which makes it easy to parse. Reviewers can be found by looking at the history alone, but extracting nominators requires reading the pages. The Legobot keeps a database of nominations, and may be able to do this more efficiently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have an unusual problem with my recent GAN (I am the main author of the article). All the issues raised but one have been addressed. The remaining issue concerns a discussion between several editors on whether a certain content issue is sufficiently summarized or not. The problem is that I have read the sources presented and I don't see what is missing, despite quotations being provided on talk. I feel the quoted parts are either properly summarized already or would be undue, some others agree with me, some, including the reviewer, disagree. Crucially, nobody else has attempted to edit the article to address it outside adding a POV tag, despite my repeated pings or requests for someone to try to propose a compromise version on talk or directly by editing the article (I certainly don't OWN it). The GA reviewer keeps asking me to address this issue and summarize the sources better, but I feel I am unable to do so without compromising my own view of what's UNDUE, what's worse, I can't even figure out what particular events/issues/people/organizaitons/etc. are being demanded to be included, as all I am hearing is 'read the cited quotes'. Which I read multiple times and I don't see what could be used to expand the article beyond going into what I think are unnecessary details. The reviewer said that I don't summarize the cited quotations better, they will fail the article. I am not new to GA (have written dozens), but I am at a loss with what to do, in the past I was always able to address any issues raised. I admit there is no consensus on talk whether I am right or not, but if nobody else whats to follow WP:SOFIXIT, and if the article is reasonably stable, what can be done? I think the demands made that I summarize the content which I think is either impossible (as all important issues are summarized already) or would compromise neutrality (UNDUE) are unfair, particularly as nobody else has actually clarified what needs to be added. (So to be clear, there is no edit warring on any content issue outside a POV tag being added or removed twice or so over the last week). If the article is failed (due to the unresolved POV issue), can it be renominated if the situation continues (if nobody is willing to actually spell out what sentences should be added to the article)? From that perspective, it looks like this: general objections are raised, impossible to address, but since there are objections, the article fails the stable/neutral. Wouldn't it be pure GAMING, looking for a reviewer who might agree with me on this issue? Which is why I wonder if we have some form of a GA 3O - would it be ok to ask someone to look at the dispute and try to mediate? Or should we just to to RfC or such? And what would this mean to the GA workflow? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you summarise this issue in a couple of sentences? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, a reviewer of Piotrus's GAN asked them to address a perceived POV issue by editing the page accordingly. However, Piotrus doen't know what needs to be changed; they are suggesting creating an option to request a third opinion, which I think would be achieved by asking for a second opinion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If the review remains open, requesting a second opinion may be the best option. If something bigger is needed, perhaps the review could be closed and a RfC could be opened. If the review has already been closed, renomination is probably the way forward. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man, Eddie891, and J Milburn: Eddie's summary is correct. Thank you for your input. I looked at the instructions on the 2nd opinion linked above, and they are worded in a way that suggests that asking for it is the call of the reviewer, not the nominator. Can I as the nominator ask for someone else to get involved, or is my only recourse to either fulfill the reviewer demands or if I am unable or unwilling to do so, allow him to fail the article and restart the process? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

On this review, I finished it, asked for a second opinion, and after an opinion was given, the nom withdrew. Should I mark as failed? Username⁶⁸⁹² 13:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If someone withdraws their nom, unless it's suitable as a GA in it's current form - fail. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's withdrawn during the review, then fail unless someone else volunteers to take over before you get around to doing so. If the nominator wants to withdraw before the review has been opened, all they need to do is delete the GA nominee template. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned on Talk:Jedediah Sanger#GA nomination, I had looked to review the Jedediah Sanger article, but it needed some summarizing of information, with detail put into notes, and regrouping. I worked on the article a lot, changing it from this version to the current Jedediah Sanger version. I had said that I felt the most important to get it GA-review-ready - and have someone else do the GA review.

But, now, I am very familiar with the article. Is it ok for me to perform a GA review in this case?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Whilst general cleanup is ok for reviewers to do during a review, I don't think you should be reviewing an article you have over 10% authorship and significantly more edits to the article than anyone else. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Lee Vilenski, that makes sense and is a good yardstick.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It should, however, be noted that numbers aren't the be-all and end-all here. For instance, I've just got 2012 Football League Championship play-off Final up to scratch for GAN, yet this shows that Lloydf640 has contributed 10.6%. But their last edit to that article was in 2012, so I very much doubt that 10.6% of the current article is what they actually "authored". In fact, deleting a huge portion of what that editor added (the team lineups etc) makes no difference to the "authorship" report, so we need to really understand what that statistic means before we start using it as a measure of a proportion of contribution to the current version of anything. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will bear that in mind.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • Oh, for sure. I wasn't looking at the statistics exactly, but there is a lot of edits to the article to not be considered involved in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a tool whereby we can enter a user name and see a count of their GA nominations, and/or GA reviews? — Maile (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we track these things (we should). Currently it's just a raw number of reviews at User:GA bot/Stats Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The stats are better than nothing. But such a tool would be an asset. DYK has its own little tool in the nomination template Toolbox. And FA has this nifty Rick Bot that updates List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, but FA doesn't deal with the enormous volume that happens at GA. — Maile (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be much more than positive about a bot that found this. I have suggested this previously, but we are stuck because our priority will be with replacing legobot, which I believe is quite a bit issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I have asked several times in the past about how I discover how many GAs I have to my name. Apparently unlike other projects, this isn't a priority for GA? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

TRM No, they just broke the server finding out  :) SERIAL^# 17:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Heh, I'm probably in the top 100 but certainly not top! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess what we need to be asking is if xtools.wmflabs that compiles our stats, can add this. Tools can compile everything else on individuals, so why not this? And who do we approach to find that out?— Maile (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to make a request at the technical Village Pump? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have gone looking for GA article information, too. That would be excellent! Village Pump is the place to go, I think. If you want help writing up something, let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I've asked the question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Good article nominations. Please keep eyes peeled there. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Kadane (who has not really edited in a year) and TheSandDoctor were working on a new bot (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 23#GANBot Replacement). I guess it has stalled. Maybe it is worth making a new request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. AIRcorn (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Recently I've noticed a number of articles fail a nomination, and within hours be nominated anew. In at least one case, this has happened twice to the same article. Although there may occasionally be a good reason for this, it raises the concern that the issues that lead to failed nominations are not being adequately addressed before the articles are renominated. In the featured-article context, this is dealt with by requiring that "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it." The good-article instructions are not so specific, although they note that "If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately." And generally, they envision that seven days is an adequate time to respond to any issues raised in a review.

With that in mind, how would others feel about a requirement that a failed nomination wait seven days before it can be renominated? This would not be a perfect fix, of course, but it would at least ensure that there is some built-in time to digest the comments from the previous nomination and implement any improvements before renominating. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't particularly oppose the waiting period, but this behaviour is already against the rules of WP:FORUMSHOPPING (Raising essentially the same issue [...] to multiple [...] reviewers) and so it should be uncontroversial to revert a nomination if no significant edits have been made to an article since its last review was failed. Perhaps we could codify this formally somewhere. I'm quite concerned by the text: If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately. A genuinely improper review (e.g. by a new editor who doesn't understand the GA criteria) should be deleted/reverted and the page should be relisted under its original nomination timestamp. A review that one disagrees with is still a review that needs to be addressed and resolved before renomination. — Bilorv (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A review one disagrees with needs to be considered and responded to. It does not need to be addressed and resolved. Having a new reviewer look at an article for GA criteria is a more comprehensive second opinion format. This is designed to be lightweight for both sides and so if there is a reviewer/nominator mismatch a renomination can be the right low conflict way of moving forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

We already have a second opinion process. Perhaps you agree with me that there are some situations where repeated renomination would be disruptive, for instance, if an editor doesn't consider and respond to reviewer comments, simply not acknowledging them and renominating. — Bilorv (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that repeated renominations could be disruptive. I just wanted to point out a non-disruptive, actually disruption reducing, reasons not to have such a limit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's not forget that GAN is supposed to be very much lighter touch than FAC. Presumably at some point in the dim past FAC had issues with noms whose concerns hadn't been addressed prior to being renominated so they instigated a diktat to obviate that. Given that a FAC takes around two months to promote and a GAN can technically be promoted in half an hour, we're at odds with comparing process. Having said that, I agree with Bilorv, renominating something which clearly hasn't been improved is disruptive and should be disallowed. My opening suggestion would be to add instruction for GA reviewers to check previous issues have been addressed or else "quick fail" is appropriate. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Tht would also cover the situation where someone just waits a month, but doesn't do anything before renominating it, no need to have that loophole open by looking at time since failed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that the FAC prohibition is against nominating any article. At FAC only one nomination is permitted at a time, but a GA you can have as many nominations open as you like. There are other reasons for an inadequate review. Sometimes the reviewer does not give you a chance to resolve the issues raised, but closes the review immediately. I see nothing wrong with resolving the issues that were raised and re-nominating once they are resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, what it boils down to at GAN is that issues previously raised (i.e. if it's not GA1) should be suitably addressed. If someone picks up a GA2/3/4/5/etc and is instructed to check that previous GAx reviews should be checked, it's up to the new reviewer to call out "quick fail" and justifiably put it to bed. And if the disruption continues, well ANI is another venue altogether. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose a waiting period. GA has just one reviewer and while that brings many advantages it also means that we do get the odd substandard review. If an article is failed for a reason that does not align with the criteria then the nominator should not have to wait before putting it back in the queue. The old review will be recorded in the article history and I would hope most reviewers would look at this before/while conducting their own review. I do agree that if someone repeatedly nominates an article that clearly fails without any attempt to fix the issues then that is disruptive. Those cases can be brought up here and the editor dealt with individually on a case-by-case basis. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's a possible change to Step 5 (nom instructions): If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately, but note that the article may be quick failed if the new reviewer agrees with the concerns brought up in the previous review. I'm not sure how the reviewing instructions should be changed. Username⁶⁸⁹² 22:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC

From the comments above, it seems that any change needs to balance the concern of substandard reviews with the concern of substandard renominations. As Bilorv has pointed out, there are ways of dealing with genuinely substandard reviews: namely, deleting the review and returning it to its place in the queue, or undoing the edit that failed the review and letting another reviewer take the reins. These issues are dealt with from time to time on this talk page, and this method of recourse could be made more explicit in the instructions. For inappropriate nominations, meanwhile, there are several options, such as a waiting period or adding to the quick-fail criteria. I like the quick-fail idea, since it avoids what MPJ-DK termed the "loophole" of waiting eight days and renominating, without actually addressing the issues. From my own experience, I also know that it can be helpful to take a few days to digest feedback (and/or cool off, depending on the circumstances); and waiting a week to renominate doesn't seem like much of a chore.

With those competing considerations in mind, how would something like the following change to Step 5: After the review sound?

Current: At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately.

Proposed: At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you may renominate the article after taking the reviewer's suggestions into account and waiting at least seven days; a renomination made earlier may be reverted, and a renomination that does not take adequate consideration of issues raised in the earlier review may be quick-failed. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, however, you may ask for additional input on the discussion page. (The bolded part is a link to this page).

A corresponding addition, such as the one The Rambling Man suggested below, could be made to the quick-fail criteria. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I support this change. I think in particular, some edge cases may always have to be dealt with by wider discussion, so a pointer to this page is useful. I note at least one user above opposes a waiting period though. — Bilorv (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Support I think this balances the concern with substandard reviews and disruptive renominations. buidhe 19:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, MPJ-DK, Hawkeye7, The Rambling Man, Aircorn, Username6892, Epicgenius, Atsme, and David Eppstein: Pinging people who have not yet indicated a position on one or both of the two proposals: the change to the instructions proposed above, and the addendum to the immediate-failure criteria proposed below. Of course, they are not mutually exclusive, so either or both (or none) could be adopted. Apologies if anyone, in commenting on one proposal, meant the comment to apply to both; but I think clarity of opinion is important before implementing a change. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

(ping didn't work for some reason) I think the "Addendum to 'Immediate failures'" change is probably enough to cover most instances and we would be better to keep it simple elsewhere. I would even suggest removing the If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately. part. Even if you don't think the review was adequate you should still take it into account, you just might decide that you don't need to make the suggested changes before renominating. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Aircorn. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Addendum to "Immediate failures"

We should add something along the lines of:

5. A reviewer considers that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered.

It's worth noting "considered" because some GA reviewers are shit and while they think they know what they're doing, they don't, so this wording allows leeway for new reviewers to take those kind of reviews with a pinch of salt while applying some level of diligence should a former review be of value. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a very good solution. Perhaps we could restrict its usage to "A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article" to stop someone abusing the feature by quickfailing an article immediately upon renomination by someone trying to get a fresh opinion, though I think if such cases ever happened we could deal with them on a case-by-case basis so I'd still support this text without that clarification. — Bilorv (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This is very reasonable. If a second reviewer agrees that an article is substandard, then 99.5% of the time there is a legitimate issue that needs to be resolved before re-nominating. epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Support per above. buidhe 19:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm on the fence with this and am now wondering if we need to qualify GA reviewers like we do over at NPP but not quite as stringent. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Add my support per Epicgenius. In the 0.5% of the cases an appeal could always be made here. AIRcorn (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this proposed rule is a good addition. It allows reviewers discretion to make appropriate quick failures without disqualifying cases where the review was inappropriate or where the editor really has put in the work to bring it up to snuff. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I also support TRM and Bilorv's suggestions. It may be worth adding a footnote saying that "adequately considering" a previous review is not the same as "doing everything a previous reviewer said" - but if another reviewer feels that there is valuable advice in the previous review, perhaps that will encourage the nominator to rethink. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, although this has only been around for a week, there seems to be strong consensus in favour of adding this bullet to the criteria. I note Josh's footnote suggestion too, which is a good idea. I suggest we give it another week and if consensus is still in favour then I'll add the new bullet and associated footnote. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Is it possible for someone to close the #Comment discussion? The GA review has long since failed, there are suggestions by me and another user of how to improve the article - which can be used or not.

The conversation had gone quiet, I was so looking forward to it rolling off... but there are more complaints, without, I am afraid, a possible satisfactory resolution. And, I am guessing it's likely going to push out when the discussion can be archived. If possible, can someone close this discussion?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That seems like an over-reaction to my making a handful of comments, none of which were "complaints". However, I have now closed the discussion myself, as per your request. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought someone that hasn't been part of the conversation or an administrator closes conversations. In any event, I appreciate it!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A review for one of my noms got opened, but then passed without any comment. At all. (Talk:Art of Francisco Narváez in the University City of Caracas). It's a recent nom so I don't mind if it just gets sent back instead of asking someone to do it, but I thought I'd inform everyone. @BlueMoonset: to delete it or something. Kingsif (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the editor who passed it (Martian-2008) has done it for a few others, too. Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

They also claim to be an administrator... From User:Martian-2008 "I'm an administrator, but when I am not performing the above functions (and the only one I do much of is delete a few thousand obviously inappropriate articles a year, and when necessary protect them against re-creation), I'm just an editor. Like most experienced editors, and as required for all administrators, I do know the policies, and I remind people of them if I think it appropriate, but any editor can do as much." I think a word on the user talk is suitable here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Carnival is certainly a surprising pass; impressive though it is, it has many ^{[citation needed]} tags, and indeed many paragraphs/sections are completely uncited which would have pushed me towards a Quickfail. KJP1 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Their account was created just over a month ago and the userpage seems to be a copy-paste from someone else's (and as Lee Vilenski alluded to, their "claim" is wholly false). May be a sock puppet, or may be someone who just doesn't understand the process. I think the only action is to revert the "reviews". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

On the basis of a speed-read, I think West Kill is less concerning. I'm not saying that it should pass on the basis of the review it has had, but I do think it would, easily, pass a rather more stringent review. KJP1 (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

KJP1, I've reverted their edits and I've marked the GA review as G6 (reviewing own nom) Username⁶⁸⁹² 16:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if the intention is to ask the user to complete the GA review on Talk:Art of Francisco Narváez in the University City of Caracas. If not, and you need someone to review it, I would be happy to do it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I was just thinking it could get put back on the nom list, but if you want to take it, feel free. It's not very long, so hopefully quick (I'll probably grab the Carnival review myself) Kingsif (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CaroleHenson, I think the best thing to do is revert the passage as Username6892 did for Carnival, put the review page in for a speedy deletion, and once deleted and the talk page adjusted you can certainly pick it up. It's clear that Martian-2008 does not know what they're doing and has insufficient experience in this space to be reviewing at this time, given their errors. I'll be doing the same on West Kill as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, BlueMoonset, will do. That is a clean way to manage it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Great, CaroleHenson. I'll let you know when it's all clean. Kingsif, the Carnival nomination was a self-nomination/review/pass all by Martian-2008. I imagine that any editors on that article were well aware that it wasn't ready for GAN, so they didn't nominate it. Let's wait for a regular contributor to nominate it, which may well be a while. It's not like we're short of nominations awaiting reviews here... BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Kingsif (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The same user has also created several other GA reviews in the past hour, quick passing a few of them. A mandatory mentorship program for new reviewers would help cut down on this recurring problem. SounderBruce 07:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah he just picked up my nomination of Dumbo (2019 film), just very quickly said something under the lines “it had good English” and really no thorough look through. Rusted AutoParts 07:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for this thread @Kingsif:, I was just about to do the same about my nom which also passed GAN

without a proper review. I think that this damages the integrity of the project and is not fair to both content writers and reviewers who go through this necessarily lengthy process. So, @BlueMoonset: you're saying that Martian-2008 should be reverted and the review page be placed for speedy deletion?--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• What's worse; they are actively giving out bad advice, such as translating external links, and adding external links when a REDLINK exists - Talk:Wyangala/GA3 - I'll do some cleanup when next at a PC if it's still up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• I stumbled upon this user when I saw them review Talk:Toyota Auto Body/GA1 on recent changes. I have since removed their claim to being an admin and am quite displeased about their lack of communication. I am seeing this as a time sink and CIR issues galore. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Maleschreiber, that is what I was saying, but HickoryOughtShirt?4 has taken care of that already, having reverted all of Martin-2008's reviews and blocked the editor indefinitely. CaroleHenson, Art of Francisco Narváez in the University City of Caracas is ready for you to review. Thanks for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, BlueMoonset.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset, User is also involved in a SPI Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, Eddie891. They're not even a smart sock, editing their various accounts back and forth. Since Martian-2008 was created ten hours after Mikhail Kyrah was blocked, and Martian-2007 fifteen hours after that, I hope the blocks this time are more effective. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This user needs to be closely monitored. I have tried to review the GA nominations of Talk:Everything I Wanted, Talk:Stressed Out but the editor keeps withdrawing and then renominating them. It appears to me they are trying to game the system in hope that a much less leniant reviewer will pass their underprepared articles. I wanted to let you know about this as this new editor appears to be nominating whatever song they like for GA only because they like the song and not because it meets GA criteria. The article Stressed Out, they only contributed 2% to on that article as well. Cool Marc ✉ 19:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Coolmarc, I noticed you PRODed Goodbye (Billie Eilish song). I would recommend taking it to AfD or starting a merge discussion at the very least because there is no WP:SIGCOV. As for the Stressed Out and EIW GAN's, I'm not very confident in reviewing, so if I do review either of them, a second opinion is highly likely (though I might ask for help from a mentor given that this isn't a topic of interest that I could review well). Username⁶⁸⁹² 19:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I was considering reviewing Stressed Out, too - I did wonder why it got 'added' to the noms page twice (in my watchlist updates). Again, pinging @BlueMoonset: for alert to another disruptive editor. Kingsif (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Username6892, I actually forgot about that one. I have done an AfD for Goodbye (Billie Eilish song) now. Cool Marc ✉ 20:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: @Kingsif: the user has just gone ahead and withdrawn Lovely (Billie Eilish and Khalid song) after I reviewed it and put it on hold. It has also came to light at Talk:Stressed Out/GA1 that Stressed Out was not the only article they nominated for GA without properly contributing to. Zmbro has pointed out that they had the same issue at Talk:The Man Who Sold the World/GA1. Cool Marc ✉ 21:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Coolmarc, it looks like they've semi-retired, so hopefully this won't be a problem going forward. Another point: if a nominator is not a significant contributor and has not consulted with those who are per WP:GANI, the thing to do is not open the review, but revert/remove the nomination on the article talk page and post why they've done so on the user talk page. Once the review is opened, it pretty much has to go forward and (likely) be failed; by reverting, it takes less time and energy on the reviewer's part. There are so many nominations that have been sitting around for months; I'm not sure why people keep grabbing this nominator's reviews so quickly. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: I was about to make a similiar comment. The same user decided to fail his own article that I was doing a review "Watching Rainbows". I had already told him on his talk page that he can't do that. I had given him a week to gather more information on said article, which he said he could do and I quote "I do have some more books, I'll do research on it." Talk:Watching Rainbows/GA1. This is getting out of hand! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have been a nuisance to all of you, but Jesus fucking Christ. You guys have the audacity to speak about me behind my back. I am sick and tired of this! I want you all to stop threatening with Afds and saying that I need to be closley "monitored". It is not your job to babysit me. I am a fucking adult. My experience here has become total SHIT because of users like you. Now I know what my loved ones meant when they told me this website would be a complete waste of time. _{unsigned comment by DarklyShadows (talk|contibs) 00:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)}

For anyone else who had the delight of reading that comment, DarklyShadows's own user page said "I'm under 18 years old" until they cleared it to retire just now. Kingsif (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@DarklyShadows: There is a sense of exaggeration in all of this. The fact that articles are being deleted is not a form of "threatening", it's just because their existence is unnecessary. The essence of "Goodbye" and even "!!!!" could be perfectly encapsulated into the parent WWAFAWDWG article. And all of this frustration could have been avoided by simply taking a second to analyze what good articles actually look like. I promoted the articles "Xanny" and "Ilomilo" to GA recently, and they all originated from DarklyShadows' previous GA attempts. The articles did need heavy rewriting and research since they were quite unprofound. The user just needed to accept the fact that his skills are not there yet — just like me when I joined Wikipedia back then. Just like nearly everybody. It's all a question of how he perceived things. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I passed this article, which had previously failed, but the notifications about the article here and here at the nominee's page Markworthen show it as a fail.

Is there something that needs to be done on the Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States page?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it just does that. A better question would be if a new bot could not do that, but I am not a bot builder. Kingsif (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, unfortunately it's a known bug in Legobot that if a nomination passes and a GA template is put on the article talk page, the bot will look and if there is also a FailedGA template on that page, it will assume that the nomination failed, never mind that the GA template is newer. One day, if we ever get a new bot, it will hopefully be smarter about that. In the meantime, the only thing that can be done to prevent this error is, before converting GA nominee into GA on the article talk page, to set up an Article history template and move the contents of FailedGA into it (or, if there's a pre-existing Article history template, to incorporate the info from the FailedGA into it), and then delete the now-superfluous FailedGA. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your replies, BlueMoonset and Kingsif. I saw that someone made an edit to Article history on that page and I tried to do that at Talk:The Abbey, Sutton Courtenay/GA2 where there is the same situation, and the failed GA was removed by another user but I couldn't get the parameters right (I got mixed results - none of them right - so I never saved what I saw in preview. So, I thought I would wait until the GA passes (which should be soon) - I think the template does not work right if the current GA activity is for a nominee (or maybe user error ).–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I am right that a GA nominee cannot be put in article history, so I tried edits as if it passed - and that it seems right in preview - and then commented out the second GA info until it passes. Does anyone mind looking at Talk:The Abbey, Sutton Courtenay and see if I got it right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I made a couple of corrections, but it was pretty much there. Just remember that should you ultimately pass the nomination, use the GA template initially on the talk page, so the bot will know to post a "pass" message on the nominator's page and to add the good article template to the article. Only when that's done (give the bot at least 23 minutes to be safe) should you update Article History and remove the GA template. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks much, BlueMoonset.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Matthewishere0 Has misunderstood the GA process, and initiated the nom without properly carrying it out: what's the best thing to do here? Harrias ^talk 10:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ask for speedy deletion of the GA1 page? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. Hopefully I've managed to mop this up okay. Harrias ^talk 10:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna need some help with starting the GA process, but anyway I just want to voice my opinion that I do support this being a good article. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia/GA1 and Talk:Rusyns/GA1. I am unsure what to say to them, so I'm posting it here. buidhe 17:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Barrettsprivateers, welcome to wikipedia. It is wonderful that you volunteered to review the two articles above. However, it appears that your reviews are hasty. The big give away is the tags at the top of the article. I would expect editors to go through articles section by section, checking for spelling and grammar mistakes, making sure that references are full completed and verified and that each claim is actually in the reference listed. There's a whole page on GA Criteria here which links to the things you should be checking. Similarly to nominate an article yourself, you should be a major contributor to the article or have consulted others who are. Lots of people spend lots of time getting articles ready for GA nomination and its not fair or ethical for someone to swoop in claim one's work for their own. Though I'm not suggesting that users own a topic or article, it is kind and well-mannered to only nominate things that you have worked on personally. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 17:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

First, the Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia/GA1 was an out-of-process Good Article Reassessment: GAR should not be used for prospective Good Articles; that's what GAN is for. And, in any event, the same person should never nominate and review, which is what happened at Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia. I have deleted the GAR template from the talk page, and will be archiving the review page, unless we think it's better to delete it altogether.

For their review of Talk:Lisa Wilson-Foley/GA1, it's clear that they have not read the GA nomination/review instructions, because there was no attempt to offer specifics about the areas they thought fell short, and no chance for the nominator to make any fixes. The issues they noted were significant, however. Their "failure" post to the article talk page was not at all in process (and I have removed it), and with the GA nominee template intact the review remains open. I'd like to suggest that we get a second reviewer in to look over the article and flesh out/take over the review; Kingsif, might you be willing to do so?

For their review of Talk:Strategic Air Command in the United Kingdom/GA1, the only thing they found to comment on was the sectioning of the article, and they passed it, though the GA template on the talk page wasn't correctly filled out and other fixes needed to be made. The nominator is an experienced author, but even the best of us can leave the odd typo or infelicitous sentence, which should be noted by the reviewer so it can be fixed.

I would like to suggest that Barrettsprivateers gets more experience dealing with higher quality articles and how they match up with the GA criteria before nominating articles, and certainly wait until after that point before they again review articles here at GAN. There's lots else to do here at Wikipedia. If they're really interested in getting into reviewing, they can always request a mentor to work with. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I could review Lisa Wilson-Foley, but I would have to quickfail it for being entirely promotional in tone and content. The subject probably just about passes GNG. Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Upon closer reading, the quickfail was not the issue, rather the poor review. I can do that. Kingsif (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello!

I've recently did a review for a song by Alvvays called "Archie, Marry Me". Nevertheless, the nominator has since "vanished" and his last edits were regarding said article. I was not expecting that, however he was able to make most of the edits, I made several small ones to the prose and replaced unreliable sources. I've put the review on hold, if someone wants to fix the very last issue, it is regarding adding some sort of note to the infobox or even a collaps list, due to the numereous genres of the song. I would very much appreciate, it should take no a great amount of your time.

Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like someone already has chucked this on - anything else needed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Not right now, thank you both for being available to answer so quikly. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I just tried to pass Talk:Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill for GA, after a second review. The nominator User talk:Bneu2013 just got a message from Legobot that the nomination has failed. What did I do wrong and how do I fix it? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a previous "FailedGA" template on the talk page from the July 2019 review that the bot has picked up instead. This has been known to happen when a GA and FailedGA template are on the same page. The best way to prevent this is to remove the failedGA template and move into an "article history" template (before substituting the GA template, so the bot knows the status). I don't know if there is a way to make the bot retrospectively change the conclusion though - maybe someone else could clarify that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadly this is a known issue, and a reoccurring one. The only solution is a new bot, but that's another thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The GA icon has now been placed, and I can replace the message on the talk page. Anything else that Legobot does? Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It does add it to the recent good articles list but those two are the big ones. We should really create a bugs guide for Legobot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I had one of my nominations, Warcraft (film) reviewed and passed but i don't really know if this should be considered legitimate or not. The reviewer, @P,TO 19104: has only been a user for a day, and the review really didn't go into a lot of detail. Wondering if someone can assess this. Rusted AutoParts 00:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll look at it. Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Kingsif. I was in the process of rolling this review back at the time, and it's now at "2nd opinion": the reviewer has since agreed that they really don't know what they're doing—indeed, they didn't even process the nomination on the article talk page, but added a template to the review page, so it didn't actually "pass". This was one of two reviews opened; I've put the other, Talk:Seikilos epitaph/GA1, at "2nd opinion" as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, that second one is quite a bit away from the criteria in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm working on an article on "creation narratives in Korean shamanism" here, with an eye to GA status.

The issue is that the topic is covered nearly entirely by Korean-language sources. There is a relatively large amount of Korean-language scholarship on Korean creation narratives, including a full-length monograph with extensive discussion with an appendix of all relevant primary sources along with extensive annotation (Kim H. 1994). By contrast, I've searched a fair bit, and virtually the only English-language scholarship directly on the topic appear to be:

• A chapter in the 2018 Princeton University Press anthology Religions of Korea in Practice, which has translations of two primary sources (out of approximately twenty relevant creation narratives) and six pages of discussion essentially summarizing what is treated at length in Korean-language sources. I have partial access to this through Google Books.
• Two papers, one of which I have access to and one which I do not. The one I do have access to ("The Flower Contest between Two Divine Rivals: A Study in Central and East Asian Mythology") does cover important discussion not treated in the Korean sources, largely because the author is Japanese and has a much better appraisal of the relevant Japanese sources. The important discussion that I mention is thus not new information about the actual Korean creation narratives, but a broader cross-cultural outlook. The other one ("The Root of Evil—as explained in Korean shaman songs") I do not have access to, but the root of evil in Korean creation narratives is an extremely well-trodden topic in Korean-language studies.
• Myths of Korea, an academic translation of an unknown number of shaman narratives into English, which I also do not have access to. I'm not sure if this includes any creation narrative, because the author of the Religions of Korea in Practice chapter seems to have had to independently translate the two primary sources he presents, despite the two sources given being the two best-known of the twenty narratives).

So I'm currently planning on using Korean-language sources almost exclusively, since even the Religions chapter is effectively a tertiary source not in the least helpful to anyone with access to the actual Korean-language secondary sources and in some parts openly inaccurate.

Would this be a problem for the verifiability criteria?--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Harrias ^talk 15:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya: It may need someone who can read Korean to review it, but it won't affect its ability to become a GA. Kingsif (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, and hopefully all is well. Though the GA drive hasn't quite ended yet, it's safe to say that it has seen a fair bit of success and I'd like to congratulate all editors involved. The drive and good articles are profiled in this month's issue of The Signpost (here). One of the sections rather briefly talks about ways to revitalize the project, something I'm sure we all have opinions on and I know has been discussed time and time again with little change. Coming off of such a successful drive, I think now is the time to have this discussion again. How can we keep the backlog from becoming too high? How can we ensure the continued quality of good articles?

Here are my thoughts:

1. Harrias suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/April–May 2020#Future drives a sort of rolling drive, which I think is something worth trialing.
2. revive the newsletter on a quarterly basis to keep people up to date with what's going on. I saw somewhere a user asking why they hadn't heard a drive was going on. The newsletter will help coordinate efforts
3. elect coordinators. I know this is something easier said than done, and some people will have a problem with the idea of leadership and becoming too exclusionary, but having seven (or any number) users who are responsible for checking in-- even if just every few weeks-- could be very useful. The guild of copy-editors, a project that has many similarities to this one, has seen great success with coords at managing people and keeping their backlogs down. It's also no coincidence that the military history project has seen continued success and is one of the few projects with coordination.
4. Conduction of broad GA sweeps. While there's not enough energy to review every single good article, reviewers should check articles with long standing, major cleanup tags, put them up for a brief review, and possibly have authority to demote them. See the articles.html cleanup report. Articles like To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants should not be listed as GAs if they have cleanup tags outstanding.
5. A new bot. Not something I can do, and perhaps there's nobody interested in doing it, but we can continue to follow up on efforts like those mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 23#GANBot Replacement.

I don't want to come off as presumptuous as I've not previously been involved in much GA-related discussions. I know that I'm not always right, and my ideas certainly aren't the best, but this is a discussion worth having. If these are the worst ideas you've ever heard, please say that. If you have other ideas please list them. Let's figure out what changes we can agree on to move this project forward and hopefully ensure its success in the future. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a plan needs to be formed on this. I think rolling backlog drives are a great idea, GOCE runs regular backlog drives, and it's really cut down the copy-editing backlog drive over time. I've only been involved with the GAN project for the last five or so months, so my ideas may not carry much weight, but I'm interested in trying to help. Like with Eddie891, a bot is way over my head; my attempts at Java in the past have mostly ended in endless loops. Some sort of sweeps is necessary sigh, and I'm not sure how it'll be done - the project is currently kinda overtaxed at this point. On May 28, the unreviewed nom total was under 220, it's already back over 250. Personally I'd say save the sweeps until after something is found that can get something functional with the GAN backlog - Patch the hole in the bottom of the boat, then clean out the pantry. I'm willing to help try to get this figured out in any way possible. I know QPQ has been brought up in the past, but I don't think that would contribute quality reviews - probably just being rushjobbing reviews to get one done, and it'd be hard to enforce, anyway. Similarly, a cap on the number of nominations wouldn't do a whole lot. A look at the GANR report each day shows that generally, comparatively few noms are in the bucket of in excess of 5 per nominator. Personally, I think the thing that needs done the most is getting the project organized, and then building from there. Hog Farm (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I asked at the Biography Wikiproject to no response, so would anyone here like to chime in on the Personal life section re. Talk:Laura Harrier/GA1? Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have replied on the review page. Harrias ^talk 08:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I started a review template at Talk:Irene Dunne/GA1, but am having second thoughts about doing the review. How can I delete this template without affecting the nomination? Please advise. — Maile (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Just revert the change on the talk page, and set the |page parameter to 2 if you would like to opt out (obviously leave some notes on it). Better not to delete the page. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Maile, Lee Vilenski, since all that's on the review page is an unused review template, I'd like to suggest that Maile delete the review page and set the page parameter in the GA nominee template back to 1. If there had been any commentary or any parts of the review template filled in, that would be one thing, but the review had been open only 19 minutes before Maile posted here. We typically delete mistakenly opened review pages, and this is effectively just that. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The nominator of, and main contributor to, this article (Geography - Places) appears to be a blocked sock. Not sure a nomination could progress in such circumstances. A pity, as it looked rather good. KJP1 (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

KJP1, Anyone who's currently indeffed should have their GAs declined as they cannot respond to changes. (Although if it turns out it was mistaken, noms should be restored without prejudice imo). I've removed the GA nom template. buidhe 06:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This article was nominated for GA and has been reviewed (see comments here), but there has been no response by the nominator since it was put on hold on 13 June 2020. Can anyone help here to avoid the article being failed? if I know someone is willing to pick this up, I'm willing to allow more time for the work to be done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll Have a look over the next couple of days if that's okay with you, Y. ——Serial ^# 08:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I've searched for the answer to this in the archives of this page and in pages relating to WP:COI but I'm not sure yet what the established practice is. I'm the Wikimedian In Residence for the Khalili Collections. In that capacity I've written about the history of kimono, including creating the article Khalili Collection of Kimono and improving other articles. This is part of work for which I've been paid. I'm proud of Khalili Collection of Kimono, think it deserves a higher than B rating and would be happy to get it reviewed by the community. The review process would involve me making changes to the article in response to requests for the reviewer, so it would require me to edit the article directly in non-trivial ways. I hope, and it would seem sensible, that the fact that the edits would be made in response to a neutral reviewers' comments, to bring the article to a high quality, would make these edits okay, although they are edits about an aspect of my employer. Since I couldn't find a precedent for this, I thought best to ask explicitly before proceeding. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• MartinPoulter COI GAs are fine in my opinion because the non-involved reviewer is also evaluating the article for NPOV. We do have articles listed in similar circumstances. (t · c) buidhe 10:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• MartinPoulter, I'd say they're allowed, but I have a COI that COI GAN's should be allowed—😵❗❗❗—given that I have a COI regarding the Nishimura–Watkins feud related sections of 2channel, a current GAN. I never even thought they could be not allowed. By the way, we meet again, any reason you never replied at Talk:Nasser Khalili § Edit request? Best, Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• I think it's ok - it's when the reviewer has a COI we should worry! For belt & braces, you might (after the first review is done) ask a more specialized editor to look it over for this - the Japanese or textiles projects might produce someone. PS love those big galleries! Let me know if anyone gives you grief over them. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Thanks. Big galleries? (Looks at recent changes to the article) Oh, no. As you know I'm against big galleries, so I oppose the recent changes that made the galleries take up a huge amount of space, but we'll see what an uninvolved reviewer says. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

One of my GANs (Talk:2002 Football League First Division play-off Final/GA1) has been picked up by WikiEditor28582573 who has a total of 17 edits. I'm not wholly convinced I'll get the kind of review I'm looking for, but I'm happy to AGF. I think I'll need some assistance to restart the nomination in a couple of days time without it dropping to the bottom of the queue. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If it needs to be restarted The Rambling Man just revert the talk to the revision before Legobot changed it to "on review" and change the page to 2, that'll retain its place in line. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll leave it a couple of days, not wishing to bite the new editor. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. I am reviewing Bat virome with no prior knowledge of the subject. According to the criteria in a good article "all inline citations are from reliable sources". By simply looking through the list I know from experience that the WHO and New York Times are reliable sources. But there is no way I could manually check all the scientific journals are reliable sources as there are so many. Any suggestions? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Chidgk1: see User:Headbomb/unreliable, does the trick pretty well according to lists of predatory journals and WP:RSP. (t · c) buidhe 06:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I used that. So for the benefit of future reviews can it be made more officially part of the good article review or shall I just mention it in the review instructions? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, people. I wanted to know if there is any minimum size restriction in the God Article criteria. I have read what is written and know that stubs cannot be made a good article but what about article which are not stubs but at the same time not as long as most articles as well? (An example would be WDM-2G) Forgive me if this comes out as a normie question but I'm pretty new to the whole thing. (Have mostly done CVU stuff till now). Thanks, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No, this comes up quite a bit, but if it's WP:BROAD enough, it can meet the criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I realise that good articles do not have to completely follow the manual of style, but even checking the sections they do have to follow would be time consuming to do completely by hand. So is there any automated style checker I could run against the article to at least do mechanical checking which does not rely on human judgement? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue that MOS fixes are probably one of the more important parts of a GAN. As there are lots of different things that make up the MOS (with some actually being completely dependent on the situation), a script that fixed everything is incredibly unlikely. However, we do have some individual things that I always look out for, such as MOS:BOLDAVOID, sources being consistent, MOS:DASH, dates being consistent etc. Do you have the review handy, I can take a look at it from a MOS POV. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: My feeling is that in the long run checking the manual of style could be a mix of scripts and human judgement - but I am too lazy to write scripts. Thank you so much - it is Bat virome Chidgk1 (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There's very little MOS issues with that one, but issues with the lede being full of jargon and some tiny subsections. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is time-consuming and you can see from the variety of reviews on good articles how much time reviewers choose to spend on things, although I suppose another factor is that the more reviews you do, hopefully more of the MOS is familiar. It's working for me like that at least, which is great since then it should in turn improve the quality of the articles I am writing. Mujinga (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. The lead I already picked up under readability. But the short subsections I had not noticed. I think short subsections is a good example of where semi-automation could work well. An automated checker could flag the short subsections and the human reviewer could then ask the proposer whether there was some justification for them - for example in this case I could ask whether they are there because new discoveries are expected soon which would expand them. Or perhaps they are there to make sure future editors don't forget about some groups of viruses. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi folks. What the view on paywalled sourced? I'm reviewing Mitsuharu Misawa and I think there is 160 references that are behind a paywall. How does that effect the review? Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Check as many sources as you can, if they all seem good then you can AGF on the rest. If it's a source that might be available to other editors - i.e. location-blocked or has Newspapers.com access - then you can ask someone to help check. Kingsif (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kingsif, but it also feels like a good time to remind people that the Wikipedia Library has changed and many resources are now available simply through OATH now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Good advice. scope_creep^Talk 16:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm of the mind that we should not promote an article if we cannot check the sources. I realize that reviewing for GA is not as strict as FA, but I think WP:V is important. I'd rather an article be turned down than have it promoted if verification is not possible. Quite a few paywalled sources are available through WP:TWL, so I recommend checking that out first. There are editors who have access to some paywalled sources in addition to what's available at TWL. Nikkimaria, Megalibrarygirl, or maybe Guerillero can point us in the right direction. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a requirement, nor should it be, that sources be online, let alone that they be free online. We should use the best sources, not the sources that are the most widely available. I strongly object to requiring the online availability of sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

David, what requirement of online sources, and why object to something that wasn't proposed? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

In the message immediately above mine, written by you, you proposed that "we should not promote an article if we cannot check the sources". I was assuming you were not intending to require GA reviewers to walk into physical libraries, especially in these times, so the only other interpretation is that you think the sources should be required to be online and open and that this be made a requirement of the GA process. If that is not what you meant, what did you mean? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's start with the original question, What [sic] the view on paywalled sourced? Your response appears that you might have focused only on: "I'd rather an article be turned down than have it promoted if verification is not possible." I went on to mention how to access some of the paywalls, mentioned TWL, etc. I simply assumed that everyone already knew what buidhe stated below about confirming the most important content. My thinking is simply that if I or anyone else creates an article and cites all of it to a few books and/or newsclips that are no longer available, how will the GA reviewer know that it isn't OR? Having worked in NPP, I've seen all kinds of tricks to get an article in WP. We certainly don't want to promote an article that is not verifiable (contains copyvios, or OR), even if it is well-written and follows MOS. It's a judgment call but at least make the effort to get past the paywalls as I suggested, and if little to none of the article is verifiable, than how can you confirm there are no copyvios or OR? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:Reviewing good articles already states, "If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means. Reviewers can confirm information from sources they cannot access at the resource exchange or request translations at Wikipedia:Translation." This seems reasonable to me. (t · c) buidhe 04:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: I was pinged here by Atsme. In general I agree with buidhe, but I think there are a number of questions that you need to ask before you proceed. Wrestling Observer Newsletter appears to be a Self-Published Source by Dave Meltzer. I am unsure if it is reliable in the first place. The article also uses a GeoCities website as a source (Horie 2000). Cagematch.net, purolove, and wrestlingscout are all questionable. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Guerillero: why are you pinging me? I have no idea what these sources are. Kingsif (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• • @Scope creep: Wrong ping, I'm sorry --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: send me requests for items you can't access and I'll do my best to find them. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

For what its worth, Dave Meltzer has been reliable source for a very long time. Cagematch is for match results only. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Only 40% are behind the paywall and unfortunately in Japan wrestling isn't seen as premier sport really, not on the same level as more traditional sports e.g. Sumo. So there is not a large number of folk commenting on it, writing books, newspapers/journals/e-papers or sports pages. I did a 4hour search one night, trying to flesh out the details of the man's life, but no luck. I suspect the paywall sources are supporting the whole arc of the article structure, while the remaining sources are match details and so on, that provide locations and times. scope_creep^Talk 21:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll check those source Cagematch.net and so on. scope_creep^Talk 21:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Would it be normal to reduce the size of article during review?
2. Would it be normal for the notes section to be referenced?

The article is Mitsuharu Misawa. It is 220k, which is quite substantial for biographical article. scope_creep^Talk 09:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the notes section should be reduced. It currently violates the focus criterion. Notes should always be referenced per WP:V. (t · c) buidhe 09:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  If, as the reviewer, you feel the length means that it does not meet the Good article criteria, then it is perfectly acceptable to ask for it to be shortened. This would most likely because the reviewer felt that it fails 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." But it can also relate to 1a, which says "the prose is clear, concise. Harrias ^talk 09:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks folks. I never knew notes had to be ref'd. I will need to have a look at 3b and 1a again. I thought the notes were particularly long, massive really. scope_creep^Talk 11:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Scope creep: All content in an article must be verifiable by citation to a reliable source. There is a notional exception for stuff that is self-evident, but in practice almost anything can be challenged and thus ends up needing a cite anyway (you just don't have to cite that stuff until someone challenges it). And there's an exception for the lead, because it just summarises the article's body, which should already be cited. In my experience, footnotes like these are the most likely to need citations due to the kind of stuff one typically puts in such footnotes.

  But I don't think the notes section in that article, as it currently stands, is particularly excessive. The problem is rather that the article itself is pretty massive and should be spun out into sub-articles, which will take care of the notes section as a side-effect. --Xover (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  A lot of the notes are quite intricate detail and your would expect that detail to be referenced. I intend to address it immediately. scope_creep^Talk 12:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Coming from another angle, WP:TOOBIG suggests a page above 100kb "almost certainly should be divided". I don't know if it's necessarily normal to reduce article size during a review, but I find it hard to believe an article about a wrestler needs to be over 200kb. As a first step the Championships_and_accomplishments section could easily be made into a separate list. (Also agree that notes should be referenced) .Mujinga (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Correction: WP:Article size refers to readable prose, the article only has 68kb readable prose. However, notes (which are not part of readable prose) should be pruned if they violate focus or are insufficiently relevant. (t · c) buidhe 13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• That's a good point sorry for the confusion, and it's now at 66kb, nice to see it getting pruned! Mujinga (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• It seems to be shrinking somewhat, that @TarkovskyFanX957: accomplished but I have a plan to shrink it a bit more. scope_creep^Talk 21:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Qibla/GA1 was done by a currently blocked sock puppet. While being a sock puppet does not necessarily mean an inability to do a proper review, it does cast doubts. What strikes me most: the whole review took just over an hour. Bit short, isn't it? --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• The article is currently at FAC. If it's deficient, the issues are more likely to be discovered there than in a GA review. (t · c) buidhe 08:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The same reviewer also passed Talk:Baji Rao I/GA1. (They did another GA review, but failed it; if the nominator is unhappy with the result, they can always renominate.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point, let's see what comes out of the FAC. The Baji Rao I GAN seems a bit better, or at least more thought went into it, but I can't say I am entirely happy without the usual systematic addressing of the GA criteria. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

After a discussion with myself, Username6892 has opened a community reassessment for Chester station (Toronto), so feedback is welcome! Kingsif (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the last discussion fizzled out with little comment, but I think this is something that really needs discussed. The last backlog drive was very successful, but the number of unreviewed (and total) nominations just keeps rising. A-drive-whenever-there-gets-to-be-so-many-noms-the-page-breaks makes a decent stopgap solution, but something more permanent needs to be done. For one thing, the Good Articles WikiProject has very ad hoc leadership, so electing a handful of coordinators may be something work looking into (although it's not guaranteed to help with anything from an organizational perspective). I've seen several suggestions bandied around in the past, so I'll list the ones I can remember:

1: Rolling drives. Three of four one-month drives a year with a push on reviewing. The last drive seemed to peter out after one month, so one month is probably an ideal drive length. However, that drive was also done during the midst of the COVID lockdown, meaning editors had way more time to spend on the site. There was also the issue that during drives, a lot of the progress is driven by a handful of users. The Rambling Man had triple digit reviews, and me and several others had over 70 in the last drive. Honestly, I don't think a handful of users cranking out 70+ reviews in a short period of time is something we can count on.

2: A cap on how many nominations a user can have active at one time. Points were made that this has drawbacks, such as some nominations sitting for months without being reviewed. It isn't really fair to a user for them to have to wait for months to nominate an article they've worked up to status because nobody is picking up reviews for earlier articles. At times, the effect of this would also be limited, as prolific nominators also see their articles more likely to be reviewed sooner.

3: Some form of QPQ requirement. Honestly, my fear with this is that there's going to be an uptake in low-quality reviews, as people game the system to get a QPQ in. I've seen similar things happen with DYK QPQs, although it's not as widespread as it could be.

4: Enhanced quick-fail allowances. Make it easier to quick-fail articles. I don't really like this one, although maybe it's because I rarely quick-fail articles, unless it's a bad faith nomination. Quick failing often doesn't lead to greatly improved content, just frustrated new-ish users.

All of the suggestions I can think of have some amount of drawbacks. However, something needs to be done. Letting the backlog grow to unbearable numbers and then trying to fix it isn't going to work well in the long-term. There's always going to be a backlog, probably a substantial one at this page, but the best way to keep if from getting overwhelming is to try to find a solution that will do something to keep things at reasonable levels. Any ideas? Hog Farm _Bacon 03:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the reasons that we've just popped over 400 unreviewed is that Doug Coldwell added 10 new GANs on July 20, which gives him a total of 52 outstanding, or over 10% of all current GA nominations. I'm not sure whether it says something about the number of GA reviewers around or the concentrated editing that leads to so many being ready at the same time, but something's clearly out of whack here. (I figured we'd be at 400 unreviewed by early August, not this soon.) I'm still against QPQ requirements in general at GAN, given the knowledge and quality required, but assuming these bulk-nominated articles don't require much fixing when reviewing, perhaps there should be review requirements for people who bring so much material to the GAN table. (And if they are articles with significant problems, perhaps we should be discouraging unready articles by other means.) I thought there was agreement that drives should be attempted more frequently than once a year—wasn't there talk of a drive in September or October? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I just took a look at one of Coldwell's nominations (after a more superficial look at some others) and was quite unimpressed: see Talk:Red Cross stove/GA1. (I should perhaps note that these problems were mostly there before Coldwell started working on the article, but he certainly didn't notice and fix them before making the nomination.) Maybe more of these can be quick-failed. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Point two here has always been a huge issue for me, as I don't think it gains anything - and actually hurts the encyclopedia. It does tend to be certain editors who have lots of nominations, true - but quite a few of us review more articles than we nominate (I'm about 1.5x at the moment). Saying people can only have X number of active noms just means prolific nominators just have their own backlog. I do think if we can get the bot (above) working to tally people's nominations, we could put that information into the search.

This is a natural push for people to get more reviews done if we suggest to users that those with high review/nominations are worth reviewing quicker. It doesn't stop anyone nominating anything, it doesn't stop users from having any article reviewed, and if someone has little to no nominations, this doesn't hurt them (in fact it displays that they are new to the system).

Right now all you can tell is how many reviews an editor has done, which is only half the story. Whilst I get "400 is a large backlog" is an argument, it's only a number. If we take that, and promote users to make reviews (and perhaps mentor those that put through some poor ones) we'll be better off in the long term.

That being said, a bi-yearly backlog drive seems to work really well, and hope people agree that it could be done in September/October to success? That would co-incide with the wikicup and not be too close to Christmas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing most of the reviews carried out during the last drive, I also think that there is an element of standards creep: I'm certainly guilty of it. There are a lot of reviews that end up longer than necessary because people are reviewing articles more or less against the FA standards, rather than GA standards. While this is great for those people taking articles onto GA, it also uses a lot more of a reviewer's time. That said, encouraging people to be less thorough in their reviewing seems pretty counter-intuitive. Harrias ^talk 09:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles may go through WP:Peer Review or WikiProject internal peer reviews such as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review before being nominated here. In this case, ideally someone "fresh" would pick up the review here at GAN so that the article gets checked by as many people as possible. However, the pool of "fresh" reviewers that haven't had their say already at the Peer Review may be depleted; especially if the article is about a niche topic, it might have to wait in the "Nominations" page for quite a while. So here comes my question: If I did a review at Peer Review for an article, am I encouraged to pick up the review for the same article here at GAN as well? Or should I wait for two weeks to see if someone else is interested before picking it up? Or should I just stay away from it? Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Jens Lallensack: If you're willing to review and feel confident in evaluating the article agains the GA criteria, I don't see any reason to wait. (t · c) buidhe 14:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I recently tagged the article on John Major for GA review under World history, but it isn't appearing on the list on this page. Is there something else I need to do other than tag the article as GA-review on its Talk page?? WisDom-UK (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The bot takes some time to post the nominations. It's already here. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 14:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

ok, thanks.WisDom-UK (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've found a good article. It doesn't have an individual focused editor. I have not edited this article, and I am not knowledgeable enough about the article to discuss it in depth and do research, as the instructions here require of a nominator of good articles. And yet it is a good article that I am sure people would like to see promoted to featured article. The article is called Edmonia Lewis. I understand there is a major backlog at GA, but I am sure people want to see this kind of article fast tracked at present, the biography of a female, African American, Native American, fine artist, from the turn of the 20th century... full of lovely pictures, a significant text about the ladies life with some discussions of her notable works, a famous person from modern antiquity. It's a quietly good article of some genres Wikipedia is seeking to increase promotion. I'm not qualified to nominate it. It seems there was interest in nominating it long ago but that has not come to pass. I do not know how this article came to be on my watchlist. I think it was from being a Google Doodle in 2017, when it got almost a million extra views over the course of two days. Please send this article on its way to featured article: Edmonia Lewis, thank you o/ (apologies for all the text, I am practising talking to myself) ~ R.T.G 20:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused - are you looking for someone to pick up the article to nominate for GA? This one will need a little bit of work to pass if a nomination was made. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't want to take on the article yourself, maybe you could raise the topic at a relevant WikiProject. Someone might be willing to pick up the article and give it a little push towards GA status. I don't think you're going to get very far here, though; this is a talk page for co-ordinating GAC-related activities rather than pushing articles towards GA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@RTG: although you got a cold response here, there is actually a different forum where this would be extremely on-topic: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green, a project devoted to bringing biographies of women up to Good Article status. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: no that's fine, I'll bring it to that project, thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 07:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I've quick-failed Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes/GA1 due to instability without reviewing the content, the article is just unstable from day-to-day, since it's a controversial ongoing event. Are there any objections to doing this? I personally don't like quick-fails, so doing this seems pretty radical to me. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Current events are definitely not suitable for GA for the reasons you mention. I would have definitely quick failed it myself. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• What Buidhe said. I was going to quick fail myself but didn’t get around to it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Indeed as above. Fine to be nominated again when it's clear it's unlikely for further updates in the near future - not that it won't possibly update mind. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Should the albums sub-section of this topic list have the info that EPs are included added to its current overview: "This includes record albums, soundtracks, and video albums."? I say yes, since EPs are often submitted under the albums subtopic. --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious, is there a List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles, similar to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits? I'd love to know which editors have promoted the most articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't have the numbers, it's not something that has ever been recorded. Harrias ^talk 15:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What would the algorithm be for determining that? I suppose one would start with a walkthrough of Category:Good articles and then examine the authorship attribution, measured by character count, excluding spaces for each. Would there need to be a minimum percentage authorship to qualify as "the author" or "an author" of the article? wbm1058 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you go by who nominated the article at GAN?? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Something that could pick up the substitution of GAN would be a start. Even if it could give a raw list of articles nominated by user. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So each member of Category:Good articles should transclude {{Article history}} on its talk page. A bot could examine the parameters of that template (and flag the talk pages where it was missing) and find the parameter (e.g. |action1result=) whose value was "listed" then look at the discussion link connected with that (e.g. |action1link=) and see what user started that discussion page. Would that work? wbm1058 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Was {{Article history}} added by bot in the past? I don't see it on the talk page of my most recent passed nom or the one I've reviewed most recently. Picking a couple more recent GAs out of a hat (1 and 2) they don't have that template either. Were folks adding it manually in the past? If that's desired, we could add it to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions... Ajpolino (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at one random example, I see that it was added by a human, though GA bot was around on the scene doing something. It would be interesting to run a bot to calculate what percentage of good articles have that on their talk and what percentage don't. Actually I might be able to add code to a template to do just that in real time by categorizing them. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 and The Rambling Man: I'd go by nominator plus the editor with the highest percentage according to XTools Authorship. This will prevent false positives where someone other than the author nominated. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why. This list would be analogous to WP:WBFAN or WP:WBFLN (i.e. WP:WBGAN) i.e. by those who nominated. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: No, what I mean is, you only count it as a GA by that editor if they both nominated it and wrote most of the bytes on the page according to XTools Authorship. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

But is that how the lists at WP:WBFAN and WP:WBFLN are generated? I don't think so. So this list shouldn't be any different. By all means create another list and compare them perhaps, noting where the most significant author wasn't the nominator, but what I was after (and have been for years) is WP:WBGAN. Not WP:WBGANAEWMC. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: If it's not, it's how they should be. That might cause a mini revolt, though, as it will only ever take away WBFAN's, so people's numbers, if they change, will only go down. Of course, once you already have a "WP:WBGANAEWMC"^{(no idea what this is supposed to stand for!)}, it's simple to make a normative^{(if you're right!)} WP:WBGAN, since one is needed to create the other! ➰➰ Looping in Lee Vilenski. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward, the clue is in the name "Wikipedians by Featured Article nominations". Nothing is said of "and with most editor contributions". Start with the nominations list and if someone feels they've missed out on a co-nomination, address that using some other method (after all, numbers will not go down, there will be simply more names on the list, post-dated co-noms for "highest authorship" if you like). We need to start somewhere, and using the nomination as the basis is perfectly apt. Then roll in corner cases once an agreement on how to do it is reached. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would we care about the highest authorship? Simply having a huge number of edits, or most bytes added doesn't mean that the content is any good! The idea that an FA/GA is not for those who actually cleaned up/nominated the article but rather for the person who wrote those bytes is rather shortsighted. Any list like this would be selfserving by design, but is that a bad thing? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: 🤔 Perhaps a better name for my idea would be "Wikipedians by Good Article self-nominations"—WP:WBGASN—rather than "WP:WBGANWTCMB" or whatever "WP:WBGANAEWMC" is supposed to stand for. However, it's pretty obvious only I like the XTools idea, so I'll take my ball and go home, I have an encyclopedia to write! 🤓 Good luck on the project Lee Vilenski, I don't oppose your way, just thought mine was better. If consensus is it's not, it's not, I accept it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 16:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Lee's suggestion is the most foolproof, whenever a {{subst:GAN|subtopic=blah}} was added to an article talk page, it can be safely assumed that was the nominator. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

{{subst:GAN}} leaves behind a transclusion of {{GA nominee}} from which |nominator= can be parsed. So in my random example AustralianRupert gets credit for that one. So the algorithm is to search the talk page history for the most recent version with {{GA nominee}} and credit the editor specified in |nominator=? In this example, the nominator would be parsed from the edit of 22:41, 30 March 2012 which was the edit before the edit that removed {{GA nominee}} (and replaced it with {{ArticleHistory}}). – wbm1058 (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

But then we need to know if the nomination passed or failed. It's not just about nominations, it's about how many passed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If we started from a list generated from Category:Good articles, then we would know they passed. Harrias ^talk 12:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I LIKE IT. So start with Category:Good articles, then search talk page edit history for last instance of the {{GAN}} subst, and the editor in question notches one up. Someone must be able to do this? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I can do it, but allow me some time. I have a number of tasks on my to-do list. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, my suggestion would only show up nominations, but from there, we should be able to cross-reference and see which articles passed. However, then we'd also have to accommodate articles with multiple nominations. This does have the upside of having a hard number for user's nominations, which is a good metric to see how many nominations/reviews a user has. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There will probably be exceptions that need to be handled. Once the basic report is generated, someone will probably find errors in it that can then be fixed by code tweaks. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

One point: some nominators do not use {{GAN}} as instructed, but copy a {{GA nominee}} template from somewhere and adjust it, not always perfectly, for their own nomination. It happens often enough that a check for the latter template (which results from the former) might be useful if GAN doesn't turn up anything, or if there isn't a good way of finding GAN substing. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Status update

Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, which I don't recall seeing before. That's updated by Rick Bot per this April 2007 BRFA. That list is automatically generated from by-year summary lists, for example Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2024, which in turn is created by the same bot. The by-year summary lists are in turn derived from monthly lists such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2020 which are created by humans (shout-out to Ealdgyth and Ian Rose – thank you for your helpful behind-the-curtain work!). The monthly lists simply are lists of transclusions of individual nominations, e.g. {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor/archive1}}.

Having recently worked at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I've seen that there are similar lists of transcluded reassessment nominations, the most recent is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 65. But I'm not so familiar with how the Wikipedia:Good article nominations process works so I suppose an analysis of that is in order here.

Noting that Rick Bot first gets the list of all articles which were accepted as featured articles and then cross-checks that against Category:Featured articles (or Wikipedia:Featured articles) and Category:Wikipedia former featured articles (or Wikipedia:Former featured articles). Thus the bot is able to show the former featured articles on its list (indicated by the hollowed-out star ☆). If I start from a list generated from Category:Good articles I won't be able to show the former good articles on the list. Thus maybe a more appropriate title would be Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by currently-accepted good article nominations.

I hear Psiĥedelisto's desire to include XTools Authorship in the analysis. For my initial implementation I won't be doing that. Besides not seeing a consensus for that I think this is also more difficult if there is no API for me to easily get that data from XTools, and the reliability of XTools in determining "authorship" may be questionable in some cases. What if it doesn't recognize cut-paste moves? Is it intelligent enough to recognize when content has been merged so as to credit the original authors rather than the editor performing the merge by copying the original authors' work while giving attribution to them in an edit summary and/or talk-page template?

This has bubbled up my to-do list so I should be focusing more on this task soon. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There’s Category:Delisted good articles which might be a good starting place for former ga’s. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

wbm1058 good news, thanks for the update. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a User:GA bot/Stats page that ranks GA reviewers by number of reviews they've done. I just read the Signpost WikiProject report Revitalizing good articles (which somehow I overlooked when it came out just over a month ago) and hereby declare that a GA. I see a quote that links to that stats page: "The main problem with GAN is that reviewing is highly concentrated among a small number of users, while nominating is much more broad-based". I see that Legobot took over the task of maintaining that list in September 2013. WP:List of Wikipedians by good article reviews, WP:Wikipedians by GA Reviews and WP:WBGAR all link to the bot's stats page, as does {{User Good Articles reviewed}}. I suppose if GA bot/Legobot maintained a corresponding list of nominators y'all wouldn't be asking for one here. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles was an effort to combine nominators and reviewers into a single table, but that was manually updated and not so well maintained, hence Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 155#Number of GA reviews reports issues with the accuracy of Legobot's stats.

Looking at the GA process, HERE I see Legobot removing a nomination as "passed", though it appears to me that it was placed "on hold". Looking at the review page for that, Talk:Break My Heart (Dua Lipa song)/GA1 doesn't appear to be transcluded in any Good article archive (what-links-here), though Article alerts is on the case. So there doesn't appear to be a way to get this from archives (monthly lists) the way the featured-articles bot does. (Yes I've seen the two appeals for an operator to take over Legobot Task 33 in the archives. I'm fine with taking over the PHP code; my issue is with the SQL database. I've had plenty of experience working with databases on mainframes back in the day, but I'm rusty. I don't think it worth my time to get back up to speed with that. I question why an off-wiki database is needed when the wiki is itself a big database. My inclination would be to replace the SQL stuff with having the bot store whatever data it needed on pages in its own userspace. Then others could see what was going on there which could be helpful in working out any processing kinks.) Talk:Break My Heart (Dua Lipa song)/GA1 was created by the reviewer, not the nominator. It's easy enough from looking at that to see who the reviewer is, but the nominator not so much. From looking at the page history, I can guess who the nominator was (actually that one's easy to guess) but I see the need for trawling through the talk page edits to be sure.

So I will proceed with the algorithm we came up with in mid-June, for the initial development. If that goes well, I'll consider adding a walk through Category:Delisted good articles as a possible enhancement that could either be added to the listed-articles list or used to make a second list. And if the processing turns out to be too intense to keep repeating every time the bot runs to update its report, my inclination would be for the bot to store a table of nominations in its userspace or on a project page to avoid the need to keep searching the talk history again and again to find them. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nuts and bolts

I've made good progress coding this up. My initial trial run through the first 250 Good Article talk pages found the {{GA nominee}} template in the page histories of all but six of them. There are at least three different problems causing these not to be found; I am just reporting one of them now. Template:GAC used to redirect to Template:GA nominee (presumably as an acronym for Good Article Candidate) before it was usurped to make a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC on 29 June 2008. A number of nominations may have transcluded this template during the 1 year, 11 months between its 19 July 2006‎ creation and the 29 June 2008 retargeting. For example, {{GAC}} was used on Talk:22 Short Films About Springfield at 22:00, 19 October 2007. I can make my bot recognize this alias, but to mitigate potential confusion I intend to undo that usurpation that made the cross-namespace redirect. Alas this new usage was put in a template that was substituted many times so it will take about 1800 edits to bypass that redirect to {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC}}. I've got AutoWikiBrowser set up to make these edits (see example test edit), but will wait a bit for any response here. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable plan to me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 5 § Suggested recommended template name change – wbm1058 (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not change {{GA nominee}} officially to its alternative, {{GAC}}, to match {{fac}} Wouldn't even need to move Template:GA nominee, as there's already a redirect. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Homestarmy 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My script now treats Template:GAnominee, Template:GAC and Template:GAN as aliases of {{GA nominee}}. I found a few cases where editors failed to {{subst:GAN}} (e.g. 20 March 2008 edit, 28 March 2008 edit and 13 May 2008 edit). These all predate this move:

• At 12:31, 24 May 2008‎ Geometry guy moved Template:GAN to Template:GA Nominee: Make space for a new GAN template which is substituted, not transcluded

My test run through the first 1,000 Good Article talk pages found one case where the talk history had been moved to an archive page. After I merged Talk:1+1 (song)/Archive 1 back into Talk:1+1 (song) (revisions up to 14:57, 20 April 2012) the script was able to find the nominator for that article. Hopefully if there aren't too many other talk archives like this, they can all be manually merged back in similar fashion to help the script find the nomination.

After making these adjustments the script found the GA nominee for all but three of the first 1,000 processed Good Article talk pages. These three date to the earliest days of the GA process, and give some interesting insight into its evolution. Looking at them in order, the first is Great Comet of 1882 which is one of the small set of founding Good Articles. Wikipedia:Good articles was created at 13:23, 11 October 2005 by Worldtraveller, who last contributed on 3 March 2007. Their edit summary: created page, listed a few example articles that I think are good but nowhere near FA. Their original instructions:

What makes a good article?

A good article will share many characteristics with featured articles, and like featured content it should be well written, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. It should definitely be referenced, and wherever possible it should contain images to illustrate it. Good articles may not be as comprehensive as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.

How to list an article on 'good articles'

The process by which articles are designated as 'good' should be much simpler and quicker than that by which articles become featured. List candidate articles on Wikipedia:Good article candidates, where they will be reviewed, and if no-one raises any objections within 24 hours, they may be listed here. If you see an article listed here that you think is not good, you might consider being bold and removing it, leaving a note on its talk page to indicate why you think it is not good.

And, with that 11 October 2005 edit which gave birth to Good Articles Worldtraveller de facto nominated Great Comet of 1882 to be a founding Good Article. At 18:02, 23 October 2005 Slambo placed the {{GA}} template on Talk:Great Comet of 1882, as the de facto reviewer. At 07:36, 2 February 2008 GimmeBot placed {{ArticleHistory}} on Talk:Great Comet of 1882, declaring September 26, 2005 as the listing date as that was the current version on 23 October 2005. Cool, smart bot! Category:Good articles wasn't created until 29 May 2010. Spider was the first article to be nominated by another editor, hours after Good Articles was created. Perhaps after noticing that their instructions to list candidate articles on Wikipedia:Good article candidates hadn't been followed, Worldtraveller quickly changed the instructions (let's make it really simple): "Simply add any articles here that match the criteria." An edit at 10:53, 24 October 2005 gave shape to the GA criteria (bulleted list so it's easier for readers to see what's required). An edit on 30 October 2005 added the text "It is probably best to avoid self-nominating articles as this can introduce bias."

The second of the three where the script didn't find the GA nominee is 1997 Pacific hurricane season. This was nominated at 20:19, 12 December 2005.

An edit at 04:53, 24 December 2005 added an "experimental self-nomination system": Wikipedia:Good articles/Self-nominations (now Wikipedia:Good article nominations) was created at 04:52, 24 December 2005.

The third of the three where the script didn't find the GA nominee is A215 road. This was nominated at 13:58, 30 May 2007.

Overall not bad that the bot is not finding nominators for just 0.3% of the first 1,000 Good Articles (3/1000). For now I'll focus on reporting the nominators that have been found while grouping the others into a "nominator undetermined" bucket. Might enhance the script to better handle the older cases later. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice work, and a very interesting look back at the history of the GA process too! Harrias ^talk 20:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I had totally forgotten about that article that I apparently reviewed 15 years ago. If it was nominated today, there are a few things that I would suggest improving, such as the length of the lead section and number and breadth of citations. Slambo (Speak) 00:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Really great work you're doing, wbm1058! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Per a {{policy-change-warning}} (that template was created on 11 March 2006):

There was recently a change in policy or guideline on this page. If you were originally familiar with the policy, guideline, or process described on this page, you may want to re-read it or look at the talk page so you are up to date.

Template:GAnominee was created at 15:53, 19 March 2006 and this 15:55, 19 March 2006 edit added the instruction to Add {{GAcandidate}} to the nominated article's talk page. in addition to List it below under "Nominations" using "{{article|NAME OF ARTICLE}}". Sign your nomination using four tildes (~~~~). When the instructions were split to the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines subpage at 17:14, 30 September 2007 they still instructed to list the article at the bottom of the relevant section of Wikipedia:Good article nominations, until this 18:06, 18 September 2010 edit removed the need for manually listing there as a bot was implemented to do that.

For the few cases where my bot isn't finding {{GA nominee}} in the article's talk history, I can have it look back through the Wikipedia:Good article nominations edit history from the 17:52, 18 September 2010 TRANSITION TO BOT FORMAT when {{GANentry}} replaced {{la}}. This should find a few where an editor posted a nomination to WP:Good article nominations but neglected to post {{GA nominee}} to the article's talk, and also nominations that predated the creation of {{GA nominee}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wbm1058 how are you getting on? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

After a couple of program crashes caused by dropped connections or timeouts, I finally have made a successful pass through the entire Category:Good articles. This is perhaps my first "big data" project; I needed to bump up the program's memory allocation to 1536M (1.5 GB) – all of my previous bots ran with just 128MB. It took 11 1⁄2 hours to finish. See #List of Wikipedians by currently-accepted good article nominations. wbm1058 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Self-promotions

"it's not self-noms that we're discouraging, it's self-promotions" – Slambo, 20:37, 1 March 2006

I'm continuing to work on "data-cleaning" including doing history-merges that help my bot find the nominations. The bot couldn't find any nomination in the page history of Talk:Fraser Kershaw and this edit by Chapter35 (whose contributions imply a possible COI) explains why. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and boldly de-listed that article from GA, given that it never underwent a GA review at all (much less by an uninvolved editor), The other major contributor to the page, Cyberclean101, has a similar coi. Might be worth tagging for undisclosed COI as well. I'd be curious to see if there are any other instances of this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've yet to find any others exactly like that one. COI editors with that level of knowledge are rare, the more typical scenario I've seen is a GA declaration before any content was even written. Another one-off scenario found at Talk:Gerry McNamara where I found the 2 September 2007 listing, but the non-nomination nomination was on the reviewer's talk page. At some point there are diminishing returns to coding the bot to find these – I've started to hard-code a list to tell the bot where the "hard-to-find" nominations are, e.g. Bridge near Limyra was nominated here, but that was hard to find because it was nominated under the title Limyra Bridge. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• It doesn't have to be perfect. 90% accuracy would be more than good enough for me! (t · c) buidhe 13:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by currently-accepted good article nominations

4,431 editors have nominated at least one Good Article. As of yesterday, when this report was generated, there are 32,118 Good Articles. The program found nominators for 32,008 of them (99.7%). The 110 articles for which the nominator wasn't found generally date to 2007 and earlier. Here are the top forty:

  1  Sturmvogel 66 => 731
  2  Parsecboy => 593
  3  TonyTheTiger => 335
  4  Hurricanehink => 296
  5  Gen. Quon => 272
  6  MWright96 => 258
  7  Chiswick Chap => 247
  8  Hawkeye7 => 247
  9  Mitchazenia => 232
 10  Miyagawa => 217
 11  Sasata => 216
 12  ChrisGualtieri => 206
 13  Imzadi1979 => 193
 14  Arsenikk => 191
 15  The Rambling Man => 186
 16  Cplakidas => 185
 17  Dough4872 => 182
 18  Magicpiano => 175
 19  Epicgenius => 174
 20  SounderBruce => 173
 21  12george1 => 171
 22  Courcelles => 154
 23  Hunter Kahn => 152
 24  Cyclonebiskit => 150
 25  Encyclopædius => 138
 26  Yellow Evan => 137
 27  Carbrera => 136
 28  Ritchie333 => 131
 29  Cartoon network freak => 130
 30  ThinkBlue => 128
 31  Grapple X => 126
 32  Bellhalla => 125
 33  Rodw => 124
 34  Ruby2010 => 123
 35  Hchc2009 => 120
 36  Jackyd101 => 120
 37  ProtoDrake => 116
 38  Another Believer => 112
 39  Ealdgyth => 111
 40  Ed! => 111

I'm thinking it would be good to create a subpage for each editor to list each of their nominations. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I keep a log of my GAs here, except it's 141 not 131 - the main purpose of the page is to show the wider community what I'm really interested in writing and what articles they might expect me to look over if they change or improve them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find the difference. wbm1058 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I also have a running log, done slightly differently, here. It transcludes to a userpage with a list of my major contributions, for the same purpose. Kingsif (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

245 Kingsif => 27 — my list has you ranked #245 and matches the count of on your subpage. wbm1058 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I list mine on my userpage User:Lee Vilenski, but I may have to change to a subpage if it gets more unwealdy! I've love for there to be a full list that was updated similar to WP:WBFAN! I'd assume I'm in the 100-200 list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

97 Lee Vilenski => 55 ... 64 - 8 = 56 ... off by 1, maybe I can find the missing one. you are tied for #97.

The Featured Articles list is 320,753 bytes and with there being so many more Good Articles, trying to match that on a single page would overload readers' browsers. wbm1058 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I did do a joint nom or two, probably me claiming for something when I didn't actually nominate it. We do have separate lists for the Wikipedians by edit count (1-5000 and 5001-10000) so maybe something similar? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No, you're good. I found an issue with the way the bot processed Talk:Snooker. The bot credited User:Nergaal because they were the first to nominate that, back in 2009 but that nomination failed. And I failed to account for failed noms follwed later by successful ones. I'll patch the code and rerun it to produce a new list. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: OK, now my bot credits you for Snooker, but it credits you for 60 articles (5 more than the last run). It also credits you for Dolphin (emulator), which isn't on your list. Is that one you missed, or is there something I'm missing? Bot also credits for Fostoria Glass Company, whereas on the first run it correctly credited TwoScars, which is a problem. Maybe I can fix that by checking edit summaries for "Revert", but my algorithm is getting more complicated. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is awesome. I was hoping to get something like this up years ago, but was told it was too difficult. Well done. It is interesting comparing this list to User:GA bot/Stats. Explains why we continually have issues with such a large backlog. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is awesome. Thanks Wbm1058. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't follow Aircorn? According to User:GA bot/Stats: the 40th most prolific reviewer has done 193 reviews, while the 40th most prolific nominator has nominated 111 articles. Following that logic, we would actually have a surplus of reviews carried out. Harrias ^talk 07:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I think the point is that not all of those in the list have such a good ratio. It bares repeating to me, if we can automate this similarly to the reviews, we could publish a ratio of reviews to noms , which would show quite a bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Yeah it has been a bugbear of mine for a while. When someone has over 100 good articles and hasn't reviewed any or very few in return it is not ideal. AIRcorn (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The GAN template lists a single nomination. If it's a co-nom, how do the bots handle the 2nd nominator as far as crediting both users for promoting it to GA (provided it passes the review}? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Atsme, use code along the lines of |note= USER is a co-nominator to note a co-nom. See the formatting added here and here for currently open examples. There has been discussion about adding support for a co-nominator dating back to at least 2014. The template does not otherwise support a second nominator, and AFAIK the bot does not recognize it, but both users obviously can take credit. A reviewer should manually use {{GANotice}} to notify the noted co-nom about their nomination. Hopefully that makes sense Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Eddie! That did the trick. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

When you use the start review tab to create the framework of the review (basically the pre-loaded part), the section two heading is titled GA Review, which is not compliant with MOS:HEADING. See Talk:Japanese destroyer Shii/GA1 for an example. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the preloaded header produces a MOS error that at a number of reviewers would comment on in a GA review? Hog Farm _Bacon 01:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, MOS:HEADING doesn't apply to talk pages as far as I'm aware. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello all. There are currently at least five open GANs that were nominated by (indefinitely) blocked users. CommanderWaterford has Wolfgang Diewerge, Kailash Satyarthi, and Cemetery of San Fernando, and ZarhanFastfire nominated Clifford Wiens, Daniel Cockburn, Donald Shebib, and You Are Here (2010 film). The most concerning fact is that ZFF is currently blocked for copyright violations. Suggestions on how to proceed? None of the articles appear to be quick-fails at a glance, but none are clearly up to our standards either. I'd propose leaving a note at relevant wikiprojects to see if anyone is willing to take on the nomination and if not, failing the nominations. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, I think nominations by indef blocked users should be added to the quick fail criteria, as they can't respond to changes. (t · c) buidhe 22:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, buidhe, I have taken the liberty of reverting/removing all of these GA nominations, with an edit summary saying that the nominators have been indefinitely blocked (and in the latter case, due to copyvios). It seemed best to me to do so right away, so that no one picks up the reviews only to discover that there's no one at the far end. After all, we have over 440 other nominations waiting for a reviewer. The other advantage to this approach is that if the nominators are unblocked in the near future, they can restore the nominations and things can proceed normally. I don't agree that an indefinite block should mean a quick fail, since such blocks can be resolved in hours or a couple of days and the editor back in action very quickly indeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if this needs a second opinion. The reviewer has relatively few edits in total, and passed the 1 Wall Street article as a GA immediately after leaving comments and making one edit to the article themselves. That in itself is not too concerning, though I would've expected that a few issues might have been brought up in an article of this size. What does concern me a bit is that the review doesn't explicitly mention the criteria, although the review seems to touch on everything in the GA criteria. I would appreciate any feedback on whether this review is all right. epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Epicgenius, you could accept and request a WP:GAR. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, I could do that. However, my goal is not to determine whether the article should be delisted, just to confirm that the review is fine and there aren't any major errors in the article that would've quick-failed it. As the GA nominator for the 1 Wall Street article, I just want to ensure that everything's fine with this review. epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Epicgenius, I don't know that it's actually a clearly poor review, the reviewer lays out how they feel it meets the criteria pretty clearly. The main thing that gives me pause is the large majority of the citations originate from reputable sources, we'd expect all of the sources to be from reputable sources. Without giving a thorough read-through, I'd also imagine that there are small things within the article to fix. The editor seems to be a good-faith reviewer, so maybe just asking for a second opinion would help? they did seem to pretty substantially edit the lede, though I'm not convinced all the changes improved readability. I'd be happy to give a more detailed review, either informally on the talk page of the article or more formally through a GA process. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Eddie891, I see. It might be time-consuming to do a formal re-review, given that you said the reviewer lays out how they feel it meets the criteria pretty clearly. However, if you think there are small things that need to be fixed, I'm fine with an informal review. epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Epicgenius: I've taken a quick look at the sources, and they all appear to be reliable, except for Elmendorf, which looks self-published. I can try to work in some spot checks over the next day or two, if you would like me to. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hog Farm, that sounds good. I'd really appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I am currently reviewing a GAN that has a number of broken links in the references section. Should I expect the nominator to repair them? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I would. I think this falls under GACR 2b. If the source was originally published in print, and is still available in print (e.g. in libraries), then it's ok to just remove the link, but if it's a purely online source, dead, and unrepairable, then it's also not verifiable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you David, I've done that. Gatoclass (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

One of my nominations, East Bengal Ultras failed for the 3rd time. I will be grateful if someone becomes my mentor and guides me to promote the article to GA. ❯❯❯   S A H A 08:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:The Ultimate Boss (previously known as DarklyShadows) promoted the Can't Tell Me Nothing song article to GA status without making any comments whatsoever and did the same for the IDGAF song article just 7 minutes later. I find this concerning because this user clearly has not given these articles a proper review while 6 of their own song articles are currently up for nomination. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

ThedancingMOONpolice, The two editors had to wait almost a week for a review, so I took my time and thought both of them did great. And btw, there are a lot of editors that do the same thing. Why not snitch on them too? If you have a problem with me, just tell me. This has happened before, so if you want to get me I’m trouble go right ahead. This doesn’t affect me at all in real life. IDC. I’m going to ping Kyle Peake and LOVI33. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The Ultimate Boss, This is not usual practice (except maybe on short articles where both nominator and reviewer have multiple GAs under their belt, and no changes need to be made). If you see some one else do it, please report them at this talk page. (t · c) buidhe 12:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I have gotten rid of the of my GA articles that weren’t being reviewed. So thanks a lot ;). The Ultimate Boss (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Pell's equation/GA1, Talk:Ideal polyhedron/GA1, Talk:Sylvester–Gallai theorem/GA1, all created within the span of less than an hour by HeartGlow30797 (talk · contribs). The first was a nomination by someone else (although I have worked on the article in the past); the second two are nominations by me.

• The Pell review has a lot of picky and odd requests in criterion 1a (like "fractions should follow MoS": yes, they do follow MOS:MATH#Fractions), and in 3b we get the usual complaint that we see from non-mathematical readers encountering mathematics for the first time: "it's too technical". Yes, sometimes subjects are technical. WP:TECHNICAL says to make it as non-technical as possible; it doesn't say to make it even more non-technical than that, to the point where we lose content.
• The Ideal polyhedron review is superficial to the point of vacuousness: "Nice flow, however, can be rewritten as more factual-esque fashion", no specific guidance for problem areas that need revision, and no evidence of looking at the content in any more detail than that.
• The Sylvester–Gallai review went far off the rails in complaining about a specific choice of citation style, and has some incomprehensibly-written requests in other criteria. I've responded there, but I fear that may not be enough.

Do we have a review drive on, or something that would encourage new reviewers? Because the reviews also do say that they are HeartGlow30797's first reviews. We do need reviewers, and I want to encourage HeartGlow30797 and other would-be reviewers instead of biting them, but we need their reviews to be competent and non-bitey. Would it be possible for someone to take this reviewer in hand and guide them a little better in terms of what is expected in a review and how to make more specific requests to article editors that will guide them to actual improvements in articles? Or at least, can I get a disinterested opinion in these three reviews and what to do about the mess they've made of these three GA nominations? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, I am putting them all up for reevaluation. Can you please expand on the details of a review drive, as I do not fully understand what you mean? Also, I will stop reviewing until I can get more training. On your point of being "bitey" and "picky," I apologize on my behalf and am trying my best I can to give good feedback. On your point of fractions. "In mathematics articles, fractions should always be written either with a horizontal fraction bar (as in ), or with a forward slash and with the baseline of the numbers aligned with the baseline of the surrounding text (as in 1/2). The use of {{frac}} (such as 1⁄2) is discouraged in mathematics articles. The use of Unicode symbols (such as ½) is discouraged entirely, for accessibility reasons among others. Metric units are given in decimal fractions (e.g., 5.2 cm); non-metric units can be either type of fraction, but the fraction style should be consistent throughout the article." Several times in the article, I see fractions written as 1/2. On your point of non-technical, I am not trying to devalue all the written words you have written. On your fear that it may not be enough, it is quite more than enough. You have articulated yourself very clearly. I have responded to all of your posts in a timely fashion and do not see why that should be of any concern. On my vacuousness, I will improve, but also with the complaining of a specific choice of citation style, I have never seen the citation style, and will do my best to research more thoroughly into the style Wikipedia wants us to use. On your point of trying to the encouragement of myself and others, this is not encouraging me and I will not be making a return in the foreseeable future. On your point of guidance, how should online people guide each other without risking the confidentiality that, unlike you, most of us want? The resources that they have set up are quite daunting, and I should not be perfect for the first time. My "low quality" reviews are to be expected for a newcomer like myself. I attempted to follow the instructions as closely as I can. On your point of requesting a disinterested opinion, this is a valid option, but a more valid option I feel like would more beneficial is simply requesting a new review. This was a testing period for myself, and as a more experienced editor, you can help me guide me along. Please forgive all the stress I have caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeartGlow30797 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to respond to one small point: what contradiction do you see between "I see fractions written as 1/2" in the article and "with a forward slash and with the baseline of the numbers aligned with the baseline of the surrounding text (as in 1/2)" from the MOS? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein, as the nominator of the first article (as you might already have known) I am not sure how to proceed. So would there be a second review or something? I am not sure, and it is my first time engaging in this part of WP, so... thanks in advance! Eumat114 (Message) 14:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the obvious first steps are: If you see suggestions in the review that appear constructive, do them, if you see suggestions that you think are non-constructive, challenge them on the review page (preferably by referring to WP:GACR), and if you see suggestions that you don't understand, ask for clarification. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that all three reviews have been put up for second opinions by the original reviewer, so eventually someone will come along to review them. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There's now three GAs of warships of the Confederate States of America, and they're in this section. It seems really odd to have them listed here, considering they were used in combat against the US. However, whether or not the CSA was a separate country is rather debatable, see Confederate States of America#International diplomacy for background. How should the listing of these GAs be handled? Hog Farm _Bacon 16:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting one, I suppose if we have Warfare#Warships of Yugoslavia then Warfare#Warships of Confederate States of America could work, but if that proves controversial, maybe something like Warfare#Other per Armies and military units#Other warships ? Mujinga (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The correct location for this conversation is WT:GA, but I think creating a new section may work best? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

After reading an article in the Signpost that talked of the need for a new bot, I have set up this page (shortcut WP:GANSORT) that lists GA-nominated pages with no review in progress (page list is pulled from Category:Good_article_nominees_awaiting_review). Pages are sorted using ORES, and an excerpt is shown. Lemme know what you think about this. I have set up the bot to update the page everyday at 05:00 UTC.

Suggestions for any improvements are welcome. I see that legobot also includes the number of reviews by the nominators in its listing. If this information is useful, I could probably include that as well (but at the moment, I don't know where this information can be fetched from). SD0001 (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: Ooh! I like it :) A few suggestions and comments:

• Suggestion: Should a section of ones that are currently on review / on hold be made? This would prevent nominators from being confused as to where their nomination went. The links could be under See also and help prevent the page from growing long.
• Suggestion 2: I think the unsorted ones should be organized with the others - Snooker/Billiards with sports and Yoga with STEM.
• Suggestion 3: I think a report like Good article nominations/Report could be helpful for nominators to determine which articles should be focused on, especially ones that are very old (say 90 days or older?).
• Question: Some of the sorting I don't 100% understand. For example, Yoga is under STEM. Is it because yoga is philosophy, which is a type of science? If so, that makes sense and prevents it from being classed together with sports.
• Comment/suggestion 4: I like the Geography/Regions sections. It gives more of a variation of topics and not limited to geography. The sports one category could follow the same format to spread it out even further and not be cluttered with nominations. I do like how it's half as many nominations sorted under sports than currently under Legobot ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking through the list, I just realized that the bot found 2 extremely old GANs that weren't listed with Legobot! They are Blackened death metal (August 2018) and Men's health (November 2019). These predate the oldest unreviewed nom at Legobot, which is WGA screenwriting credit system (March 2020) o.O --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed those old nominations: if no one noticed that they hadn't gone forward after all this time, then they've pretty much expired. (What happened with those is that the nominations were incorrectly placed inside a WikiProject banner shell template, where Legobot can't find them. There's a reason the GA instructions say to put the GA nominee template at the top of the article talk page.) The one dating back to August 2018 is simply too old; the one from November 2019 had two "failed verification" templates in the lead, one of which was there when the article was nominated and the other added later that day, so it clearly wasn't ready. Either article can be renominated at any time. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Update: This bot found another one that wasn't on the GAN list (April 2020) 2019 Military World Games - same issue with the GAN being in the shell. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 First suggestion is a good idea, will give that a shot, maybe tomorrow.

Regarding the rest, I'm afraid the sorting is fully automatic at the moment and as such, it is not in my control. The bot just uses the classifications it fetches from ORES API which uses natural language processing techniques. Some of these don't always make sense (eg. I can see BanG Dream!, a Japanese music media franchise, put under Literature). However, the advantage is that the same article can be under multiple topics (BanG Dream! is also under Media and Comics & Anime).

Regarding splitting the sport list further, yes that's something I've thought about (User:SDZeroBot#To_do bullet 1), but it will take a bit of work as again, the bot is presently not capable of sorting anything beyond what ORES tells it. SD0001 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: No worries! In regards to when a nomination is under multiple topics, is the nomination counted once or more than once? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: You mean for the counts? Only once. SD0001 (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: Yeah. I didn't realize a nomination could be sorted in more than one category. Thus, my counts were off. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Very cool-- I like the more specific categories. Perhaps we could add a link to this at the top of WP:GAN? I also like the idea of the report (suggestion 3 by LinkinPark)-- maybe you could color code them? i.e. within a month 'green', three months 'yellow', 90 days or more 'red' (just off the top of my head, I don't really know what they should be). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Eddie891: I like that color coding for nomations. Green for newer, yellow for kinda old, red for really old :) Where would the over 1 month and less than 3 months fall under? Green/yellow? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • MrLinkinPark333, I've yet to look at the stats, but probably yellow? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Apparently there would are 100 nominations 90 days or older and 266 between 30-90. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Eddie891: Okay. That makes sense. Green 1-30 days, yellow 31-89 days, red 90 days and above. As for green, I count 366 (350 from this month, and 11 on July 31st). My calculation might have overlapped yours. So, we got a lot of green and yellow, but mostly green ones. Funny how in the past, it was a whole lot of 90+ ones when we had the backlog drives. Now it's the opposite. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

        Well the correct figures are now shown at the top of the page. I'm guessing you double-counted the pages that were repeated under multiple sections? SD0001 (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I've implemented the colour coding. Not sure if it's looks ugly, though. If desired, you can change the colours by editing Template:GAN sorting/styles.css file. SD0001 (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Eddie891: Since it was your idea, thought you should take a look at the colouring. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

      I went ahead and made the colours even dimmer. I think it now looks less gaudy, though there's a chance that some may find it difficult to make out the difference at all! SD0001 (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

      Well I had an idea. Instead of colouring up the whole table, how about colouring just the date column? (... and the discussion on colours led me to change my sig for the first time.) – SD0001 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• SD0001 - review counts are held at User:GA bot/Stats and updated by Legobot Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, after really successful backlog drives in October last year, and May 2020 I would like to organise another backlog drive. We have just shot up over 500 nominations and whilst this is by no means as high as it has been we are now long enough removed for reviewers to recover from any fatigue they might have had from the last one. This also fits in really well with the final round of the wikicup. I propose:

• A month long GAN backlog drive
• Held over either September, or October
• Regular rules for length, quality and eligible dates
• Barnstars awarded to those who do 2 or more reviews, similar to those previously.

Let me know your thoughts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, count me in, mad for it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a smashing idea MWright96 (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy to help if you want. I would marginally favour October over September, but have no strong preference either way. Harrias ^talk 19:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds like a great idea to me! Happy to help in any capacity if wanted- September would be my choice but either works. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd certainly be up for that. Kosack (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say it's needed. Personally, my preference would be quarterly month-long drives: March, June, September, and December every year, although December may not be a good month with holidays and all. Happy to help run this, but I doubt I'm needed. Will be participating, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Looking forward to it! Ajpolino (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Hog Farm: If quarterly drives were to be held: maybe January, April, July, October or February, May, August, November could work? Though January does have New Year's Day, so could February-November work better? As for me, I might join in and review the obvious ones that quickfail GA like I did last drive. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @MrLinkinPark333: - I'd say January, April, July, October. In the US, Thanksgiving is a big holiday in November that leads to a lot of traveling. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Hog Farm: Fair enough. I forgot Thanksgiving was held in November for the United States. In Canada, it's October ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, if this is going to run in September, it needs to be set up this weekend to start at the end of Monday. If October, then we have plenty of time. I'm happy to put the usual notice on the GAN page and to help set up the charts and table if you'd like—as this is running one month rather than two, we can go back to the simpler versions for the former. Please let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies - this will run in October. I've been a little distracted the last few days. I'll post up some stuff over the coming days, but if you wish to start some pages and get some interest, that would be fantastic Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have drafted up Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2020 Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: No worries! October works as it can follow the pattern of a backlog drive every 3 months next year (see above) ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been planning on reviewing my first GA nom for a while now so count me in to. (Please feel free to let me know if I mess up as I've haven't reviewed any GA noms before). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

How much can I copy-edit the article I'm reviewing? If the issues are minor its faster to fix them myself.VR _talk 02:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and 'how much' is really at your own discretion: i.e. as a reviewer, how much would you say is too much if it were another editor? Kingsif (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't like doing it myself - but feel free to improve articles when you do a review. The limit is what you feel is right as above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The title Super Outbreak needs to have "Tornado" put in front. There's plenty of people who don't know the formal name of this disaster. My first search "Tornado outbreak May 27 2011" brought up the article for May 21-26, 2011 and I couldn't find the article for May 27.

This is worrisome because I'm very familiar with tornadoes and the science behind them. If I can't find it easily, then a large group of people won't find it at all.

So, I recommend that the title be amended to this: Tornado Super Outbreak May 27, 2011" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.203.185.185 (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi 82.203.185.185; this is a discussion that would be better placed on the talk page of the relevant article, which can be found at Talk:2011 Super Outbreak. Harrias ^talk 16:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be surprised if review discussions weren't archived, but I'm having trouble finding any links to previous reviews of an article/articles that aren't listed on the current reviews board. BlackholeWA (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are looking for past reviews on a specific article, go to its talk page and you should see the GA icon and "Review" in bold. Click on the word "Review". If you just want to browse reviews in general, go to WP:GA/ALL for the entire list of past reviews. If what you are looking for is not at either of those places, I don't know where they would be. — Maile (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I realize this is an ongoing issue (and not only at GAC), but I was hoping there is a better way, a timeline guide for potential reviewers. The difference between GA reviews and others such as DYK, is that whoever is allegedly doing a review, is the only one who can wrap it up. Right now, like a lot of nominators, I've been waiting since May for a review of Gloria Swanson. I did not anticipate a rapid response, as this is a hefty article to read through. Long story short - Gloria Swanson/GA1 was finally opened on August 19. And then ... absolutely nothing. I've recently posted an inquiry on the potential reviewer's talk page, and they are otherwise active, but no response.

As frustrating as that is, it's not a first for me or anyone else. It's just ... well ... rude. And unproductive. But probably in step with how Wikipedia works. There are assorted instances where a reviewer does their thing, and the nominator never responds. Or the reviewer never finishes the review, and doesn't respond to attempted contacts with them. Or any number of variations on those.

I don't suppose we could come up with a very basic guideline, that if an editor opens a GAC template and says they'll be the reviewer ... they have to at least actually begin the review within a given time period. And if they don't, the template can be cancelled out, or someone else can take over the review. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a no-brainer to me. And as an admin yourself, you're well aware of WP:IAR. If you get nothing back in a decent timescale, like a week, just get the GA review page deleted. No need for anything to change here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Understood, and I will do that. But I just wish there was a more productive process here. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

There's literally no reward for GAN reviewers. Just like everywhere else on Wikipedia. Even the WP:WIKICUP assigns the same value of reviewing and promoting (or otherwise) a GAN to that of a simple FLC or FAC review. That's complete nonsense. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Maile, aside from the instruction that if you haven't worked on an article you should consult with those who have on the article talk page prior to nominating it, the review timeline guide seems to be the most frequently ignored part of the GA nomination instructions. Per WP:GANI#R2, number 4: Remember: Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. Do not stop half way through and just leave it. Consider reviewing only one or two articles at a time and plan to wrap up your review in about seven days. As an admin, you can just delete the review page, notify the reviewer, and adjust the GA nominee template if a reviewer hasn't returned in a couple of weeks, even if they're active elsewhere. Most nominators just have to wait it out until the delay is painful, a month or (much) more, before they finally ask for help. And the laggard reviewers aren't always cooperative. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the help and advice. The potential reviewer has assured me they're working on it. When I started the article clean-up several months ago, I wasn't aiming for anything, but rather trying to make sense out of the previous version. Because it looked to require what was an almost complete re-write, I decided to document the progress on the talk page - what it was before, and how it changed. In particular I felt the need to document the AFI, IBD and UCLA sourcing, because I have seen elsewhere that editors think these are crowd sourced. As it turns out, I'm glad I made those talk page notes, because I would never have remembered all of that if later questioned. — Maile (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I self-failed it

@BlueMoonset and The Rambling Man: I hope I did this correctly. The review started, but I decided I need another reviewer, and stated my reasons on the template. The reviewer is OK with this, but did not do a "Fail". I did the "Fail", to close the template, so I can start over. And I felt it was important to keep the history of what review was already there. — Maile (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems fine to me - might I suggest changing the |page parameter on the talk page for a second reviewer (unless you'd like it also on the first review page.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Done. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This might be pertinent to the Legobot, which seems to be about a day and a half behind, and might continue as such for a few days: Village Pump: Toolforge problems? — Maile (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Maile66 Yeah I have noticed this too, do not know why the bot is doing so poorly at updating nominations... --K. Peake 13:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

When we say "sluggishness", I think it is important to now clarify that Legobot has not updated Wikipedia:Good article nominations since 22:42, 8 September 2020‎: we might have to consider whether this is a permanent issue, and what steps need taking to combat it. Harrias ^talk 09:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It's highly likely it is being affected by this phab ticket so best to see if it starts updating in 24 hours. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It does seem to be working its way through adding |oldid to the promoted noms. Worth keeping an eye on to see if it updates everything correctly, or if it's going to have issues. It'll likely be a little while whilst it goes through the backlog. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Still no updates to GAN since 8 September. (t · c) buidhe 07:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I've posted to the talk page of the bot's owner, User:Legoktm, since the post to the bot's page hasn't gotten results. Legobot isn't stopped entirely, but it isn't doing any updates to the WP:GAN page, and after nearly six days, the page is stale: no new nominations except for the few added by hand, and most passed or failed ones are still showing up. Although new reviews and reviewers don't show up, the page will have a "discuss review" link rather than a "start review" if the review has been opened since updates stopped. Of course, it will also have that link if the review has been opened and closed since then. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The bot has just run, so we're back up to date. I'd been doing some manual updates, so I'll take all the credit for having wasted my time for the common good. ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't Smile at Me was failed because of edit warring. I get it is immediately failed it that happens, but what if it was almost a month ago? Is it still possible for a quick fail? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kyle Peake: Courtesy ping. Harrias ^talk 07:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would say that is a bad fail. My take on the stability criteria is that is a a practical criteria. The reviewer needs a stable article to review, otherwise it malkes their job much harder. Also they shouldn't need to negotiate between two warring editors. A month old edit war (really more one editor vandalising the article and being reverted) is taking this too far in the extreme. AIRcorn (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• I looked at the article history. There was a series of reversions of obvious vandalism that ended three weeks ago. I don't think that even qualifies as an edit war in the first place, let alone a current one that would suggest the page is not stable now. The reviewer actually did a substantive review before ultimately deciding to quick-fail it. I hope that, now that they've been pinged here, they will revert that fail and see the review through. Armadillopteryx 09:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• The Ultimate Boss I am re-opening the review right now, I am sorry for the fail and it is my bad for not understanding the definition of "stability" in the GA criteria context; I thought any recent edit warring would lead to a quick fail, but it means during the time of review/nomination. I am also sending this message to Aircorn, Armadillopteryx and Harrias to let them know that information, as well as that this is the only time I have done a quick fail due to edit warring that wasn't ongoing while I was reviewing. --K. Peake 11:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, it's my first time reviewing a nominee, and I seem to be close to done, could someone else check it out and tell me how I can improve and whatnot? Thanks! Talk:Network_synthesis/GA1 Dh.wp (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dh.wp: Thanks for asking for input; I wish you had asked earlier. Your review doesn't evidence that you took necessary steps in your review. This is why new editors are generally not involved in GA review. For example, did you check the licensing on all the images included? There are a long list of citations you are required to check. Where did you find the book by Wing or the one by Bakshi & Bakshi? The article is very technical; do you have a background to make sense of this? As your account is very new, have you edited previously from another account? I'm curious how to happened upon this GA review.Chris Troutman (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The page Network synthesis seems to have been reviewed and passed for GA, and I removed the topicon from the page due to the review being unusually short (both in time and content) and for the nomination seemingly disappearing from the nominations page. My own attempts to locate when it was removed have came up short. I am hoping that those more familiar with the process could provide input on the article being removed from GA status until it the process is followed correctly. Thepenguin9 (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It's this edit that caused the review to pass. If you revert back to the version prior to this, everything will sort itself out, it'll remain in the queue as it was previously, but you'll need to change the page parameter to 2 as Talk:Network synthesis/GA1 already exists. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lee Vilenski thanks for replying. Could you please (in any number of words) tell me if the review at GA1 is enough as per GA guidelines to pass the nomination? I appear to have misunderstood the policy of GA so I'd like to clear it up for myself. Thepenguin9 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a new reviewer at GAN who did a brief review/pass of Network synthesis last night, and then a brief review/fail of another GAN this morning. Lee Vilenski, it seems to me that simply reverting a review passage without explanation is not the best way to proceed. Perhaps you could engage the reviewer, asking them to revert their passage (and maybe their failure, if warranted) and also perhaps get a mentor or wait until they have more experience of the process, what should be covered in a review, and when it's appropriate to quick fail? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I think I was just giving them a technical solution as to how to revert such a review as I was short on time. I've left them a message. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging PythonSwarm to ensure they are aware of what's going onThepenguin9 (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Thepenguin9: I am here. -- PythonSwarm ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 22:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

And a third one at Automatic scorer. I quote PythonSwarm's entire review Passing: This just meets my standards, but please split this article into different sections. PythonSwarm, this is completely unacceptable; articles have to be assessed against the agreed criteria and not your personal criteria. Assessments should be referencing those criteria and how the article fares against each. If editors have invested significant time and effort in developing articles they deserve better than a single throwaway line of review which frankly in this case doesn't make sense. I am struggling to understand why, when the two previous reviews you have conducted are both being discussed here, you think it is appropriate to conduct another in the same style without discussing the issues raised regarding the first two. I really urge you to step away from conducting GA assessments until such time as you can demonstrate a better understanding of how assessments should be conducted. Nthep (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi folks, not a GA regular but saw this discussion while reviewing PythonSwarm's contributions independently of this discussion (saw their nomination of Assembly language). I have given them a very firm warning about continuing to do GA noms and reviews and have suggested they find an experienced GA mentor if they really want to be working in the GA area. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, I'm sorry to ping you not having been involved in this discussion... but could you take a look at Talk:Injector pen/GA1? This user "speedy failed" it based on something I guarantee you isn't a copy (I wrote the entire article, I'd know if I copied it from anywhere) and I can't even tell what the site is that it supposedly was "copied" from... without even mentioning it to me or asking for clarification first. Is this normal? Can I ask for a re-do or a second opinion? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, I agree that this seems to be a reverse copyvio of some sort (I especially appreciate the flagged site's use of allowing the pen to be quot pushed quot against the skin, apparently translating the quotation mark to the word "quot"). I'm not going to intervene because I'm not a GA reviewer, but I see that you've pinged Woody below and this has escalated to the administrator's noticeboard for discussion of a topic ban. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Will someone please decide either that the GA status of network synthesis is going to stand, or else put it back in the queue for review, or else let it stand and send to FAR. The back and forth removing the topicon and putting it back is getting silly. Plus, removing the topicon does not actually stop it being a GA article. It is still listed. SpinningSpark 14:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@SpinningSpark: Maybe, we can have its status reviewed and (possibly) removed. They also say that I should discuss this before reviewing any other articles for some reason. -- PythonSwarm ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 14:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@PythonSwarm: When you say "for some reason" suggests you do not understand why you were told this. Let me put it bluntly for you – the standard of your reviews are crap. SpinningSpark 14:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Plus I would not be available as I will be sleeping. Can anyone help me in working on GAs? -- PythonSwarm ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I am back after doing some other things, and I have now learnt what is the GA criteria, and know that the network synthesis and autoscorer article could not pass. -- PythonSwarm ^{T | C | G} 04:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I don't doubt that one can learn the minutiae of a process here on Wikipedia in the span of 11 hours, if you have fully learned the process then maybe you want to revoke or redo your other reviews before moving on to opening new reviews. I'm also pinging Nthep for their opinion on whether you've violated their warning by speed-failing a new nomination. Thepenguin9 (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nthep and Thepenguin9: I have reopened that nom, and also I have revoked/reopened the reviews. -- PythonSwarm ^{T | C | G} 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Before anyone here gets too invested in mentoring PythonSwarm in the GA process, it's worth pointing out that this person has been persistently problematic across multiple projects for at least a month: their Phabricator accounts are currently disabled because they made unhelpful comments, changed task priorities and statuses counter to Phabricator policy, and assigned other people to tasks without those people's consent, even after being warned multiple times to stop; they are blocked on MediaWiki.org for continuously requesting their Phabricator accounts be re-enabled as well as problematic edits in general; and they are currently blocked here from contributing to WP:RFP/R and WP:RFP/PCR for leaving unhelpful comments even after being warned. This person has a track record of inserting themselves into technical workflows that they do not understand, and refusing to hear when others have attempted to explain what they did wrong. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{☎ Dinoguy1000} 10:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted the Automatic Scorer review and the Network Synthesis review has been deleted by someone else after a request by PythonSwarm. I have reverted the GA notice on the talk pages and reinstated the nominations on the talk page and on the GAN page. Essentially back to the status quo before PythonSwarm commenced the reviews. Woody (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Woody, sorry to bother, but while the user reopened the review at Talk:Injector pen/GA1, after what happened, I'd rather someone else review it... is there a formal way for me to request that if it's even allowed, and if so, how would I do it? Thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 10:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No bother at all. Normally the first step if you disagree is to bring it up here, or ask for a second opinion and then GAR. Given the history of this editor here I've deleted that review page and reset the tag on the talkpage to restore the status quo. Woody (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Woody, could I ask you to please delete the review that PythonSwarm opened at Talk:Typographer (typewriter)/GA1. It isn't even a review, and now that they've been indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia for WP:COMPETENCE reasons, the review page needs to be deleted and the GA nominee template on the article talk page reset. If it isn't convenient, I'll file a G6 speedy deletion in a day or two. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I got confused by seeing the GA1 link still blue here after Woody deleted the old one, and accidentally deleted the new-started review by User:Psiĥedelisto. Sorry for the confusion, everyone! I think everything is back in place. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I discovered that there are two articles which are currently still affected by current events but were nominated for Good Article status, although it may still not stable due to heavy edits and the content could change time by time. The article in question are Transmission of COVID-19 (due to COVID-19 pandemic still ongoing) and Joe Biden (due to upcoming US elections). Should the editor warn the nominator that it was too early to nominate due to potentially could have content changed rapidly as it's affected by current events and remove from nomination until the article status has become stable? WPSamson (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

WPSamson, I already told the nominator of the first article that it was a bad idea. They didn't listen. You are correct but there is no guarantee that the nominator will listen to such warnings. (t · c) buidhe 03:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

buidhe, then there is a higher chance that nomination will be quick fail should one of the reviewer reviewed that nomination. WPSamson (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted the Joe Biden nomination as it was an out-of-process nom made by an editor who had never edited the Biden article. Neither is a good nomination due to stability issues if nothing else: too much is changing too frequently. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I started the review of Gratian, but the bot have not updated the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that the article is being reviewed, and have not informed the nominator that the article is being reviewed. What did I wrong? Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, the top of the review must be in a certain format, and only that material should be placed above the comment that reads Please add all review comments below this comment, and do not alter what is above. In particular, the "Review:" line has to end with the date, and be in the exact format that I've shown. No comments should be included in that section, nor should a review table. I've adjusted the review page, and the bot should take care of things the next time it runs (about ten minutes from now). If not, I'll keep working at it. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Paradise (nightclub) just passed its GA review, but Legobot just removed the article from the nomination page as "maintenance" and did not add the GA icon to the article or the oldid to the talk page. How can this be fixed? Is it okay to manually add the GA icon? Armadillopteryx 05:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have resolved itself. Armadillopteryx 06:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Move good/featured article topicons next to article name. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

​After reviewing Die güldne Sonne voll Freud und Wonne for Gerda Arendt and placing the article on hold for a week, it was heavily edited by someone else (without any discussion taking place). The article now appears quite different from the one I reviewed and now cannot yet be passed: both Gerda Arendt and I are unhappy about some of the changes made after the review was completed. I'm confused about the correct way forward here—do I have to add more comments for Gerda Arendt to address and risk this editor's interference again, or should I fail the article? Amitchell125 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding: some of the changes made were actually great, such as finding more closely related images, adding a better source for translations, adding recordings (which I never did for a hymn article). Other changes would need a discussion at least. I was away for several of the last days, and am busy right now with three recent deaths of Wikipedia subjects, something that can't be postponed, so had not even time to closely follow. I simply think it's bad process to make changes other than fixing what the reviewer noticed while the article is in hold, making life needlessly hard for the reviewer. - My approach in this case would be to let the hold period pass (three more days), hopefully with discussions, and then see where we are. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds pretty reasonable. A lot of reviewers don't hold to a seven day hard cap for the hold (I at least don't). Personally, I think as long as the nominator is still actively working on it, it ought to be kept open, especially in odd cases like this. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy to extend the hold period for a while, and cross the next bridge when we get to it. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Help us test our problematic statement detection system. We hope to deploy this to help editors.

We are developing an AI to automatically detect issues in articles related to: NPOV, CLARIFY and CITE. We need help evaluating how well the model is working. We are asking for a group of volunteers to evaluate a set of sentences that are flagged by the AI. The landing page for evaluations can be found here. This page has a small set of examples for each issue. We have included sub-pages that include more examples (e.g. More POV examples). If you want to help, please assess as many example statements as you can. The more assessments we get, the better we can judge our model and make improvements. A description of our research project is on meta. Sumit (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb decided to edit the template to move the nominator/nomination information earlier in the display, in the interests of saving space. I had always thought of this information as equivalent to a sig, and easier to see who had nominated it and when.

When I reverted them, rather than going with WP:BRD, they reverted me. So now we can discuss this here, and (with my impending second reversion) keep the template display as it is until we have consensus here at GAN on how we'd prefer the display to look. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As mentionned on BlueMoonset's talk page, had they provided a rationale for it, I would have had something to address. But they didn't, instead objecting on a procedural basis (e.g. WP:BURO taking precedence over WP:BOLD), so I had nothing of substance to even discuss.

Now for some substance. My changes have two main advantages. The first is that the current version takes more vertical space than it needs, which is detrimental on talk pages where vertical space is a premium on account of several banners, like the current nomination at Talk:Amitabh Bachchan. My changes reduce the usage of vertical space. The second advantage is that it keeps the information about the nominator, with the information about the nomination. Basically saying "This is a nomination, and the nominator is X." in one line, rather than have that information separate by technical tidbits, or information about the reviewing process.

Current (missing information)

Proposed (missing information)

Current (all information)

Proposed (all information)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

First, quick thoughts: I like it being a bit shorter, but I don't like the "Nominated by..." being in italics, as with some of the markup on usernames, it could end up a bit funky. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It'd be a simple matter to not italicize, but it's also pretty easy to prevent issues by using <i></i> instead of ''...'' (which is what's now in the sandbox). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Slightly prefer the one with the name at the top. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Not to hijack this too much, but if realestate at the top of the talk page is important we could probably reduce the verbiage in the template. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Since consensus seems for the less spacious version, I've rolled this out. I've reduced some verbiage as well. Further improvements to the template can be suggested at Template talk:GA nominee per normal discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I was without internet for three days, so I was unable to return here as I'd planned. I'm still not fond of the nominator being hidden up top instead of like a sig at the bottom—it makes errors less obvious—but if it has to be (I do wish we'd had more participation here), then it shouldn't be set in italics; I agree with Aircorn that the nominator's sig formatting should be left alone, so I've removed the italics as a whole; the smaller text is enough differentiation. Note that this was not the only template changed: in addition to {{GA nominee}}, changes were also made to {{FailedGA}}, but not to {{GA}}, which means that the two unfortunately now have different formatting rather than being two sides of the same coin. I prefer the GA version to the revised FailedGA one, even if an extra (small-font) line is required. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have a problem with Talk:1970 United States Senate election in New York/GA1. Nomader, who is the currently reviewer, hasn't said anything since September 9, and Nomader's last edit on the site was October 4. Nomader only had a problem with the MOS of one section so I am wondering if somebody could do the last step? Sorry if this is the wrong place I was told to go here by EpicGenius. Jon698 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Confirming that I told Jon698 to come here. The review has stalled for over a month over this small issue and, aside from a few comments I had, I thought the article was pretty much ready. epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I can take over it if you like. Will probably do a full review though instead of just looking at the one section. BTW you are in the right place. AIRcorn (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Thank you for the offer. I am okay with you doing a full review and I can't wait to see your comments on it. Jon698 (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A new user indicated a willingness to review my GA nomination of Little Women (2019 film) on October 9. I'm pessimistic about them following through given that they have not been active since then. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to proceed? Thank you in advance! KyleJoan^talk 05:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the procedure if an article was a good article but now has deficiencies?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, Open WP:Good article reassessment (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, it looks like a number of older GAs no longer meet the criteria. I know everyone's busy, and project involvement here is down, but it looks like some form of sweeps in necessary. I just had a recent GAR for an article that was in this state at the time of the GAR. The GAR thankfully attracted attention, and the issues have been very nicely resolved, but the fact that an article in that state has the GA banner reduces the value of GA. Also take To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants, which has many issues, and I am about to open a GAR on it. I'm worried that there are significant problems here with older promotions (and probably even some newer ones), and something likely needs to be done if the GA assessment is going to keep meaning something. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree. There are tons of bad ones, like East 233rd Street (Bronx) and Gun Hill Road (road) from 2007-2008 that should not be GAs.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to throw some effort this way, but mainly if some sort of coordinated effort is created. There's more here than one editor can handle. We need a plan of some sort, and a timeframe, and some volunteers. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I just decided to, at random, look at NYC-related GAs, and already found some that have plenty of uncited statements, such as Eastern Air Lines Flight 663, 30 Rock, or that don't seem comprehensive, like Tory Burch. This is a pervasive problem.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: There's also quite 44 articles in the Articles needing possible reassessment section of GAR, 8 of them from 2019! This backlog section could definitely use cutting down as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333, I agree that Articles needing reassessment should be a priority. Also some of the tags on articles on this list should really be resolved - we shouldn't, for instance, have any GAs that are tagged for spam (but it might not be a deal breaker if a GA has a CS1 error). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Good point! Some issues are huge like Potentially dated statements which has 1345 instances! Maybe instead of just verifying if whether an article is still a GA, we can also fix existing GAs that have issues and prevent a GAR? Provided if the issues are very small. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue is definitely the larger ones. Ones with CS1 errors or harvnb errors aren't a big deal in most cases (although some no target errors can be issues), but articles with POV banners, or notability tags, or missing citations, present problems. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Count me in, Happy to help organize any sort of effort. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is gonna be tricky. The GA process has had reduced participation lately, and trying to work on keeping the WP:GAN backlog at a reasonable spot and running a sweep is probably gonna tax the project's abilities. It needs done though. I've seen various experienced editors commenting that GA is starting to lose its meaning, because of these bad ones still hanging around with the little green plus sign. At least, if a sweep is done well enough, it'll hopefully lessen the amount of the issue for some time. As an aside, I think the project needs coordinators, to kinda have some official running it. There's a lot of stuff that gets through the cracks because nobody is paying attention. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm, Kew Gardens 613, Eddie891, MrLinkinPark333, and Barkeep49: What say we create a task force specifically for GA reassessment, with a priority list of tasks? I'd also push for a (small) talkpage banner, so there's an automatic category set-up as new "potentially needs reassessment" articles come in. Kingsif (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me but courtesy ping to Aircorn who does incredible amounts of work around GAR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Willing to help out as I can on this. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the category already exists and is populated by the current talk page banner. I didn't see that before or in the code, but it works. Kingsif (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Will be nice to see GAR get some love, I have been absent from there for a while now and see the backlog has grown back again. I think doing sweeps is too big a task. There are thousands of articles to look through, better to concentrate on ones brought to our attention either because tags are placed on them or because a notice has been placed on the talk page.

As for priorities I would first look at getting the community reassessments closed. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment#Articles listed for community reassessment. Some are coming up to six months, which is a long time to be left in limbo. If experienced reviewers can just run through them either making a comment (doesn't have to be delist/keep although that helps) or closing ones they think have a general consensus. The closing procedure is a nightmare (inactive bot), so if you are struggling just write Kept or Delisted at the top with your reasoning and I will do the technicalities.

Second are probably the ones at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment#Articles needing possible reassessment. These are actually pretty easy. If you think it needs a reassessment just start one, otherwise remove the tag from the talk page. Sometimes you might want to leave a talk page comment if the issue is minor (or just fix it yourself).

Then we have the cleanup listing [here https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Good_articles.html]. It looks worse than it is. Most categories can be ignored (i.e. deadlinks are not a GA criteria and potentially dated statements is just the {{asof}} template). In my experience the categories with the fewest articles are the ones with the more serious issues. Be careful of those with recent tags. You might be unknowingly walking into an edit war. Better to just work on the older ones. Also a week old tag is more likely to be resolved naturally than a year old one.

As for general advice, it is always better to fix the issue or notify a person or project if this is not easy done before opening a reassessment. However this is not required so feel free to start reassessments for articles that are a long way from the standard. Just make sure you notify projects/editors once the reassessment is open. Please, please, please use the individual reassessment process. Most here are experienced enough to be able to do this comfortably. However if delisting is likely to be controversial then by all means take it to the community. We seriously lack participation at GAR so the community process tends to drag out, while individual reassessments are closed by the person opening them. I don't think it would be ideal to have a bunch of articles flooding the community processes as a result of this effort (unless we get a proportional increase in participation there). If an article is a long way from the criteria it might be easier to do a brief review outlining the major issues before going in depth. A lot of times you are not going to get a response so it makes life easier to delist an article with old relevant clean up tags without doing an in depth reference review. Although there is nothing wrong if that is what you wish to do. AIRcorn (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• As some of you may have seen, the reliability of GA tags has gotten bad enough that some people are using that as an argument for why we should not want GA designations to be prominently visible to readers. A sweep could help address that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• As I said last time, focus on article improvement over speed. If people with a proven track record ask for a week to address the concerns from a GAR, it hurts the encyclopedia to deny the request. The attitude last time of "I think most people would rather just be done with the bleepin' GA Sweeps already" (a direct quotation) was garbage. Do it right, or don't do it at all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

List of notices given

Here is a list of articles with cleanup tags and GA queries on talk page, left by me today. I also opened a couple of GA reassessments. Feel free to add. Possibly we should have a template like there is at WP:FAR. (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

21 October

• Talk:Stephen Harper
• Talk:ReactOS
• Talk:Sally Hemings ‎
• Talk:McGill University ‎
• Talk:Sustainable biofuel
• Talk:Wulfstan (died 1023)
• Talk:Winston tastes good like a cigarette should
• Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

This article, Rajnath Singh, is currently a GA nom under the "Politics and government" section. The user who nominated it has been blocked indefinitely. Please can someone remove the article from the GA list. I am not sure as to what the correct procedure is. DTM (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced the GA nominee template on the article talk page with FailedGA as per WP:GACR. DTM (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan If the user has been blocked and is unable to respond to a review, the nomination can simply be reverted, if nobody has begun a review. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Note to DTM: since you can't fail a review that has never been opened, I effectively did what Eddie891 suggested (before I saw this): undid the nomination and everything that occurred after it. Had nothing been done, I would simply have deleted the {{GA nominee}} template, which had in any event been put in the wrong place on the page by the sock who nominated it. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Noted and thanks DTM (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

What is to be done if the GA and A-class review of the same article has started parallelly? Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I believe that is allowed (depending on the A-class instructions). A-class and GA are supposed to assess slightly different things. (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. It is clear now. Borsoka (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to say that I have regrettably withdrawn from reviewing Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse). The associated review and comments from editors are here. As layout is a requirement for GA, I referred to MOS:TV. Due to (my perceived) lack of clarity regarding MOS:TVPLOT for television crossover articles, a disagreement arose with the nominator, Favre1fan93. Second opinions were sought, and were mostly beneficial. I however felt personally attacked by the comments of Alex 21 for simply noting my original opinion (which had already changed given others' comments) and felt pressured into promoting. I thought I respected them as an editor due to their wonderful template contributions, but felt discouraged from continuing to review or even note any further disagreements due to their comments. They did not seem to have an understanding of the GA criteria or process either. There were also other comments by Aircorn which I don't think were addressed appropriately. Therefore, I felt any further of my comments would have been a waste of time. This was not a beneficial process to the nominator or myself. I hope someone with more knowledge of Arrowverse articles is able to review this article. Heartfox (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't disagree as much with your original opinion, as I did disagree with your bludgeoning of threatening to fail the article if your demands weren't meant, deliberately ignoring the genuine advice of multiple editors. You had several editors explain the plot situation to you, and yet you still sought to not take anything into account and disregard the guidance completely. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is unfair. They requested the second opinion so it is not like they weren't willing to get outside opinions. There is no obligation on the reviewer to take the advice (and it wasn't all as straight forward as Alex makes out) and they are ultimately responsible for passing or failing the article. I think withdrawing from the review is an acceptable move and hopefully this experience hasn't put you off from further reviews. FWIW both the nominator and reviewer have been very amicable throughout this process, which should be commended. AIRcorn (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Good on them for being willingly to get outside opinions. Credit where credit's due. They then proceeded to ignore the multiple opinions provided. It's that straight forward. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I nominated European early modern human, and the review was started by Benson85, but I don't believe s/he actually meant to start the review, and I'm fairly certain they're unfamiliar with the MOS. Is there a way to close the review without having to fail and renominate it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77, Yes use G6 speedy deletion for non-controversial cleanup, or alternately (less preferred) you could increment the page parameter in the nominee template. (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The Ultimate Boss has been working productively on Billie Eilish and music-related topics lately, but after reviewing Where's My Mind Tour (where I noticed significant issues so didn't do as much due diligence as I normally would) I saw that the article had been failed for GA a week before, with a good list of constructive criticisms that the nominator got very angry at and didn't engage in. The Ultimate Boss was also quite angry at my review, I think. They nominated the page for deletion and, upon me reverting a PROD (it would need to go to AFD), instead immediately nominated it for GA a third time. I reverted this (invoking WP:IAR) and was reverted back. I then found that the underlying reason was the good topic candidacy of dont smile at me, which would be closer to passing were the article either deleted or passed for GA. The article appears notable to me but it's a long way from GA standard.

We've recently added a new quickfail criterion, A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered, which I would suggest that an independent reviewer invoke, but I also think it would be helpful if some other people could talk to the user. The Ultimate Boss told me You are not in the position to decide to get rid of my GA nominations. If it’s an admin, then that’s fine. and ignored my subsequent talk page message but been editing since. The user could be quite young and it is worth bearing in mind that they have been making productive contributions in this area before now. — Bilorv (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv, the problem with “Where’s My Mind Tour” is that it was very early in Eilish’s career. So of course there wasn’t that much media coverage on the subject. If I’m going to have huge problem with you, I’ll withdraw all my GA nominations and retire from Wikipedia. I don’t have the time or energy to fight with you and other editors. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have withdrawn the third nomination for Where's My Mind Tour and Blood Harmony. Also asked the reviewers to fail "I Lost a Friend" and Live at Third Man Records (Billie Eilish album) just so there are no more problems. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I left a note on TheEpicGhosty's talk page but since then other somewhat-hurried/not-detailed Reviews have also come to light - see Talk:Systime Computers/GA2, Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/GA2, Talk:Jonathan Scott (television personality)/GA1, etc. Is there a procedure for assessing or rolling back these GA Reviews? For instance, I just don't see how it is possible to do a valid GA Review of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in less than 30 minutes. And they are starting these GA Reviews and then passing them to GA status without any input from other editors...like the people who helped write the article in the first place. I get that EpicGhosty seems new and seems to want to help but I am troubled by the sheer numbers of these very quick GA Reviews... I don't know where my concerns should be posted but this talk page seemed like one of the Wiki-places that could be appropriate for a discussion. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink, I had it in my mind to potentially post here, but I figured I'd give the user a chance to respond to the concerns. If the user is willing to go back and fix their past mistakes and commit to being more cautious and thorough with their future reviews, I do not see a need for any outside involvement. It would not be a bad idea to have more eyes on these, but I think the user should be given the opportunity to respond first before anyone else rolls them back or anything. If TheEpicGhosty continues reviewing, nominating, or editing elsewhere without responding to the concerns raised, then it may be a good idea to have an uninvolved person step in. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

From a technical perspective there is nothing wrong with passing a review without providing feedback if the article meets the criteria. However most reviewers usually leave a comment or two even if it is an easy pass and I think this is appreciated by most nominators. Ideally TheEpicGhosty will take some of this advice on and stick around to continue reviewing. It is a bit of a learning curve and we need to keep encouraging new reviewers otherwise this whole process will stall. I see there are a few comments on their talk page and we probably don't need to pile on there.

There are a few options with the current reviews. Rollback is a possibility, but can come across heavy handed. A consensus should be developed first and WT:GAN is a better place to do that. Also anyone can conduct an individual reassessment of any article, and this might be a better option here. If the article is at the required standard they can just be left alone. Ultimately the aim is too get the article up to standard and the means is secondary. AIRcorn (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I get that we don't want to impinge on editors' enthusiasm for GA work and rollback might be seen as heavy-handed but what about all this clean-up? It's extra work for others. And "anyone can conduct an individual reassessment of any article, and this might be a better option here."...sure but who's volunteering? It seems to me that all of his reviews need to be reviewed/reassessed. And I don't understand what you mean about a consensus at GAN...

So, what can or should be done about these 6 already-passed GA Reviews at GAN... Shearonink (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant that it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations which it is now at. I understand the issues and agree that they need to definitely improve their reviewing technique if they wish to continue reviewing. It is not fair for nominators to wait up to a year for a review and then get what seems to be a cursory look and a quick pass with no comments. I agree with Bluemoonset that it would be best if an experienced reviewer looked at them to see if they meet the criteria and also think TheEpicGhosty needs to respond before they continue with any more reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I just moved the above discussion from WT:GAR to here, since this is where we discuss issues in the GAN process, including reviews; perhaps a consensus can be found on how to proceed. Pinging Shearonink, Berchanhimez, Aircorn, and TheEpicGhosty so they know where it has gone. TheEpicGhosty's only prior GA review was Talk:Alan Dershowitz/GA1 back in February, and it looked much the same as the new ones except that the final "pass" wasn't done on the article talk page; the review was taken over later that month, and as there were problems with the article that didn't get fixed, the nomination failed. Their first recent review was Talk:Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse)/GA2; after it passed, and a subsequent review was done at DYK, a copyvio was noted and fixed, which is troubling. I think it would be wise to have a second reviewer recheck the articles, if one can be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I left a second opinion at the first review of the Arrowverse article and know that there were some concerns that justified more than a quick pass. @Wasted Time R, Esprit15d, Acekard, and Favre1fan93: as the nominators of the articles involved. AIRcorn (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Two more Talk:HCR Corporation/GA1 and Talk:Brodie Lee/GA1 both exactly the same as the others. @DTH89: as one of the nominators (Wasted Time R has been hit hard). I am now thinking that these just should be undone. It is stretching AGF to think a proper review has been done on any of them. AIRcorn (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm particularly concerned with the Jonathan Scott and HCR reviews, as they are identical - possibly if not likely copy-pasted - besides two words. By my count that's six quick passes over the last few days, including one on an article with potential copyvio that had previously failed, one about mass murderers, one about a television personality best known as half of twins where I'd first question if the pair shouldn't share an article, and two about private companies that almost certainly will have some bias just by the nature of the subject (and from a quick read are poorly written). I'd vote to roll them all back to give the opportunity to properly review them. Kingsif (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Yeah, I nominated the Harris and Klebold article all the way back in June. As someone who has contributed very much to the article, I felt it was time. But honestly, I was shocked at how fast it passed the review, especially after almost a 5 month wait time to get any reviewers. I thought it would have taken a couple days at least. I was flattered at first, but if this is an issue, then the GA can be rolled back and more reviewers can come to get their opinions on if the Harris and Klebold article deserves GA. Or it can stay, either way is fine with me, just thought I'd give my two cents. Thanks! Acekard (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we give TheEpicGhosty another 24 hours and then, regretfully, revert/delete all reviews and their results. It is unfair to nominators and misleading to readers to have results not up to our quite high standards lingering around. It may be helpful for someone to offer to the user some way of learning more about current practice here before making any unilateral actions—e.g. reading some GA reviews, question/answer "what would you say about this article", maybe later on a review but rather than a decision being finalised, a more experienced person giving their thoughts afterwards. I'm aware that this could be quite a time burden though (the reason I'm not rushing to volunteer). — Bilorv (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Agh! Felt pretty good about the Harris and Klebold article getting the GA, oh well, I'm sure it'll still get it even after a couple of people look through it. Thanks for clearing things up! Acekard (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv, SpinningSpark, Ajpolino, David Fuchs, Eddie891, HickoryOughtShirt?4, Lee Vilenski, Moneytrees, Red Phoenix, TheSandDoctor - Yeah, sorry for all the User pings if that's not "WP-kosher" but I thought we needed some eyes on this that are above my pay-grade so I went through various WP:GA pages and found admins who were participating in GA drives or issues.

The Epic Ghosty has not yet responded on their user talk or here at this talk. They have edited WP since the initial posts stating editors' various concerns. Does anyone know how these 6 errant GA Reviews can get rev-'del'ed/rollbacked/deleted/whatever (or even if they *should*)? Seems like it all would be something maybe an admin should do... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• OK, so it seems as though there is a consensus that articles passed by this reviewer need to be re-assessed against the GA criteria, and absent any response from the reviewer in question, they need a different reviewer. We are left with three options- relisting them for GAN, re-opening the review for a 2nd opinion, or G6'ing the reviews for a re-do. The reviews are:
  • Talk:Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse)/GA2
  • Talk:Systime Computers/GA2
  • Talk:HCR Corporation/GA1
  • Talk:Jonathan Scott (television personality)/GA1
  • Talk:Brodie Lee/GA1
  • Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold/GA2

So I'm on standby to G6 them if needed, but otherwise there's not much for an admin to do here, someone needs to re-review them and that's for the GA project to handle. Probably the best outcome would be to renominate these, whether that means deleting the current reviews or simply relisting them. We can restore the timestamps from the original nominations if wanted. Thoughts? Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say G6. The present reviews are useless & the resulting GA awards are meaningless. The GA listing that The Epic Ghosty has listed on their user pages should be removed or something too. Shearonink (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for a renomination; we should go back to the original {{GA nominee}} template and its dates, perhaps upping the page number by 1 if we want to retain the review page rather than G6 it. We did retain Talk:Systime Computers/GA1; this isn't the first quick-pass review for that nomination that had to be undone. Some of these nominations had waited for up to six months, and should retain their seniority. If there are people willing to do second reviews right now, they could just reopen and take over the existing review pages without a G6, given that there is a consensus that the reviews need to be redone. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Ok yes, seniority I agree though I don't know exactly how all that should get accomplished. Personally I volunteer around here according to my interests, I'm not sure I want to take on doing an actual GAN Review of any of these articles - two of them especially, the Arrowverse and the Harris/Kelbold are *massive*, I just don't have the time. In my opinion, though, the reviews don't need to be just re-done the present status of these 6 articles needs to be un-done. Can the GA icon and the GA designation/status be rescinded? This is all new territory to me, I don't know if the present Reviews can be re-opened without rescinding the GA status. Btw, Talk:HCR Corporation/GA1 now has a Template:Dispute about warning template on it. Shearonink (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, I've reverted the GA status of the six reviews, removed the GA icons from each, deleted each of the review pages, and returned (I hope) each article to its original place in the GAN queue. In the interest of transparency/record keeping, I preserved the text of the deleted reviews collapsed at each talk page (e.g. Talk:Jonathan_Scott_(television_personality)#GA_Review_Undone. The exception is Crisis on Infinite Earth, which I dropped at User:TheEpicGhosty/Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse)/GA2 before deciding I'd leave them on talk pages instead). I left a note to the nominators at each page as well. I think we should be all set? Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks for the input all. Ajpolino (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all! The October 2020 backlog drive has concluded, thanks to all who participated. While not all reviews have been checked by the co-ordinators (we're working on it!), tentative credit has been given to 44 participants who completed a total of 358 reviews. We were able to bring the backlog down from 606 to 361 outstanding nominations, and from 552 to 285 unreviewed ones. That's a drop of 48.4%, and what I'd consider another success! Special congratulations to MWright96, who completed 56 reviews (the most), and thanks to BlueMoonset and Aircorn whose invaluable gnoming has helped keep the GAN process running (semi)-smoothly. If there are any suggestions on how to improve the drive, please don't hesitate to let me or anyone else know. Thanks again to everyone who participated, and until next time (maybe March?) -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to review the GAN Yusuf Sayfa by Al Ameer son, but saw it had already begun by apparent junk edits[1] by an IP. Could it be reset so I can review it? FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Tagged it for speedy. An admin here or patrolling speedies will delete it soon and you can then recreate it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, looked like it already was! FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is one citation away from GA. Unfortunately, this nomination languished more than five and a half months, and in that time the editor has stopped being active on Wikipedia.

Can someone step up and provide the missing citation mentioned in Talk:Lights (musician)/GA2? I don't want to fail an article that is so close because of the slowness of the GA system as a whole. Raymie (t • c) 07:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I took a look but that statement is more complicated to cite than one might think, and it can't just be deleted because there is another reference to the same song in the next paragraph. I'll look at it some more later if no one else has addressed this. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I've now reworked the text and added citing for what I could find on this. Hope it's enough. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I was just on my way out, but I noticed that a brand new account, @GANreviewer, just created and passed Talk:The National WWII Museum/GA1 with no prior edits - is there any guideline on experience needed before being able to conduct a good article review? --DannyS712 (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that as well. That was a very odd occurrence. Was it a rogue bot or something? StubCreatorAFC (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC) strike sock comment Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, this was nominated at 17:33 UTC by StubCreatorAFC and picked up for review at 17:36 UTC by GANreviewer. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 17:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess a G6 speedy delete would be necessary here and the GA tags removed before putting the article back in the queue. Some may argue a G3 on grounds that it could be considered vandalism of the GA process, especially in light of what Harrias noted, although making a GA review page and passing it is not in itself vandalism. I think a g6 speedy is appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll tidy up the GA review shortly, but an SPI is now open: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StubCreatorAFC. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, just realised that if I speedy delete the review, it will destroy some of the diffs used as evidence in the SPI. Thoughts? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators and I think checkusers can still look at deleted diffs. Also I am very skeptical of the licensing of the images in the article (criterion 6a); the museum allows non-flash photography but that's not the same as granting free license for any use of its copyrighted material. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

User blocked after the SPI, and Dreamy Jazz has tidied up the review, thanks! Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

And to add, this user was previously blocked in August for undisclosed paid violations (BoxWriter), so perhaps this GA promotion might be a paid edit. No proof for this, but it would explain it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I just started my first GA review. I am afraid of making faux-pas. It looks to me as if the nominator does not know that I have started the review of the article George II of Greece nominated by him. A GA1 page was created when I clicked Start Review link, and I have written on this GA1 page to review it, but the nominator (who is not very experienced) does not reply on it. The nominator is however active editing the nominated page. I think I am not supposed to write on the nominator's talk page or to ping him/her/them. I expected that an automatic GANotice notification alerting the nominator would appear on his/her/their talk page, but I have looked there and can't see one. I may have done something wrong or omitted an important step. Please have a look — and please advise and correct me. Perhaps I should have approached GA first as a nominator, but as participants should do two reviews for each nomination, I thought I should do my duty before the pleasure. With many, many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If you edited the talk page of the article before the bot noticed you had opened the review, you might have confused it. To make sure the nominator knows, I always ping them when I've finished reviewing, if not when I start. Kingsif (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure you need to do anything specific at any specific time, but if you want the attention of a user to look at the nom, drop them a ping. I usually do this when I complete a review, and then place on hold.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Kingsif, dear Lee Vilensky. Thank you so much for your quick response. I will follow your advice and ping the nominator. With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed Talk:Sunderland A.F.C. supporters/GA1 and put it on hold a while ago. @Maxim.il89: has been of Wikipedia for a while and is yet to respond on the review page. The article has been on hold for well over a month. What do I do? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Its kinda up to you. Ping or send a talk page message (they haven't edited since 2nd November, but sometimes they see alerts) if you want. If you don't want your review to go to waste then you might be able to find someone to take over it at a wikiproject. Otherwise there is no issue in just closing it as failed. This happens a bit unfortunately. AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'll have to fail it. I'm not sure it was going to pass anyway. I'll notify the nominator to let them know. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Adding Talk:Aparna Rao/GA1 to this thread. Armadillopteryx 18:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand your concerns but since your are referring to a different GA reviewer I think it would be better to start a different thread about this particular issue. Shearonink (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: FYI (t · c) buidhe 20:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a couple of concerns from a quick reading of this article and with its recent GA Review. I am not sure it is up to GA standards:

• Many of the refs use JSTOR without stating that those are behind a paywall.
• Are Google Scholar results considered a reliable source?
• lead section: that last sentence is somewhat obscure in meaning..."some" have criticized? Who are these some? Yes yes I was able to find what the writer of that sentence apparently meant but I had to go searching for it. The lead is supposed to be a summation of major points in the article... Shearonink (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  Shearonink Paywalled sources are not problematic for GA or Wikipedia more generally and it is not necessary to mark them as paywalled. Open-access sources are often marked as open-access but that is also not necessary for GA. All that is required is that the sources be reliable and that they be consistently formatted. Search engine results such as those from Google Scholar are not reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Shearonink (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• David Eppstein, thank you. Nevertheless, I addressed this in copyediting by GA Reviewer and I marked all of them as paywalled sources. I agree with you, not necessary for GA, but anyways regardless, this is now done. Right cite (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW consistent formatting is not a requirement either.[2] AIRcorn (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  Shearonink, I think these are all minor issues and the article meets the good article criteria. It was a joint effort by both Мастер Шторм and Sam-2727 and they collaborated well together to improve the quality of the article. Those are certainly issues that could and should be addressed in a peer review to take the article further up to featured article candidacy. Right cite (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Мастер Шторм and Sam-2727:I hope it's okay with you both, I took the liberty as GA Reviewer of some minor copyediting. All above minor issues are now fixed, [3] [4] [5]. Thanks, Right cite (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion not minor and they should have been cleared up during a GA Review (per criteria 1b & 2b), that's what a GA Review is for. But whatever. Shearonink (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Right cite: I have some concerns as well. In addition to the lead not adequately summarizing the article (which is very, very basic, as outlined in WP:LEAD), the prose is very messy and contains numerous grammatical errors; it needs a serious copy edit. Lots of one- and two-line paragraphs that should be expanded or combined with other text. Lots of words like "co–authored" and "co–edited" that use en dashes instead of hyphens (weirdly, the reverse is a way more common mistake); see MOS:ENDASH and MOS:HYPHEN). A few instances of the passive voice being used very awkwardly. Sentences that barely make sense (e.g. "Ann Grodzins Gold of Syracuse University saw Rao's research on the Bakarwals as a 'densely packed examination'"—of what? What is this trying to say?). Verb tenses don't make sense in a lot of places; why is the Reception section mostly in past perfect? I could go on, but the point is there is no way this should have passed assessments for prose quality and adherence to the MOS.

I am also concerned with other fly-by passes you have done, such as Talk:Daire Keogh/GA1 and Talk:Elizabeth Plankinton/GA1. Surely there was at least one thing you think those articles could improve on?

I also wonder about this: It is totally standard in a GA review for the nom to reply to each reviewer point on the following line. Reviews can get very long, and moving all comments to the end can make it very hard to follow what's going on wih each specific change. At Talk:Ready Player One (film)/GA1, you twice moved all the nom's replies to a new section [6][7], even after they objected and explained how this makes the review confusing [8][9].

To be clear, I think it is wonderful that you have become so active and enthusiastic about GA reviews since you joined Wikipedia last month, but I think you would benefit from taking it a little slower. Why not first write an article and take it through GA review and get a sense for what the process is like that way? Armadillopteryx 21:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, thank you, I feel those are minor points you bring up, that I failed to find in the GA Criteria. Perhaps you may wish to add minor things like "en dashes" and things like that to the GA Criteria. I will take your advice and take more time on future GA Reviews. I stand by my GA Reviews so far. I took time to read the articles and address all of the GA Criteria one by one. Right cite (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"en dashes" and things are a part of the GA criteria. The first criterion is that the article must be well written, and it specifically mentions that this includes grammar and MOS compliance. Armadillopteryx 21:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I have found some editors like long ledes, some editors like short ledes. Some like the article intro to fully summarize the entire article contents. Others do not. I agree with you there is room for improvement. I think it can also take place in a peer review. I passed a few articles, I put an article on hold, and I quick failed an article for copyvio concerns. I will take your feedback to heart, and I will take more time with future reviews. I thank you for your feedback. Right cite (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging with the discussion here. I have a question: Are you familiar with the guidelines at WP:LEAD, especially MOS:INTRO? I must point out that this is not subjective; the lead is always supposed to summarize the article contents per those guidelines. Armadillopteryx 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, yes, I am. and I strongly agree with MOS:INTRO. I have unfortunately encountered users that prefer one-sentence-long-intros, and I'm confused as to how to deal with that sometimes. But I strongly agree with MOS:INTRO. Right cite (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad to hear that. If you encounter an article with a one-sentence intro, you should tell the nom that they must bring the lead into compliance with MOS:INTRO, or it cannot be passed to GA. Armadillopteryx 22:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I agree with you. I love MOS:INTRO and I agree with you about MOS:INTRO. Right cite (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• While not related to this discussion specifically I am concerned that quite a few experienced editors are misinterpreting the GA criteria. MOS compliance is not necessary. Only compliance with the MOS mentioned at WP:GACR. It specifically says this at that page. While reviewers are allowed to make suggestions beyond the criteria (and they are generally appreciated) we should not be failing articles or making demands for changes unless they are part of the criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, a review with such brevity is always going to be regarded as dubious and certainly doesn't seem to be in the spirit of GA even if it meets the letter of the GA "law". I personally think I have a relatively high standard of GA review which incorporates substantial elements of MOS and look for elegant and compelling prose. The article in question here, Aparna Rao, is by no means a poor one, but in its current form I would be keeping it on hold. There are issues with poor grammar, poor citation placement, some odd linking, some missing detail (when was she given her singular award?), MOS fails (e.g. MOS:HYPHEN), repeated notes etc etc. While I wouldn't class any single one of these as a GAN fail, I would class the collective as needing attention and would highlight it and work with the author to resolve the issues. To reiterate: the original brief and undetailed review may "pass the bar" but the article certainly can use a lot of work. I'll leave it to others to determine if such (basic) failings are the kinds of things we want to encourage to be overlooked at GAN. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn:, thank you. Aircorn has also offered to help me out in the future on feedback kind of as a one-on-one mentoring and I greatly appreciate that. As far as that particular article in question, I've done some more copyediting myself, and I've suggested ways the two nominators can seek out help for future improvements. Right cite (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Good, and once again, while it's not "the letter of the law", there are plenty of things that could be suggested. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've gone through several more passes, myself, and done some more copyediting on the article itself. Right cite (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with everything The Rambling Man mentions above. Shearonink (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink, thank you, glad I received the helpful feedback going forwards. Happy to have the offer of help from Aircorn in the future, that was quite kind. Right cite (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I just saw this section. I've seen in the past in issues of inexperienced reviewers, the GA review is essentially "reverted" and the article moved back to the top of the queue. Would this be a possible situation to consider here? I'd appreciate at least a bit of a more detailed review to get valuable feedback on the article (and I'm sure Мастер Шторм would be as well). I would also note that right cite has started another review on a page we've been working on: Talk:Stephen Fuchs/GA1 (will wait to see the depth of comments on that one). Sam-2727 (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I have already asked Aircorn for extra help, after they offered to help out. Right cite (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Right cite, that will work, I suppose. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, okay than you, I'm grateful to Aircorn for the gracious offer of help. Right cite (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I was off for some days and just noticed the developments and discussions regarding the article. Aircorn, Moxy, Right cite, Sam-2727, thank you for your edits to the article and the informative comments. It's so improved now. Armadillopteryx, David Eppstein, Shearonink, The Rambling Man, thank you for your informative comments. All relevant discussions are appearing a lot to take in for me in one moment, but really, thank you all. I will try to learn from the comments. Also, with the present version of the article, if something is expected of me, then can someone tell me in simple words what that is? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Мастер Шторм, see my comment on the nominations page. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm very concerned that there doesn't appear to be much understanding of the need for high-quality sources, that articles should be structured around high-quality sources, due weight depending upon the quality of sources and the context they provide, and what it means to be encyclopedic. --Hipal (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• RightCite has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Cirt. AIRcorn (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Tagged one open review he was conducting for deletion and removed any nominations made by him. AIRcorn (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

    Aircorn, should the Aparna Rao GA nomination be undone as well? Sam-2727 (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

    (i.e. reviews performed by the blocked user) Sam-2727 (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• • • Not necessarily. I don't think Cirts issues were with the GA process (they are number 44 on the below list), but political biographies and ultimately socking. Talk:Ready Player One (film)/GA1 will need a new reviewer though. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Who knows what Cirts' issues are, but all Cirts edits should be considered for rollback. I thought it was just paid editing, promotion, ownership, and disruption. It looks much worse now we know it's long-term sockpuppetry. --Hipal (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Cirt/Right cite GA reviews

As Right cite, Cirt conducted and passed the following reviews. They should be re-examined and/or reopened, given the issues that followed the Aparna Rao nomination and their own socking. They opened three reviews on October 27, one of which (Ready Player One) received attention over a number of edits and the other two weren't looked at again until they were passed in the same 24-hour period that another group of three reviews were opened and passed, after which they quickfailed one:

• Talk:The End of the Tour/GA1 (opened October 27, next edit was a pass on November 15)
• Talk:Moneyball (film)/GA1 (opened October 27, next edit was a pass on November 16)
• Talk:Aparna Rao/GA1 (opened November 15, next edit was a pass on November 16; a great deal of discussion followed)
• Talk:Daire Keogh/GA1 (opened November 16, next edit was a pass later that day)
• Talk:Elizabeth Plankinton/GA1 (opened November 16, next edit was a pass later that day)

Kingsif, I noticed you took over the Talk:Ready Player One (film)/GA1 review, which was the only one still ongoing. Might you be willing to take a look at any of these? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that Aparna Rao has been nominated for DYK, which I have put "on hold" until the decision of what to do with the original GA review has come to some conclusion here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I was asked for an update of the list I published on 23 July 2020. With the caveat that I haven't upgraded my PHP program that generated the list, so the same inaccuracies remain, here is an updated and expanded list. I still have working on further enhancements to this on my to-do list. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - -

4,337 editors have nominated at least one Good Article. As of yesterday, when this report was generated, there are 32,857 Good Articles. The program found nominators for 32,746 of them (99.7%). The 111 articles for which the nominator wasn't found generally date to 2007 and earlier. Here are the top 121 (anyone with 50 or more GAs). The numbers after += are the running total of GAs produced by the top contributors.

  1  Sturmvogel 66 => 777 += 777
  2  Parsecboy => 608 += 1385
  3  TonyTheTiger => 331 += 1716
  4  Hurricanehink => 301 += 2017
  5  Gen. Quon => 282 += 2299
  6  Chiswick Chap => 270 += 2569
  7  MWright96 => 263 += 2832
  8  Hawkeye7 => 259 += 3091
  9  Mitchazenia => 226 += 3317
 10  Miyagawa => 219 += 3536
 11  Sasata => 216 += 3752
 12  ChrisGualtieri => 208 += 3960
 13  Epicgenius => 208 += 4168
 14  The Rambling Man => 197 += 4365
 15  Imzadi1979 => 193 += 4558
 16  Cplakidas => 191 += 4749
 17  Arsenikk => 189 += 4938
 18  Dough4872 => 184 += 5122
 19  12george1 => 178 += 5300
 20  Magicpiano => 175 += 5475
 21  SounderBruce => 174 += 5649
 22  Courcelles => 155 += 5804
 23  Hunter Kahn => 150 += 5954
 24  Cyclonebiskit => 148 += 6102
 25  Carbrera => 144 += 6246
 26  Encyclopædius => 143 += 6389
 27  Ritchie333 => 141 += 6530
 28  Yellow Evan => 139 += 6669
 29  Cartoon network freak => 135 += 6804
 30  Grapple X => 130 += 6934
 31  ThinkBlue => 130 += 7064
 32  ProtoDrake => 128 += 7192
 33  Bellhalla => 126 += 7318
 34  Rodw => 124 += 7442
 35  Ruby2010 => 123 += 7565
 36  Wizardman => 121 += 7686
 37  Jackyd101 => 120 += 7806
 38  Hchc2009 => 119 += 7925
 39  Another Believer => 116 += 8041
 40  Doug Coldwell => 112 += 8153
 41  IndianBio => 112 += 8265
 42  Ealdgyth => 110 += 8375
 43  Ed! => 110 += 8485
 44  Cirt => 109 += 8594
 45  Yzx => 107 += 8701
 46  Theleftorium => 105 += 8806
 47  Nova Crystallis => 103 += 8909
 48  Czar => 97 += 9006
 49  Gerda Arendt => 97 += 9103
 50  PresN => 97 += 9200
 51  MPJ-DK => 95 += 9295
 52  Tomobe03 => 95 += 9390
 53  Piotrus => 94 += 9484
 54  Jo-Jo Eumerus => 93 += 9577
 55  Kew Gardens 613 => 92 += 9669
 56  Cwmhiraeth => 91 += 9760
 57  Igordebraga => 91 += 9851
 58  Harrias => 90 += 9941
 59  Thegreatdr => 90 += 10031
 60  Calvin999 => 88 += 10119
 61  Lee Vilenski => 88 += 10207
 62  Borsoka => 86 += 10293
 63  Midnightblueowl => 86 += 10379
 64  Aoba47 => 84 += 10463
 65  Legolas2186 => 84 += 10547
 66  Juliancolton => 81 += 10628
 67  Ironholds => 80 += 10708
 68  Scorpion0422 => 76 += 10784
 69  Starstriker7 => 76 += 10860
 70  Dana boomer => 74 += 10934
 71  Resolute => 74 += 11008
 72  Jaguar => 72 += 11080
 73  Ian Rose => 71 += 11151
 74  Muboshgu => 71 += 11222
 75  Floydian => 70 += 11292
 76  Gary => 70 += 11362
 77  Isento => 70 += 11432
 78  Crisco 1492 => 69 += 11501
 79  Zawed => 69 += 11570
 80  KAVEBEAR => 68 += 11638
 81  Judgesurreal777 => 67 += 11705
 82  AustralianRupert => 66 += 11771
 83  JG66 => 65 += 11836
 84  Sabrebd => 65 += 11901
 85  Nvvchar => 64 += 11965
 86  BlueMoonset => 63 += 12028
 87  Kosack => 63 += 12091
 88  Al Ameer son => 62 += 12153
 89  Lemonade51 => 62 += 12215
 90  My love is love => 60 += 12275
 91  SusunW => 60 += 12335
 92  CaliforniaDreamsFan => 59 += 12394
 93  HĐ => 59 += 12453
 94  Iazyges => 59 += 12512
 95  Sanfranciscogiants17 => 58 += 12570
 96  TarkusAB => 58 += 12628
 97  Redtigerxyz => 57 += 12685
 98  Spinningspark => 57 += 12742
 99  Frickative => 56 += 12798
100  TheAustinMan => 56 += 12854
101  West Virginian => 56 += 12910
102  Candyo32 => 55 += 12965
103  Ichthyovenator => 54 += 13019
104  Viridiscalculus => 54 += 13073
105  Yeepsi => 54 += 13127
106  11JORN => 53 += 13180
107  Bencherlite => 53 += 13233
108  CorporateM => 53 += 13286
109  Nergaal => 53 += 13339
110  Rhain => 53 += 13392
111  Toa Nidhiki05 => 53 += 13445
112  Auntieruth55 => 52 += 13497
113  Glimmer721 => 52 += 13549
114  Hog Farm => 52 += 13601
115  97198 => 51 += 13652
116  Dunkleosteus77 => 51 += 13703
117  Petergriffin9901 => 51 += 13754
118  Tintor2 => 51 += 13805
119  Gog the Mild => 50 += 13855
120  Mattythewhite => 50 += 13905
121  Trust Is All You Need => 50 += 13955

Again, this is just a beta report. The list is not 100% accurate, as there are known bugs in the program. But the numbers are reasonably close to being accurate. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Looks mostly correct. I ran a script to do something similar and came up with closely matching results. I didn't spend much time on it – just a couple of hours, so your coverage is better than mine: I couldn't detect the nominators of as many as 299 pages. But they're all pre-2007 articles. At that time it seems there was no formal process and some articles appear to have been just marked as GAs without being nominated by anyone. I have put the output at User:SDZeroBot/Wikipedians by most GANs. The good part is that I've got a list of pages with no discernible nom. The code is here. Is your code available? – SD0001 (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

ping folks from the previous discussion @Harrias, The Rambling Man, Lee Vilenski, Ajpolino, Eddie891, Buidhe, Ritchie333, Barkeep49, and Aircorn: This is a longer list so you may find your name here if you weren't lucky enough to be on wbm's list!

Also if the missing nominators could be manually backfilled at User:SDZeroBot/Wikipedians by most GANs/Errors, we'd have the complete data, and the list can be periodically updated by a bot. – SD0001 (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This is fantastic work. I don't mind doing some deep dives into some of those errors as and when I get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

After updating the regex to account for {{GAC}} (which apparently was used in place of {{GA nominee}} at some point) and another variation, the number of errors came down to 180. – SD0001 (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: You're using TypeScript? First I've heard of that language; I had to look it up. Studying JavaScript has been on my "to-do list" for like forever, someday I'll make time for that. It looks like you're using database lookups that make your code more efficient (I just figured out how to do something useful with Quarry – Talk-to-mainspace redirects). My last run took 16 hours, 18 minutes to work through everything. I started to hard-code some of the errors; making a special table for them is a good idea. User:Bot1058/goodarticlenominators.php – wbm1058 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I'm just storing the results in a database so that every single article doesn't need to be processed repeatedly every time the list needs an update (we can just process the newly added GAs and remove the db entry of the delisted GAs). My last run took 16 hours, 18 minutes wow, well my code takes 15–20 minutes. The secret lies in concurrency. The MediaWiki API is very robust and resilient – for read queries, you don't have to be kind and just send one query at a time. You can process 40 pages simultaneously. (In fact, some tools like Twinkle send as many 50 concurrent queries even for write operations like deleting pages!). – SD0001 (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A note for reviewers: The WP:OPED shortcut (which some reviewers have used fairly often) has been re-targeted to the same Signpost submissions page as WP:OP-ED. The MoS section the shortcut formerly pointed to already had (and still has) MOS:OPED and MOS:OP-ED and MOS:EDITORIAL shortcuts. In particular, if you have a custom template you use for doing reviews and it makes reference to that guideline, please update any WP:OPED shortcut in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A note about formatting of the list of nominations page—and I might be just running low on sleep—but I was really confused by the "(start review) (Reviews: #) [Username]" layout. Even after reading through the instructions, I was under the impression that the Reviews: number count was for current reviews of a given nomination, and kept trying to look for them in the talk page like a very confused moth drawn to a non-existent flame. I didn't realize it actually referred to a user's review count until I noticed two by the same user in a row. Would it perhaps be advisable to move the number count to after the username? I initially passed over an article I had wanted to review because I thought it was covered already (thinking perhaps the "discuss review" option only came up after the review was finished). WhinyTheYounger (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, the GA review for Priscilla Jana is nearly done and the only lingering question regards the image, File:Priscilla Jana.jpeg. Could someone experienced in fair-use images kindly advise us on whether a further rationale needs to be appended or if it already has the needed information? The file is only being used in this one entry, but the “add a rationale” banner is tripping us up. Many thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Innisfree987 Looks fine. I've added the template parameter that hides the "add rationale" bit since I've reviewed the rationale. Thanks for being thorough! — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't really agree that a fair use image for someone who has died less than two months ago is appropriate. As she was someone very much in the public eye, it's altogether possible that free-to-use images are out there. What evidence do we have that anyone has taken the time to go find a free alternative? Has anyone asked for a licensed image to be relicensed to CC-BY-4.0 for example? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I became involved after another editor had done a lot of research and located an image in a CC-licensed collection. However, I suspected the collection didn’t have the rights to CC license and after still more research, I found the image it had been cropped from and indeed it was improperly licensed, so it is being deleted from the Commons. I and another editor both looked for more free images. We could not confirm any. Only after all of this did we turn to a fair use image. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I read the FU rationale after my comment and I have to say it's reasonably compelling, but given there are dozens of images of her on Google, it demonstrates that she was hardly a private reclusive person so a free image may be difficult to come by, but not impossible. I still think a few weeks after death is too brief to enable a full and proper quest for a free image. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

NFCC#1 only requires that a free equivalent not be available and that it is impossible for one to be created. Regardless of how long the subject has been deceased, that they are deceased means no one can create a free image themselves. Since I assume the editor made a bona fide search for free images (especially given the detailed rationale), I'm willing to believe that no free image is available. If that changes, we can delete the non-free image, but at the moment I don't see any reason to believe a free equivalent exists. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's the "or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." clause you're refactoring into "impossible for one to be created". What we're saying here is that unless emails have been sent out to people who own non-free images in an attempt to get them re-licensed, then I don't believe enough due diligence has been made for such an image to qualify for fair use. This, however, is a perennial issue so perhaps worth taking to the NFCC talk page to get better and wider guidance than this one instance. I know that there are several experienced Wikipedians out there who think that six months is the bare minimum for such prominent individuals before fair use should be applied. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and "Regardless of how long the subject has been deceased, that they are deceased means no one can create a free image themselves. " is completely false. If someone has personal photograph of the individual that they are willing to upload, that's just fine. I imagine literally thousands of photos of the individual in question exist in people's personal film rolls. To claim that just because some has died that it is therefore impossible to create a free to use image is utterly misleading and I suggest you desist from propagating such falsehoods. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Get any of that written into policy and I'll agree with you, but I'm not going to read into policy such absurd requirements. WP:NFCI is quite clear: Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely Hoping a shoebox full of public domain images magically appears or requiring that we spam people's email isn't "reasonably likely". — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you've lost the point of this discussion. I'm not saying a shoebox of PD images will appear using magic. I'm not saying we spam people's email. Aren't you an admin? Why is it so hard to have a conversation without resorting to hyperbole? As I have said already, it is actually possible to look for images and get their licensing changed. I have also started a discussion at WT:NFCC where you can make your personal preference on how to interpret that known. I have literally no dog in the fight. If you can get a consensus to say "the second after someone dies, you can upload any picture of them under fair use", I'll be delighted, because it's a precise definition of what we can and cannot do. In the meantime, quit the hyperbole, act like an admin and discuss things in a civil manner. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, thank you for looking it over—it’s very helpful to know that! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

See the edit history at Talk:Robin Hood (2010 film)/GA1. I've posted to the editor's user talk asking for clarification but darned if I can find any specific policy saying there can't be more than one Reviewer and maybe I'm missing it but I don't see a request for a second opinion... Help? Shearonink (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. I thought they were reviewing but they were instead working on improving the article so not a 2nd reviewer after all. Shearonink (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly allowed, and sometimes explicitly requested, to provide comments on a GA that you are neither reviewer nor nominator for. Doing that is different from being the reviewer though. There are also times in which a second reviewer takes over from a first one, usually because other circumstances prevent the first reviewer from continuing. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I also wanted to speak about this. I had two reviews I was conducting have a second person come by and add their own comments to. Whilst I do appreciate the thoughts, the reviews were still being conducted. Should I expect this to happen more frequently? Reviews are here and here. I'm happy for people to add points, but it's a little unusual in my experience for reviews that are in progress. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, "unusual", certainly not a common practice in my experience. Having a single reviewer is one of the good/bad things about a GAN - you only have one boss and you only have one boss. That was one of the adjustments or accommodations I had to make when I did my FL/FA - dealing with multiple points of view from different editors. Personally, I would never post on a GA review that someone else was conducting without asking if the Reviewer and the Nominator if minded and if they objected in any way, unless there was a clear issue with not adhering to GA criteria etc. I think it muddies the waters. I get that reviewers or nominators might ask for a second opinion but that is not what happened in the GAN I first mentioned above or what happened with Lee's examples. Shearonink (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

When someone starts a review the template on the talk page reads An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Bold mine. So yeah it's allowed and actually encouraged to get more opinions on a review, its just up to the first reviewer (i.e. the person who created the page and is listed at the top of the review) to make the final decision. AIRcorn (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, all articles listed at WP:GAN as being under review have the following notation: Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). It's a feature, not a bug. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

While looking for a GA to review, I noticed that 66.103.58.199 has made what appears to be a test edit (see the edit summary), but it started the GA review for James Oglethorpe Monument. (Courtesy ping to @66.103.58.199:, if you're still around at all.) Should this page be deleted so that JJonahJackalope can get a review? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted/reverted this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A number of articles that have been recently delisted per WP:GAR still need reassessment — for example, Sorry (Madonna song). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: The GAR is the reassessment. If you work on the issues and think the aticles now meet the criteria you need to nominate it for a new GA review at WP:GAN. AIRcorn (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

GAR isn't a yo-yo process. If it is delisted at GAR, it's up for editors to re-nominate as if it was never a GA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, could someone take a look at Talk:Sarah_Cooper/GA1? Reviewer intended to pass the article but may need some advice about the process. Any observations to help improve the article would be welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that what I see there constitutes a good article review really... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion so that you can get a proper review. Someone who apparently doesn't understand how it works and hasn't asked for help isn't suitable to carry it out IMO. (t · c) buidhe 13:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, buidhe, it's now at MfD, and I'm not sure it's going to get deleted. While I don't think the review was adequate and the failure to carry through with the pass shows a lack of understanding of how the process works, there was no attempt to engage with the reviewer, and requesting a speedy deletion without anything along those lines seems overly bold to me (and a dubious use of G6); I'd advise against doing so in future. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above suggests this is the right place for a GAN revert. At Talk:Arbus, Sardinia/GA1, a new user Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (<50 edits) has made what appears to be an entirely inadequate review. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and deleted the "review" and reverted. Looked more like test edits to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I am completing a GAN on Jacob Earl Fickel, and am confused about where to list it as a passed GA. Help!Georgejdorner (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:GAN#WAR. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to propose something formal for sub-par reviews, and how we deal with them. We currently post any reviews that are either of poor quality or reviews that are ok, but the articles themselves clearly don't meet the criteria on this page, and then gain a consensus whether we should delete the review, continue with the status quo, go via WP:GAR etc.

I think this actually happens quite a lot; so a formal process, or at least something official as to how we deal with these should be added to our rules. I'm open to any input on how this should be implemented, but I did come up with a couple ideas.

1. Continue with these reviews being posted on this talk page, but add something to the rules/information page that this is the correct location. - this is pretty much what we do now, but I do think it is suitable to define the process, and what the potential outcomes should be.
2. create a new subpage - a meta-review page if you will. Potentially a Wikipedia:Good article nominations/reassessment or similar. Perhaps this is too much bureaucracy - this page isn't overly full.
3. Have some additional rules on new reviewers - I'd rather stay away from this, as I feel we have a difficulty in gaining new reviewers. However, people willing to tutor those doing reviews is always a bonus. Perhaps that until you have completed 5 reviews it will need signing off from an established editor? Or, maybe that you can only take on one review at a time until you've done some? I don't think there is anything technically that could be done to avoid this, so it would just be a rule.

I think this issue depends on how much you view these reviews to be a problem. I quite often get asked what to do when someone spots a suspicious review, so having a policy or even a specific area would be a good place to send them. Let me know your thoughts. If this isn't an issue, please disregard :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's worth formalizing the procedure to some extent. I'd say my top choice of these options is 1, followed closely by 2, and 3 in a distant third-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a good idea to standardize because although the idea of deleting incorrect reviews has a lot of support among GAN regulars, it can be hit and miss—see Talk:Sarah_Cooper/GA1.

Personally, I would like a requirement to have someone sign off on the *first* review. If you can do one review correctly, further reviews are usually OK. (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As someone who started doing GA reviews recently, I agree that this would be the best option. There are already GAR mentors, but I don't know how many of them are active. Personally, the one I contacted had became inactive and so I got help from another user off-wiki for my first review. MSG17 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe option one is the most logical course of action of the three. MWright96 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I also believe the first option is the best one. In this way, if a nominator thinks a view is subpar, they may ask for a second opinion without it being too burdensome of a process. Epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree that option 1 is the best first step. Kingsif (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the best place. Not sure where to put instructions though. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions is already getting bloated (we should seriously look at reducing that) and needs to be kept for the reviewing/nomination process. Maybe adding to the FAQ is the best bet. As to the third point I feel this is an area we have gone backwards recently and something that we need to address. I would support some more foccused training/mentorship approach for editors taking on a review for the first time. Maybe we could take advantage of the recent interest from our friendly bot operators and drop a note to a new reviewers talk page, or even better flag new reviewers here or on a subpage so one of the regulars can drop into the review and help guide. It would be a much better outcome to catch these early and set them on the right path than bite them later by deleting their reviews or dragging them here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the "You can help!" on the WP:GAN really supposed to be a disambiguation page? I would assume it's supposed to link to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing but I'm unsure how to access whatever template that text is in. Aza24 (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It's the result of an undiscussed retargeting in May 2019. Not sure if fixing the target or changing the underlying link behind the piped link is more helpful, as the target does make some sense for the link redirect. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Well I would assume that only new users/reviewers would click on "You can help!" – and it seems like an unnecessary confusion to go to a disambiguation, since Wikipedia:Good article reassessment doesn't help the backlog. Aza24 (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean the keeping the target of the linked redirect and just changing the link itself. IMO the best way to do this is to directly link to the appropriate section of the more plausible target and then use an anchor in case the section titled eventually change. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

When I looked at the topics to select for the article I nominated Frank Bailey (firefighter) (a relatively short article anyway) I was not really sure it fits well under any of the topics so I just left it to auto-classify as Miscellaneous. However, the template is warning about the lack of subtopic so I was wondering if it will still be seen by prospective reviewers under the misc. section or if it is just best to select the most related subtopic? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Spy-circle: It should get done, but it likely will be a little slower. If no one has picked it up as of February 1, leave a message on my Talk and I'll do it that week. ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, can anyone resume the GA review of King Ludwig Oak as it has been abandoned by a new editor Cobalt03 due to some problems as stated on my talk page. See the communication at User_talk:Amkgp#Your_GA_nomination_of_King_Ludwig_Oak. As of now it looks as if someone is actively reviewing. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 16:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Belatedly noting that the review page was deleted and the nomination put back in the pool of those awaiting a reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This GAR has brought up concerns that the article may not have enough depth to meet WP:GNG or to satisfy the GA criteria for breadth of coverage. We agreed that it may be helpful to get someone else to take a look at the article and add their thoughts to the GAR. Would anyone be able to help, please? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Talk:Naewat-dang shamanic paintings/GA1
• Talk:Fuller's Coffee Shop/GA1
• Talk:Club Feathers/GA1
• Talk:The Hobbit (2003 video game)/GA1
• Talk:Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law/GA1 ‎

Danielyng I am glad that you are willing to help out with this backlog, but it may be better to start a bit more slowly. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The main issue that exists now is this user hasn't completed any of those, and has left the reviewers hanging. For one of them, another user has carried out the review but the absence of Danielyng means they can't close it. Do you know if there's a procedure for this? ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

So far as I can see, at least two of the reviews have now been carried out by other reviewers (Talk:Fuller's Coffee Shop/GA1 and Talk:Club Feathers/GA1), but, as ImaginesTigers said, they have not been formally closed since Danielyng (since renamed Jurysith) has not returned. Armadillopteryx 01:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, can someone else please close these? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the two that were fully abandoned, per the FAQ, since it's been almost 3 weeks now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The GA review was done by a new account with less than 20 edits, all of which are edits of them vandalising, POV-pushing or edit warring on the same article (which they also got banned for). The review itself doesn't properly fit the GA reviews' rules as well. Any idea on what should be done? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not a Good article review, that is just a rant. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and copy the text to the talk page and delete the GAR page as inappropriate.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted rather peremptorily a bunch of edits to an article with GA status, "per WP:GA". I have seen this form of words used at other GAs too. But I can't find any such policy? Am I looking in the wrong place? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:FAOWN may have some of what you are looking for. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

GA isn't a policy or guideline, and you shouldn't really be using it as a justification for removing stuff versus something like "needs to be verified by a reliable source" or similar. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. Both answers were what I needed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding categories: It is not quite clear to me where statues and monuments fall into. Are they architecture? Or are they places? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The "Architecture – Memorials and monuments" subsection of WP:Good articles/Art and architecture looks like the right place to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just noticed that a new user has opened a review of an article they also just nominated. Could someone please delete the GAN? ♦ jaguar 21:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: the review page has already been deleted, but I have also deleted the nomination as out-of-process: the editor is not a significant contributor (hasn't edited the article at all) and has not consulted with those who are on the article talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that Wolfwalkers seems to have gained a no-nom GA from an anon user. Thats not normal is it? Its not a GA either, is it? Fob.schools (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fob.schools! Thank you for spotting this. Wolfwalkers has not received a good article review, as this would be shown on the talk page and with a banner. I have moved its classifications down to start class for now (although it may well be C class). The editor who did this has the IP address 2600:1700:bfa1:b110:4032:5169:9db7:af33, so I am unable to give them a warning. The link to their collective edits is here: [10]. Thanks again! Bibeyjj (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

An IP just opened the review at Talk:Brodie Lee/GA1, and "passed" it... there hasn't been any follow up yet, and the IP seems more interested in spaceflight than wrestling, so could someone roll it back and hope they don't try again? Kingsif (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, this review was already undone once in November. I've nuked the malformed review, left a note at Talk:Brodie_Lee#GA_review_undone_again along with the text of the review in case anyone missed it, and left a short note at IP's talk. I didn't look to see if there were any others, so feel free to ping me if more cleanup is needed. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, happy holidays and best wishes for the new year! I'm assuming we're on for a reviewing drive in March again-- just mentioning it here in case anyone thinks that's too soon-- we want to avoid burn-out at all costs.

There was some mention recently about creating a task force for sweeps and I think January would be a great time to get that set up and start the process-- it's probably going to be a multi-month if not year effort. If there's interest I'd also be happy to re-set up an irregular newsletter (that could be sent out before a drive, after a drive, whenever there are updates or relevant discussions, but probably not more than quarterly). Any interest in any of this stuff? Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd be interested and willing to help, although WP:URFA/2020 is taking up a decent chunk of my attention, so I won't be able to throw as much time towards GA as I have in the past. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Like with Hog, outside of a few GANs and FACs, I'm going to be mostly spending this year working on maintenance on my old GAs and FAs. By "Sweeps", do we mean going through and rechecking old GAs since the last sweeps? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

David Fuchs The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_24#Some_form_of_GA_sweeps_is_desperately_needed_to_happen_again. I'm not sure what time frame would be swept-- maybe a combination of articles tagged with issues, as needing possible reassessment and promoted before a certain date. I'd be curious to hear what others have to say (Courtesy ping to previous participants who haven't weighed in here: Kew Gardens 613, MrLinkinPark333, Barkeep49, Aircorn, Buidhe, Sdkb, GaryColemanFan and Kingsif) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

A sweep would definitely be needed. Per the last discussion, articles at Articles needing possible reassessment need definitely rechecking and various issues at https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Good_articles.html. I don't see why not checking the old GAs per the last sweep considering there's a big gap since the last check. Hopefully the last sweep wasn't 2010 per Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps :/ --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the 2010 sweeps was the only Sweeps done, and while the problem has grown since then, I don't think the necessity has lessened. A one-in-a-decade quick reevaluation for at least the appearance of meeting GA quality by established GAN reviewers is well overdue, and I'd be happy to help; people just need to realize that the original sweeps took 30 months with some highly-active contributors who are no longer around, and that a new sweeps is something akin to needing a five-year plan at least. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help whatever is needed once I've got myself back into a schedule. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree sweeps is needed and would be happy to help. As far as coordination goes, i.e. not having everyone descend on the reassessment category starting at A, I would be happy to help work out some "plan", too. Kingsif (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

We also may be able to run ORES on the category of good articles to identify articles with large amounts of uncited text and flag articles with low quality assessments, but I'm not familiar with how that technology would work-- can anyone advise on whether that's feasible? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think ORES can be used to find large chunks of uncited text but I could be wrong. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49 I was basing it off of mw:ORES, under #existing article assessment which says that it can check for how many references there are, though you;re right that doesn't exactly equal finding large amounts of unreferenced content. I also think that Hawkeye7 has programmed MilHistBot to check for references at the end of every paragraph, so it seems like getting something to flag articles in a category with problems should be possible, though I'm not sure how to do it. Apologies for using ORES as a catch-all for 'computer program' -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm definitely in favor of this "sweep" and think it would probably be helpful to prioritize an issue for this sweep, as there are a lot of different kinds of potential problems we could tackle. Them in a future sweep we could highlight a different problem (or two if they are more "minor"). If this works we could even move to essentially a system where every 3 months we have either a GA backlog drive or a GA quality sweep month. I'd be fine with either focusing either on uncited paragraphs or articles with promotional and other similar large scale writing issues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea of prioritizing issues, but I'm not actually sure about the technology to do it besides tags, and we can't rely on the worst articles having been tagged. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to set up a sweeps page on something akin to the five year plan David mentions above, and look into holding specialized drives on occasion, so that way users can work on what they choose to and if people feel so inclined they can assess outside of a drive. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ORES can check for unsourced paragraphs to my knowledge, might be worth getting someone a bit more technical on board to see how we could make this work. I feel this would be the easiest thing to check for, along with running every GA through earwigs tool for Copyvios. Finding untagged articles with problems outside this might be a bit more manual. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Late to the party here, but I would suggest editors keen to do a sweep start with the older unswept GAs first. If we could pick out the oldest ones that have not had a re/assessment and maybe work back from there it might be more fruitful. AIRcorn (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

An editor who registered an account on 14 January and who has had most edits reverted, nomination Holiday World & Splashin' Safari for GA after one minor edit to this currently C-class article. I reverted the nomination. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ewf9h-bg is both the nominator and reviewer of Talk:Ancient furniture/GA1. It looks like they might not have realized that they have to wait for an uninvolved editor to open the review. (t · c) buidhe 04:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the review. I guess the bot should notice that soon and clean up? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I assumed once I started the review someone else would come an review it Ewf9h-bg (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ewf9h-bg, No, you have to wait for an uninvolved editor to open the review. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

G'day all, I am currently reviewing a GAN on a controversial subject, and consider that one aspect of the article does not meet criteria #4 (neutrality). I would prefer to not fail it on my opinion alone, the rest of the article is fine, but am at an impasse with the nominator. Usually, use of a RfC to get a community consensus isn't necessary or even desirable at GAN (in fact WP:RFCNOT says not to), and in nearly 350 GAN reviews, I have never had this arise, but the article seems important enough to me to ask for a community view on neutrality before I fail it on my opinion alone. Is it reasonable to IAR here? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I neglected to say that I am talking about Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/GA2. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, one option is to listen to the other two editors who supported FDW7777's version and consider that the consensus may be against you on this point. Failing that, I can see no other objection to an RfC to decide the content of the article (as opposed to the outcome of the GAN). (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but given the topic, I am thinking that a wider consensus on the neutrality of the Sectarianism section would be better. Of course, the decision about passing or failing the GAN itself lies with me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Can an admin delete the following reviews: Talk:Stadium MRT station/GA1, Talk:Fraser's Hill/GA1 and Talk:Arbor Hill Historic District–Ten Broeck Triangle/GA1? The reviewer, AussieCoinCollector, has passed the articles as good articles after making a single comment. For example, at Stadium MRT station, the reviewer noted, "1. No copyright/plagiarism 2. Meets all 6 of the GA criteria. So yes, I would pass this article." However, per WP:GAI#Reviewing these are not substantive enough. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If no one else is willing, I will do this for all the ones save Arbor Hill since that was my own nom. But I'd really prefer someone else stepping in. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Note to Daniel Case and Epicgenius: AussieCoinCollector has been blocked as a long-term abuse sock. I think under the circumstances all the reviews need to be undone/deleted, and the nominations restored to await regular reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted the other two; it seems someone else took care of the rest. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have taken both Stadium MRT Station and Fraser's Hill as GA Reviews. This should help. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of three GAs redirected at AFD lately: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Shop (Madonna song) (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complicated (Rihanna song), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway). Is there anything that needs done on the GA end of this to reflect that these are no longer GAs (or articles)? Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

And several more redirected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetItRight. I know notability isn't hardcoded into the GA criteria, but when we do the GA sweeps, it might be worth taking a glance at the notability of some of these. Hog Farm _Talk 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Same steps as at WP:GAR, minus the bit about the bot archiving it from reassessment.

"If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were). A bot will remove and archive the assessment from the GA reassessment page."

Of course, if it is deleted, there won't be a talk to fix. Whilst notability isn't a GA criteria, we should be making sure we think it does pass this on GA reviews. It is definately worth looking through GAs to make sure they are notable. Great work as ever Hog Farm. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed my first article today (you can find my review here). The writer thought I interpreted the guidelines a bit harshly. Is he correct? Or am I in the right? Please answer honest and direct please :) --Ruling party (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Observations

@Ruling party:

• you referred to the communist party as both KPJ and SKJ (you need to pick one - I picked one for you).

don't do their work for them. Tell the nominator what needs to be done to improve the article.

• Very good. I have only one comment. A communist society can't introduce liberal policies

don't tell them what to do and what a term means and how they have applied it. Say it is unclear or that they have contradicted themselves in the article, or that more clarity needs to be introduced about how they use this term liberal policies. You need to be careful not to introduce your opinion in a review. What you are doing is looking for clear expression, clear delivery of history, ideas contained there in, and support from sources and references.

• My main contention is that its too short.

Say, "this coverage appears short and is missing information that may help the reader."

• the Ceauceascu road, Dubcek, Xi Jinping el cetra el cetra??? Why these reforms?

You are criticising the author here. It is better to say "Why were these reforms introduced, and suggest that Ceauseascu, Dubeck, XI Jinping might be significant points to illustrate the reforms."

• What was the agenda of the 6th Congress? I'm guessing it was

Here, you are telling the author what to do. Your task is to help the author improve the article to a GA standard.

• Now, I am going to be nice here, and tell you that you have committed a mortal sin.
  • ... I know more than the average person than this

You are telling the author you know more than what they do. Yes, you have done some research, yes you have gathered resources, Yes, you know the topic. Good. Your task is to review, and guide, not tell the world how much you know. Mortal sin here. First review, you can be forgiven yes, and learn.

• First, a party congress doesn't elect the party leader.

Stop telling the author what-hey about the topic. Rephrase this to say, "How is it that the party congress elects the leader? What is there role, do you have a reference?"

• I don't know if it's true of Yugoslavia

Don't talk about what you don't know. As a reviewer, you don't speculate, you assess the article on the information given and make allusions to what might be referenced.

• The composition of the Central Committee, Central Auditing Commission, the Executive Committee and the Secretariat (not mentioned) are barely discussed

This is a good observation. Here, you can open a door for the author to improve the article. You end it at barely discussed and put that before the author. Let the author do the work.

• • • I will assist by copyediting the text :)

You will do nothing of the sort. Your task is to review. If the language is so bad, you do a Quick Fail of the article. See WP:GAFAIL para 3.

The preferred Overall comment is to start the conversation with "Kindly attend to the issues raised above"

All of that conversation under Overall needs to be indented properly. You need to stay within the boundaries of what is a GA Review.

• • • • Tomobe03 has withdrawn the nomination due your stepping over into control of the article. Reference to Featured Article does not belong here, there are explicit instructions about not mucking up FA with GA.

Nice try, lots to learn, now go and read some GA Reviews by HogFarm or The Most Comfortable Chair or Ealdgyth --Whiteguru (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

See here for past Good Article Reviews by the editors mentioned above. (And more) --Whiteguru (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It's perfectly permissible to copyedit the article as long as you don't make major changes. Alternately, you can suggest copyedits at the GA nom page. Otherwise, Whiteguru's comments look pretty spot-on. (t · c) buidhe 07:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I found that meta-review kinda condescending Whiteguru, if I'm honest - we certainly shouldn't be quick-failing over a copyedit. Whilst the reviewer clearly knows more about the subject than the regular joe, that's hardly a big deal and as a reviewer, you are perfectly entitled to do a copyedit sweep of the article. This is the reviewer's first attempt, and I thought it was pretty good, just that the nominator pulled out of a nomination. The major gripe from the reviewer is that it is not broad enough, to me it seems like it is, but there are some additional things that could be implemented. However, in this case, it's usually suitable for the nominator to ask for a third opinion. There isn't much wrong with saying what you know about a subject, although this meta-review is probably right in saying that there are other ways to phrase a discussion that leaves it with the nominator to improve.

My suggestion is probably to not edit the article as much (I don't touch them during a review generally). From experience, users either want their article to be a big tick review, or they want something that will improve the article in general. This is surely better than a lot of the regular first-time reviewers who rubber stamp an article.

I don't really see that the nominator is particularly worried/annoyed about the review, more that they appreciate the stance as a reviewer. If Tomobe03 does want to re-nominate/continue with 30 on the article, let me know and I'll take a stab at it. I'm a bit worried that they pulled out over not wanting to cause a fuss - but I can see they are a prolific nominator and could probably work this out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Whiteguru, Lee Vilenski, and Buidhe: Thanks for good criticism and pointers. I'll approach my next GA review differently :)

Wikipedia is a lot of fun. Not only do you learn how to improve you're writing, but also how to formulate good and efficient criticism when reviewing. Considering that I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for covid-19 this is pretty good! --Ruling party (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to thank all of you for taking time to comment here. I'm not at all annoyed about reading that the article is not broad enough or that any other criterion is not met. Had the complaint been about npov or reliability of a source, I would certainly ask for a third opinion (assuming I cannot resolve the matter with a reviewer). I saw that the scope of the article is a major issue and, after the initial exchange in the review, I felt the review would only proceed after a lengthy discussion what belongs in a GA and what goes into an FA - with either me persuading the reviewer to give in (which is inappropriate) or with me deciding to broaden the article to the indicated scope. I thought that the only way to avoid both of those outcomes is a withdrawal of the nomination.

I have nominated the article to GAN and would naturally like to see it sufficiently improved to meet GA criteria. If the article is so way off the mark, there is no point in pursuing the review any further at this point (at least until it is significantly redone). Obviously, when I submitted the nomination, I thought the article was near enough to warrant a review, but I'm aware I might have missed the mark. Lee Vilenski you are quite welcome to contribute - I would appreciate any input. How would you like to proceed? Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to wade my input into the current review. Although I do have some additional issues with the prose! I'll drop something in a mo. Sounds like both nominator and reviewer are happy this was AGF, which is good. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I had signed up for Talk:Crusader states/GA2 during the October backlog drive. It took me weeks to gather the source material and I subsequently lost the time needed to continue. Unbeknownst to me, the same article had already been submitted for MILHIST A-class review. All of the changes due to the A-class review have overwhelmed my already-limited ability to keep up. I cannot pass the article as-is because verification problems keep creeping up and Norfolkbigfish (who submitted the GA nom) deserves a complete and correct review which is now months overdue. How shall I proceed? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Could one of the reviewers for the A Class take it over? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering Chris troutman—problem is that the ACR is less a review and more of a rolling rewrite with no real idea of when the reviewer in question will complete. There appear two options, this review is cancelled and gets resubmitted after the ACR, or this review is put on hold until that happens. Shame, as your review was thorough and I am sure it wasn't far away from GA as it was. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, the request should be withdrawn. The article still contains OR and close paraphrasing. Furthermore, many sections in the non-narrative part provide information almost exclusively about the Kingdom of Jerusalem, although the article is about the four crusader states. Borsoka (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me, if someone would like to do the honours. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I have a proposal. If a reviewer has started GA review but has not responded in 30 days, a bot (most likely User:Legobot) can notify the reviewer that they have not responded to the GA review in over 30 days. The same could apply to the nominee. If the bot is down, users can put a template on the reviewer's talk page that says the same thing. Any problems, or is this a good idea? Lazman321 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The main problem I see is that legobot is not actively maintained... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Enterprisey was developing a replacement for legobot's GA task? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I say that Legobot is most likely going to do the notification is that Legobot is the one notifying the nominee of the status of their GAN, whether it is being reviewed, put on hold, passed, or failed. Lazman321 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't think of a time when both the nominator and the reviewer have both not pinged the other one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Notifying the nominee, in this case, would be if the article was put on hold for more than a month and the user has done nothing in either the review or the article. The bot probably won't be the one notifying the nominee if they haven't, though it definitely would for the reviewer. I have seen reviews where the nominee has pinged the reviewer after finishing and the reviewer doesn't respond in more than 30 days. Not everyone has ping notifications on. Lazman321 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of at least one case where the article was abandoned by both the nominator and the reviewer. I had to step in to close it myself. See Talk:Frog pond effect/GA1. I think it might be worthwhile to get a bot (whether Legobot or otherwise) to detect whether a review needs to be closed by a third party. Edge3 (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd support that quite a bit more. If both the reviewer and nominator aren't handling the request, it should be archived. If you don't have pings on, you should have a handle on what things you have open. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I have flagged sections on a GA nominated article, University of Chicago Law School, for lacking any citations or references for content, as required by the verifiability policy and good article criteria, as well as WP:BLP. ‎Nicomachian thinks that my approach is "entirely unreasonable", considering that many other articles have unsourced content.[11] He asks that I put the matter to the community to decide who is right. (t · c) buidhe 09:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It's "unacceptable" that we would have a GA without sourcing. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments aren't helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging this, User:Buidhe. I am afraid that you may have missed the wood for the trees. My main argument is not that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My main argument is that it would be unreasonable and impractical to insert a citation or reference after the name of every single person mentioned in the section when citations and references already exist in the article for each of those people. As an example, let's take the "Deans" section of the article in question. You say that we should insert citations or references after each name in that section. Yet clicking on the name of one of the Deans would take you to their page, which contains the appropriate citations and references. The reality is that there is not a single source that groups the names of all the Deans in one place. Rather, the list of Deans is the result of painstaking research and compilation––a process that also involved creating standalone articles for each former Dean (and including appropriate citations and references, such as obituaries in national newspapers, peer-reviewed articles, and so forth). Wikipedia users should commend and encourage this effort, not criticize it because superfluous citations or references are missing. And somebody who was interested in verifying whether these individuals were actually Deans of the school is, quite literally, one click away from finding out. If what you say is necessary for an article to be considered a "good article", then I no longer maintain my nomination for the article in question to be a good article. But we do not need to look very far to see that your position is at odds with another "good article": University of Chicago does not contain references after each individual person mentioned in the "Alumni" and "Faculty" sections (save for the reference to the Nobel Laureates who taught at the university in the "Faculty" section, who can be grouped conveniently in one section, and who make up a fraction of all the names cited in that section). All I ask is that you allow common sense to prevail. Nicomachian (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Add me to the chorus agreeing that an article with an unsourced section (other than a lead that properly summarizes later sourced material) cannot be passed for GA. (I would also refuse to pass it even for having an unsourced paragraph — since GA feeds into DYK, I think our standards for sourcing should be at least as strict as the standards for DYK, which explicitly require at least one citation per paragraph.) Whether you want to require the nominator to source it before passing, or whether you want to quickfail it as being very far from compliance with WP:GACR #2c, is up to you and probably depends on how much is unsourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The unsourced sections contain claims like one of the pre-eminent constitutional law scholars of the 20th century that need to be sourced if anything like them is to be said in wiki-voice. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, a look at the first sentence at WP:ALUMNI would show this needs to be sourced. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, citations or references for content, as required by the verifiability policy and good article criteria are required. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll just chime in to briefly address one point, regarding the DYK process. As an initial matter, I disagree that GA nominations should be evaluated against DYK criteria, as they're separate processes. But in any case, WP:DYKRULES doesn't explicitly require one citation per paragraph. However, Rule D2 in WP:DYKSG mentions a "rule of thumb" that encourages "one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content". However, compliance with this rule is not mandatory, since it's merely a "rule of thumb" and it appears in the supplementary guidelines, not the primary guidelines. Not every reviewer will even know that this rule exists. Edge3 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea how this makes any difference to the GAN criteria. We need things to be sourced. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe WP:V is a policy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I have noticed that Some Dude From North Carolina has been nominating a bunch of articles for GA recently without having made any or only making a few edits on the last several of them. Most of the latter set's main contributors were inactive for months/years or even blocked as sockpuppets, but it is still strange to see no edit being made at all to the article in the last six months. I brought this up at the unofficial Wikimedia discord server and was told to post my findings here.

Out of the pending noms made by the user so far (edit count by article for the user here at XTools):

• Second-biggest and biggest contributor respectfully to Halloween (2018) and Jeepers Creepers (2001)
• Technically biggest contributor to A Goofy Movie, but this seems to only consist of one edit using IABot to archive all the sources
• Seven edits, one over 1000 bytes to Taxi Driver which makes them the sixteenth-biggest contributor
• Two small edits to Raging Bull, second biggest contributor active but no communication seems to have taken place, main one inactive
• No edits to Star Wars, same situation as Raging Bull with contributors
• One edit removing some unsourced details to The Hunger Games and none to Catching Fire, Mockingjay Part 1 and Part 2, the top three contributors to each article are inactive and some of them have been blocked, mostly for sockpuppetry

MSG17 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@MSG17: Sorry about that. I usually just nominate any article I find is GA-worthy like I did with the Hunger Games series. I don't think there's much of an issue here; the GA main page states that "Any editor [...] who believes that the article meets the good article criteria, may nominate the article for an impartial reviewer to assess." After finishing my review on Star Wars: The Force Awakens, I'm planning on working on improving Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, and then Star Wars. Since reviews usually take months to get started, I sometimes nominate without making edits, but I always plan on doing so soon after the nomination is listed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 18:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Some Dude From North Carolina, I realize it's tempting to make nominations ahead of time due to the backlog, but I hope you can appreciate how this behavior can make the backlog worse. I would say that it's preferable to hold off on nominating until you've had time to thoroughly evaluate the article and make improvements to it. (t · c) buidhe 02:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: ok. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 03:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions: "Articles may be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject." If Dude is nominating them, then he is expected to have fulfilled that consideration. WP:FACs are the ones that don't allow random users to nominate articles. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel as long as the nominator is committed to responding to a review it shouldn’t really matter too much about being an extensive contributor. I was chased away from Sonic the Hedgehog (film) because of that, in my opinion, reductive mindset. Rusted AutoParts 03:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But you are then clearly taking credit for other people's work. If you find an article that you think would pass, at the VERY LEAST you should ask those on the talk if it would be ok. I quite often increase articles upto a good standard and get ready to nom at a later date. I'd be very pissed if someone came around and just nominated it.

I can't imagine a single time it would be suitable to nominate an article you have never edited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lee. Even though the goal is to improve Wikipedia and any help is appreciated, with things like the WikiCup just starting up it is at the very least disingenuous to effectively claim a bunch of well-written articles to get promoted to GA without putting any work in. Especially if no due diligence has been done; if there's no comment at the talk page even asking if it's okay, there may be a frequent contributor to the article still expanding and/or correcting part of it who won't be happy that you're interrupting and pushing them out. Worse if they continue to work on it and the review gets passed based on their improvements. Just... make sure you're either a major contributor or at least the current main active editor for the article. Kingsif (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Following up on what Kingsif said: I also agree that it is disingenuous to claim credit for others' work, but I also feel that it defeats the goal of the good articles process – that is, encouraging editors to improve articles to meet GA criteria and, by doing so, improving the quality of Wikipedia's content. Simply nominating a well-written article for GA status doesn't improve Wikipedia in any way; normal readers probably won't notice the difference between a good article and a well-written but not GA-status article (mobile readers won't even see the icon), but they will notice the difference between a well-written article and a poorly written one. That's why I think it's best to expect the nominating user to be a frequent contributor – they should be the ones receiving credit because they're the ones truly putting in the effort to make Wikipedia better. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

”But you are then clearly taking credit for other people's work”. Wow. That’s absurd, absolutely absurd. Are the frequent editors being disallowed from participating in the GA process? Does the work of the nominator erase other editors names from the edit history? I think not. Me putting a page up for nomination is not me being some glory whore so I can steal credit (doesn’t that very concept fly in the face of WP:OWN anyway?). This is the reductive mindset I’m talking about. “Taking credit”, good god what bad faith. Rusted AutoParts 18:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Experienced GA reviewer User:HaEr48, who previously completed a review of one of my GA nominations, agreed to be reviewer for my GA nomination of Biotin. We got off to a start, but then HaEr48 stopped doing any edits on any articles. Last edit was 30 January. I left a note on Ha's Talk page. No response. I am willing to wait a bit longer, but want to know if there is a procedure for returning the nominated article to the list of articles awaiting a reviewer. David notMD (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, Sorry for the late response, I've been really busy lately. I plan to continue the review today, I hope that's okay. HaEr48 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I was just getting a bit concerned about your health. Here, waiting for vaccination, likely mid-March (>65 and one co-morbidity). David notMD (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the concern I'm fine health-wise don't worry, just been busy. This weekend I have some downtime. I'm enjoying your article so far, will post a comment to the nomination, hopefully today. HaEr48 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I've been noticing there have been flawed reviews recently at GAN with the following issues:

• Nominators opening a review on their own nomination - Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 24#Opened their own review and just recently at Talk:Buffalo Bills/GA1
• IP address reviewing and quick passing a nomination - Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 24#Non-review
• Various poor GAN reviews - Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 24#Sarah Cooper and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 24#Problematic GAN are examples
• Nominator passing articles after making drive by comments - Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 24#Multiple flawed reviews etc.

Based on these issues, I think there should be more clear instructions to let users know that these things are not appropriate at GAN:

1. Opening a review on your own nomination
2. Passing your own nomination (based on #1)
3. Quick passing nominations (with or without any comments) without performing an in-depth review

I was wondering if any of these suggestions should be added at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't see why not, though I'd like to see a mock-up of what your suggestion might look like. Would it be possible to get a banner to show up on every /GA# page saying those three things? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm for all these becoming policy. I am of the opinion, based on having done dozens and dozens of GANs, that there is no such thing as a quick-pass, and they should be totally verboten. The only quick-passes I have ever seen have been by newbies or the malicious; no article that has ever crossed my desk has ever been free of something to be pointed out and adjusted. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: @Vami IV: Here's some suggestions:

• Reviewing Step 2:
• "Be a registered user—make sure you are logged in"
• "Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review." As a reviewer, you are not allowed to pass or open your own nomination. Using sock accounts to open or pass your own nominations is also not allowed See below suggestions in quotation marks.

• Reviewing Step 3: Reviewing the article "Read the whole article. Understand its sources. Based on the good article criteria, decide whether the article could be immediately passed or immediately failed. Decide if the article is instead partially compliant or only marginally non-compliant and could pass after improvements are made. Do not quick pass the nomination. An in-depth review must be performed to determine whether a nomination passes all of the good article criteria.

Bold would be addition. In regards to socks Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_24#Winstanley_Estate though that was an afterthought. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the "opening your own nomination" issue is usually a technical misunderstanding rather than an intentional decision to "review" their own nomination. Writing it to explicitly warn about this technical note may be better. As for sock accounts, does that need to be stated? Anyone using a sock in such a manner is already not interested in following procedures, and the existing process of wiping those reviews already functions. (More grey is nominations by sockpuppets, like Talk:Singapore/GA4.) In the interests of keeping GAN as accessible as possible I'd leave unnecessary text out. CMD (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I'm willing yo drop the socks part. As for opening/closing own review, how about Please remember that you can only open or review someone else's nomination and not your own.

Don't know why but I did not receive this ping. Sure, and I would also add "Opening your own review page may delay the article's review." or similar to add explicit disincentive to experimentation. CMD (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I like that! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

My sense is that the three suggestions given above are simple and don't really need any modification. They should go straight into Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions --Whiteguru (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

On this Good Article review that started in May (2020) the reviewer has taken a very long time between the time I answered his issues and when he replied again - usually with more issues. I would answer those in a day or two, but the reviewer would take weeks again before he responded. That's why this review has dragged on for over eights months. I recently asked the reviewer if he would be willing to let another reviewer finish off this review. Again he has ignored my pings, but continues editing. I would like to have another reviewer finish off this review. User:Hog Farm (administrator) has volunteered to do the job. What can be done at this point? Thanks for your help. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• I noticed now the GA reviewer gave me a message AFTER I left the above message that he will finish up his comments by the end of this coming weekend. Likely this will drag out for another 6 months or so based on the history on how the reviewer responds to my pings. Could I have User:Hog Farm finish up the review, as then it likely will finish up in days. I know how a Good Article review should go as you can see on the 100 Good Articles I already have (31 in October 2020). The current reviewer is not properly reviewing the article. I would like to have an experienced Good Article reviewer finish this review to be able to rap it up. Thanks for your help in solving this dragged out review - that should have taken only days, but has taken months and most likely will go on for months longer with the current reviewer. I want to finish it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Why don't you wait until this weekend, when they've said they will get back to it, and then reassess. The current reviewer doesn't seem to be a bad reviewer that you need to have someone switch. While you're waiting, consider reviewing some good article nominations. There's a noticeable backlog which your 100+ nominations—37 of which are open—plays a large role in contributing to. I'm gonna be brutally honest here: I don't think you're in a position to be criticizing people for taking a long time to review your articles given that you hardly review any in turn-- you should be thanking them for taking the time to do it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this review has dragged on for far too long. However, Goldsztajn has just stated on the review, "I'll finalise my comments by the end of the coming weekend." So let's wait until Monday to see what the remaining comments are. If the review doesn't conclude by Monday, then we really should bring in another reviewer. Edge3 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Edge3 for the heads up, as indicated, the review will be finished shortly. FWIW a list of my reviews is available here, for those concerned with my standards. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Edge3, matters should be resolved on Monday 8 February 2021, as 8 months is far too long to wind up a review. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Review completed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Avishai11 has started reviewing my first GAN, Social media in the 2016 United States presidential election, and while I'm sure it's in good faith, I'm not sure they have enough experience to conduct a review. They have 11 mainspace edits in total, of which 6 have been reverted. I would appreciate input from a more experienced GA reviewer on whether to proceed, or whether the review should be paused. Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There was also an enthusiastic nomination of Talk:Amanda Gorman to GAN. CMD (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Now removed; I've advised them to consult other editors before renominating. (t · c) buidhe 16:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I have removed their review of this nomination and left them about it. I see they also have a note from Ritchie333 about nominating Kamala Harris. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the Kamala review. I don't think it's got a chance without a major contributor, or (more likely in such a high-traffic article) team of contributors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, eight minutes before your post on Avishai11's page, they opened a review at Talk:IRIS Kharg/GA1, and in their next edit four minutes later, back on the Talk:IRIS Kharg page, set the article to be a GA (though with errors in the GA template). It's clear they are nowhere near ready to be conducting GA reviews. I have reverted the edit that set it to be a GA; I'll let you take care of removing the review, since you're an admin and can do such things directly. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Guys, last time we did a GAN drive, we had just over 600 nominations, just over 550 of which were unreviewed. Right now (as of 14 February 2021) we have 627 nominations and 536 of them yet to be reviewed. As it takes a few weeks to get a drive up and running with notifications, volunteers to check reviews etc, and even perhaps a pre-Drive discussion over scoring (e.g. should GANs that are >3 months old get bonus points?), I thought I'd start the debate now. I can easily envisage us having more than 600 unreviewed nominations by the time we start. Thoughts? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I was planning on setting one up for March this coming week, but if you’d prefer to take the lead, by all means feel free! If I’m a coord again, I’d like to set some scoring chart up to score old submissions and long articles higher than short/new ones, though I don’t know what that would look like. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

additionally, the other co-ords for November’s drive, Lee Vilenski and Harrias are great users and I’d consider them wiki-friends if that’s a thing, but it felt like I did the vast majority of checking reviews, giving barnstars, and dropping talk page messages before the drive by myself. It’s a lot of work for one person, so maybe we could try to have volunteers who can commit a more even distribution of work? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to usurp or rush people, I'd just lost track of what the plan was, especially given March is only two weeks away. Perhaps we should aim for an April/May drive unless you think you can get all the necessary bits in place in the next fortnight? I wouldn't rush it, give people time. Happy to volunteer as a co-ord, but not to lead it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If memory serves, we sent out invitations like a week before the last drive, so two weeks should be doable, IMO. I also want to start updating the mass message list for the project so we can send invitations out via a mass message. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• OK, on computer now so can flesh out my thoughts here. As mentioned above, I think two weeks should be enough time, but if others disagree have no problem at all with postponement. I'm happy to reprise as a co-ord, or not if people would rather others take the wheel. I'd love to trial a scoring system along the lines of:

length at nomination vs. age of nomination	1 month	2 months	3+ months
<500 words	1	2	3
500-1000 words	2	3	4
1000-2000 words	3	4	5
2000-4000 words	4	5	6
5000+ words	5	6	7
quick fail	.5

And my thinking is that we could have people like you, TRM, who have interest in helping out but not leading involved in checking age of submission, length of article, and that the review is of sufficient quality. I'm by no means wedded to the point brackets, and it may be too complicated, just an idea and something I thought might be worth trialing. Interested to hear the thoughts of others. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You beat me by about 24 hours! I was about to write up some suggestions for a March drive! I think we are in need of a drive, and happy to help put this together. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The big thing about the rules is to keep them simple. The length of the review isn't all that important, what is important is that they are suitable reviews. I don't think we should be pushing people to write more than needed just to get additional points. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That's length of article, right, not length of review? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I assumed the above was a scoring system for the length of the review, but yeah, it's probably length of article. Good catch. I'm not sure I particularly agree with segregating per length of article, but the longer prose do tend to be a more hearty review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I think age is more important than length but then I would. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Reading and evaluating a longer article takes much more time than a short one, in my experience. (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Naturally, but the drive purpose really should be to clear backlogs, some articles have been sitting there since June of last year. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, after Some Dude From North Carolina did all his feckless nominations, I took a look at Star Wars (which is of humunguous length) and wondered about the validity of the nomination and how long the review would take. As mentioned above, age of review is more important than length of article, although, as buidhe points out, length of the article can well and truly slow you down. I imagine if I were to venture outside my comfort zone of GA reviews, it might slow me down. You really need to know a bit about the topic in order to cogently answer Is it broad in its coverage ... as we are obliged to do. March is a bit close and something needs to be done about Yapperbot who left me 8 reviews in one day. Maybe Yapperbot should be turned off for the drive. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I certainly don't advocate reviewing in areas you can't be somewhat competent editing in, but I find I can get more than a sufficient idea of what is needed by criteria 3 by looking at other GAs/FAs in the topic for a sense of what is generally needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

In the spirit of this talk, I've setup a drive page. Harrias are you interested in retaining your position as co-ordinator? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

One month? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The two month format we tried in April-May 2020 saw a 66% decline in nominations from start in the first month, which went up to 60% in the second month. October 2020 (one month) had a relatively steady decline over the course of the month, though the number of unreviewed articles began to flatten out. Two months didn't seem to result in substantially more articles being reviewed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Maybe if we're back here again in six months, we'll do another month. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I've found that two months isn't all that more beneficial than one month, I'd rather run two a year than one twi-month one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I support 1 month for the reasons that Lee Vilenski says. I am willing to be a co-ordinator. (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll support a one-month drive. Two months is too long. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Despite the symbol appearing to be the neutral symbol for a second opinion, I believe this is pretty generic and a different symbol could satisfy this matter. I know this is quite a silly request; would something like this suffice? Forgive me for my terrible art, I made this on Chrome Canvass. Panini^🥪 13:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Only if we use that exact version! As I remember, it was recently discussed or mentioned that the GA/FA symbols themselves are misleading. But not here. And wherever it was mentioned was deemed inappropriate, too. There seems to be a lot of red tape concerning icons, and I think this probably isn't the place to be asking even though it primarily concerns GAN. Kingsif (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif, I'll leave the suggestion over at WP:VPI. Panini^🥪 14:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe that we will be able to change any of the icons, since the bot—which we're currently unable to modify—will continue to use the icons as they are in its code. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Jon698 currently has 5 articles in the GAN queue, but he has been relatively inactive since the end of December. See also my discussion thread on his talk page, where I discuss the timeline for the review I'm conducting at Talk:Kathy Karpan/GA1. Goldsztajn has also opened a review at Talk:Darlington Hoopes/GA1, but I suspect that review will also be delayed similarly. Therefore, I'd like to discuss the current status of the following:

• Talk:Kathy Karpan/GA1 — I've completed my review, and I find that the article is very close to GA. I've promised to Jon698 (see user talk) that I'll wait until February 15 for his response. After February 15, I'll invite another editor to step in as a replacement nominator or reviewer.
• Talk:Darlington Hoopes/GA1 – I'll defer to Goldsztajn on what to do.
• For the three other articles that he's nominated, I wonder whether it's appropriate to revert the nominations until he returns from inactivity.

I'd appreciate any thoughts you may have. Thanks! Edge3 (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

in the past we have reverted ga nominations made by users blocked for long periods of time with the thinking that they can re-nominate should they return to activity. I personally would recommend the same for a user who has been inactive without explanation for a significant period of time. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This suggests this editor was active two days ago. However, it doesn't look like any in depth editing (just small reversions). It's a really odd situation, and it appears this nominator has not got a lot of time to put into this place. I'll agree with Edge3 that February 15 is a good-cut off time for waiting for action. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Edge3, thanks for the heads up. The Darlington Hoopes nomination is relatively straight forward; it's a fail, there's too much work needed for it to be put on hold. I'll finalise it in the next couple of hours. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Edge3, Eddie891, there is a major difference between a blocked editor and one who has made 24 edits on Wikipedia so far in 2021. Under the circumstances, if the current reviews have to be closed due to a failure to respond, I can see the potential of removing the other three, one of which has been waiting for about four months, and the other two nearly half that long, but it seems premature to be talking about removing them at this time, when Jon698 has nine edits already this month, even if they aren't major ones. So let's not do anything just now. At a time when the oldest unreviewed nominations are eight months old, it's unfortunately not at all unusual for nominators to be in and out. I do think it behooves Jon698 to post something about their plans for the Kathy Karpan review soon or to start work on the issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: In his most recent DYK nomination, Jon698 mentioned a recent death and funeral preventing him from contributing at his normal levels of activity. I'm happy to keep the Kathy Karpan nomination open. She's an interesting figure, and I'm sure someone at a related WikiProject (perhaps Women in Green) would be willing to step in to help with the little work that remains. Edge3 (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I think enough time has passed, and we can now conclude that the nomination has been abandoned. However, I'm still interested in getting this to GA status. Would anyone like to take over the review, so that I can go ahead and address the remaining issues? Alternatively, you can step in as a replacement nominator, and I'll remain as the reviewer. Edge3 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to take over the review. Let me know when you have finished your intended modifications. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Thank you! I'll keep you posted on my progress. Also, I'm busy in real life with personal errands, so I may be a bit slow to respond. But I'll always make sure to at least acknowledge messages from you within 24 hours. Edge3 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of writing a good article review and I've written a lengthy list of specific suggestions for each part of the article that would bring it closer to being a GA. However, I think that, even with the changes, the article might still be shy of reaching good article status. On top of that, some of my suggestions would require entire sections to be rewritten or removed entirely. At this point, I'm wondering if I should just write a review failing the page and make the changes myself or if I should proceed with posting the list of changes that I suggested and see if that helps. benǝʇᴉɯ 12:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I neglected to mention that most of these suggestions are to correct things that, if not fixed, would cause the page to fail the review anyway, although I assume that was obvious from what I said. benǝʇᴉɯ 12:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it would be useful to link to your review-in-progress; which would enable some feedback and inputs to your query. On the other hand, you could post your review and ask for a second opinion, which would give you a point of view and contrast you could give some reflection to. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is fun. --Whiteguru (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Whiteguru: Here is the review so far. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Benmite:. Thanks for this. It looks like you have been most thorough and done a heck of a lot of work. Now, for the second opinion, you should go to the talk page and edit the GANotice with the following: status=2ndopinion|note=New reviewer needed The fruit of this will be that an experienced reviewer can join and help you with a second opinion --Whiteguru (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Benmite, Thanks for reviewing at GA and offering a thorough review! I would recommend asking a second opinion if you're not sure. Also keep in mind that GA does not require perfection; see WP:What the Good article criteria are not. (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe Politics of Massachusetts is a well-done, up-to-date article and meets the good article criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.243.237 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There are several unsourced statements and needs a better WP:LEAD. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok Chutyo (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Following this discussion, AlabamaFan101 has requested that they withdraw from the GAN of Saquon Barkley. (Independently, I think the review might just need to be closed as the nom only has nine edits to the page and none to the review page.) Could someone help him with that? I don't know the process there. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Alyo: I’ve been busy these past few days. I’ll get working on the review within the next few days. I’ve nominated a few articles and gotten them to GA status before. Lucky7jrk (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Lucky7jrk oh great, glad to hear that. I think the request about AlabamaFan withdrawing stands though. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alyo: I think my withdrawal request should be called off. I don't need it withdrawn anymore since Lucky7jrk responded. I request that the review page will remain on hold and not withdrawn. --AlabamaFan101 (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The above reviewer has been blocked. Therefore, what should be done with their GANs at Ha Ha Clinton-Dix and Marlon Humphrey? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed them. CMD (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand the denial for Lead to be a GA article, but could you recommend how to get it to that status? I kind of adopted the page back in 2018 due to the under-sourcing and lack of articles, which I've since spent hundreds of hours sourcing and creating approved articles.

I know the page has the potential to be approved Good Article status, I just need help on how to get it there.

Thank you! Xenobia4 (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You'll want to cite everything in the body (including the tables like filmography), and restructure the paragraphs. There's a few tags such as ^{[unreliable source?]} that will need a cleanup. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging The Ultimate Boss. Everything here, may I remind you, is of good intentions and I have no hard feelings towards you specifically.

I've currently been waiting about a month-ish now for the review of Super Paper Mario. It is one of the only major works in the series remaining before a Paper Mario good topic is possible. The review was picked up by The Ultimate Boss, but, with all good intentions, I would much prefer another editor to pick this one up. Over the past couple of months, he has attempted 14 FACs which ultimately resulted in negative feedback to which frustrated him and had him forcefully withdraw the nomination; see here for details. This editor is, in no way, harming the encyclopedia, with multiple constant GAs, I would just prefer someone with a more professional and thorough examination (such as here, and although I did not look at the article this review is very short) pick this one up instead. The review has also been collecting dust since late January. Panini^🥪 14:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

In these circomstances, I usually note that I'll be looking for another reviewer, then reverting the talk page template to how it was before the review took place, and changing the |page parameter by one. This'll put it back in the queue at the same place as it was before the review was started Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, Hm, I didn't think I had that right to do that. Shouldn't that be in the instructions? Panini^🥪 14:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

We generally have a discussion on this, but the review hasn't even begun, so I can't see why we would push it to the back of the pile. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if a nominator with a COI can nominate their own article. This is in regards to Boaz Eidelberg, which based on the nominator's username, is an autobiography on themselves. They added a COI tag to their userpage before nominating. This is the first time I've seen this happen, and I didn't see a similar past occurrence in the GAN talk pages before. Would a GAN review be effected due to the COI? Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333, No, there's no problem with this as long as the subject is notable and the article is written neutrally. Of course the reviewer should be independent and carefully check the article to make sure that it meets all Wikipedia policies as usual. (t · c) buidhe 20:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe Alright. I wasn't sure. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I started reviewing an article for GA, Talk:IRIS Kharg/GA1, but I've realised the nom hasn't edited since November as buidhe pointed out on the talk page. Any advice on what I should do? Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• What I would do is pause the review. If they don't respond within a week (Legobot will give them a talkpage notification and probably email) then you can close it as failed or recruit someone to make the necessary changes. (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the prompt reply. I'll give them a ping and pause the review. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I've made an observation similar to that raised in the preceding post: an article I'd nominated for GA has been passed in a rather cursory review by a fairly inexperienced editor (Ballpointbiro). I don't think it's much of a problem in the case of said nomination (Geoffrey Kirk), but this editor might cause problems when reviewing nominations on the trickier end. Since they could have been animated by the current backlog elimination drive, it may be a good idea for one of the co-ordinators to give them a brief heads-up about the process. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Related to the above: Legobot doesn't seem to have registered the review and has made no attempt to contact me or edit the article/it's talk page. Is there something I should do about that or should I just add the GA icon manually? Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Legobot only notices reviews that are open for at least 20 minutes. If it's closed before then, it won't ping your talk page. They did not get credit for the review on the backlog drive and I briefly explained why, so hopefully they will learn to make more thorough reviews in the future. If you wish to have a(nother) GA review feel free to revert the talk page to this version which will restore your place in the GAN list. (t · c) buidhe 16:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, I've now reverted the talk page. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A reviewer with fewer than two hundred edits has passed Woodrow Wilson's GAN, identifying no issues whatsoever. While I suppose it's possible that the article is really that great, it strikes as unlikely that there would be no problems at all with such a lengthy article about such a contentious figure. I'm a bit unsure of the formal procedure here, so I figured I'd just leave a note here so someone could take a closer look. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I went ahead and reverted the GA pass. The reviewer was not granted credit at the backlog drive. (t · c) buidhe 16:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: Thanks for dealing with that. Legobot seems to be confused - the nominations page now reports that Woodrow Wilson is being reviewed by an unknown user. Any idea on how to fix that? Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    • No, unfortunately. (t · c) buidhe 17:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The LegoBot claimed to have added the nomination for Galileo (spacecraft) twice [12][13] but it wasn't added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Third time's the charm apparently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm hoping that someone on this page can take a look at this. I think we should conclude that Jon698 is an infrequent contributor to Wikipedia. While he has been editing articles over the past few months (see his user contributions), his activity has been limited to reversions and minor edits. He has not responded to inquiries on his talk page regarding his GA nominations (see thread 1 and thread 2). Therefore, I would like to recommend that the following nominations be removed from the queue:

• Riley Darnell
• Mayoralty of Bernie Sanders
• Mayoralty of Dianne Feinstein

This is a follow-up thread to our previous discussion on February 8–18 regarding the same topic. Edge3 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have removed the GA nominations for the three articles listed above. Pinging Jon698 for notification. Edge3 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ruth Williams Cupp was moved to Ruth Cupp during the current GA review, but the Talk:Ruth Williams Cupp/GA1 review page was not also moved. The reviewer, Edwininlondon, has started up a new review page to match the new name of the article: Talk:Ruth Cupp/GA1. Can an admin please merge the two review pages and their histories at Talk:Ruth Cupp/GA1? The header section should combine the very top from the new file and the Review: line from the old one (which has the time the original review was started). I'd put the comment from the new page at the bottom of the combined pages. Edwininlondon, please hold off making any further edits to the review until this is all fixed. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I went with the fast-and-dirty version: I deleted the new review page, reposted Edwininlondon's comment on the old review page, and then moved the old review page to Talk:Ruth Cupp/GA1. I hope that works just as well? If anything is broken, let me know and I'll put a little more time into fixing. Cheers. Ajpolino (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, I'd like to request a second opinion on Talk:Kemp Caldera/GA1, written by Jo-Jo Eumerus. This relates only to criteria 1a, details on the GAN page. All other criteria met. Thanks in advance, CMD (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, could I get a second opinion on my review of Tin Star (video game). This is also being discussed at my talk page. Happy to reopen if people think the article meets the GA Criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I can see partly why this didn't end well, the nominator pretty much pushed back on almost every single comment made during the good faith review. I'm not a massive fan for changing things for the sake of changing things, but in these "single-reviewer" situations, it's usually a good idea to be prepared to compromise on some aspects. I, for one, when writing the masses of GAs I have attained (yes, me!!) often fail to see the wood for the trees so it's helpful to take onboard other people's perspectives. I think what would be best here is that we consider the first GAN closed and take into account Lee's issues now expressed explicitly (i.e. not quite hitting criteria 1a, 1b and 3a). I would be happy to do a GAN2 review if that cools the situation down. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be wise. What do you think HumanxAnthro? I'd like to make it known I was trying to do a review in good faith, but potentially a bit rash. I apologies if anything came across as harsh! This way you can get the third opinion, and we can move on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not about coming off as harsh. It's about abruptly ending the nomination without properly discussing all the writing disagreements. I'm actually gonna leave this article alone for now because you are right some things needed to be fixed. HumanxAnthro (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I came across this review today, brief to say the least. Is that an acceptable review? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The "review" is from 2014 and User Secret is no longer around. Dawnseeker2000 20:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

MSGJ, No. If you think the article doesn't meet the criteria WP:Good article reassessment is in order. (t · c) buidhe 20:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri was responsible for getting the article to GA so I think it's fine. Dawnseeker2000 21:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I started review for Red Velvet (group), but since I don't know how to finish it, so it pass 11 weeks...... Would somebody please help me for finishing review? -- Wendylove (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Another editor has left a comment on your review page.
• The review cannot pass until you address all the criteria required, given here: WP:GACR
• To help you address those criteria, you can use one of these Good Article Review templates. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nominator Wendylove withdrew from the review and asked for it to be closed. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I was just reviewing the backlog and noticed that there are some articles that have been on review an extremely long time. The Doo-Wops & Hooligans Tour is a good example - it's been "on review" over 10 months without a decision either way. I note that the reviewer took a brief break but, nevertheless, this does feel like an extremely long time without a decision. Even glancing at the review page now, comments are slow. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Kingsif, who took over after the previous reviewer Gatoclass did a major revision of the article after a months-long delay, meaning a new reviewer was needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Woodrow Wilson/GA2 is in the hands of a reviewer whose first contribution to en:WP was made on 25 February 2021. -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunate coincidence, Talk:Woodrow Wilson/GA1 faced a similar issue. Personally I find the article a bit too long. CMD (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I would also note that this reviewer had previously nominated the article for GA status, so he definitely isn't an uninvolved editor. This review needs to be conducted by someone experienced in the GAN process. (These sorts of interesting but difficult articles attract newbies like a moth to a flame. It's regrettable, since they are surely disappointed when their good-faith contributions are inevitably reverted.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I recall Talk:Woodrow Wilson/GA1 as the reviewer had only been on en:WP for some days and was closing AfD's, which I thought was a bit odd. That prompted the reflection that this particular reviewer might be a sock. Just a reflection, mind. --Whiteguru (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I had a check too, but I didn't see anything that raised further suspicion. CMD (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting here that the article was passed. CMD (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

How old should an article should be to Nominate for Good Article, as it is not mentions in criteria, also, who reviews a nominated article? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no minimum age required. It could be 20 minutes old if it meets the criteria. Anyone can review a nomination, but it's better to get familiar with the process and the kinds of things to look for before embarking on your first. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Done, I have nominated my article on Presidency of Ram Nath Kovind there at number 32. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 ::ping to The Rambling Man

It's worth noting, if it's an event or something that changes, it's worth doing after the event is over, or there's a risk that it'll fail both broadness and stability criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Kavyansh.Singh, If someone reviewed this article now, it would be a quick-fail. The prose coverage (only 658 words) doesn't look nearly sufficient to cover the head of state of a large country in sufficient depth to meet WP:GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 13:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thanks for letting me know, what should be average length of article, and if I add more data, will that work out, as no one has yet started the Review. Also, suggest something if possible.Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 ::ping toBuidhe

There is no set length requirement but the article does have to provide coverage of all important aspects of the subject. (t · c) buidhe 14:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This is interesting. Legobot has delivered a failure of a review before I even started it. See the Talk Page and history. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Given it's dropped the last letter of the title, it may be something to do with the accented character. CMD (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those often seem to cause hiccups. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me. Limorina (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we edit the article while it is being reviewed, and add content to the page. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is part of what is supposed to happen during a review. I would mention you should really try and have the article as complete as possible before nominating. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that Martensdale, California was nominated for GA despite still being tagged as a stub. It is a bit long for a stub but it really has only one section so maybe the stub tag is still appropriate. And the subject had a short enough history that the current article length may be appropriate. Still, it caused me to wonder: DYK explicitly disallows articles tagged as stubs. Should GA do the same? It doesn't seem to now; the closest I can find is requirement 3(b) that the article provide broad coverage of its topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If an article comes to DYK still tagged as a stub, the reviewer will remove the stub tag. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If appropriate! Stubs cannot be in DYK per the rules. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I raised a similar question recently and there was not a clear consensus in my eyes that there should be a minimum length. I've gone ahead and removed Martensdale's tag as a stub. There is, of course, no fixed criteria for stubs, only that they (significantly) lack the expected breadth of coverage, are very short, and can be expanded, So I suppose if an article is reasonably complete and is still really short, it should probably be merged somewhere, but isn't technically a stub (if it is really a stub it fails 3b by definition). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll just note the many country in X Olympic articles we have as GAs (was quite the fad in the 2018 WikiCup) many of which are very short and would, in many contexts, be considered stubs. I think Eddie's point about whether we need separate articles for some topics is a good one though. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: - Seeing this a little late. I was the nominator of the Martensdale article. The situation was that I expanded Martensdale from a three-liner and then forgot to remove the stub tag. So it wasn't a stub at time of nomination. It's short, but I'm not sure that there's really much more than can be said about a settlement that was abandoned after less than a year. Hog Farm _Talk 17:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if I have a whole lot of useful stuff to contribute here, but I was the reviewer for that article so I'll add my two cents: I didn't see a stub tag on it when I was doing my review, and it didn't really seem like one was warranted (although the pre-expansion version was definitely a stub). I think it's an interesting question on whether a stub can be a GA, though: I would say "no". While there are lots of short GAs, one of the criteria is that an article covers the subject more or less comprehensively, whereas a stub categorization implies that the article is in need of expansion in some way. jp×g 03:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not an interesting question at all. The defininitions for stubs & GAs are flatly contradictory, & allow no room for subjective overlap. An article can't be both. Of course many stub tags are lazily left in place long after they become inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If an article is genuinely a stub the Johnbod is right - it cannot become a GA as the two things are fundamentally incompatible. As mentioned above to, the article in question, in its current state, is not a stub. Have no issue with the stub tag removed, and assessed on its merits to become a GA. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I was tagging an article and I thought of an edit that might be nice to make to {{GA}}. When I went to Template talk:GA, however, I found that there was a requested edit from a few years ago that had sat there with no response. That post is here.

Mine is this: I think that, since the majority of GAs only have one review page, invoking {{GA}} without the page= parameter should default it to 1 (i.e. {{GA|~~~~~|subtopic=Geography}} would be the same as {{GA|~~~~~|subtopic=Geography|page=1}}. I think it would also be possible to detect if there was more than one GA subpage, and throw an error if one existed. Anyway, this is my humble suggestion. Feel free to tell me if there is something that makes this a bad idea. jp×g 03:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The {{GAN}} template generates the latest page though, so when I update an article, I just update the date, remove the status field and change the template name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I would very much like another reviewer to take a look at this.

Absurd decision to quick fail—especially considering that he even failed to consult with me or ask any questions. The rationale for this decision is flimsy at best. Laos does not have over 200 years of constitutional history as US or the UKs 800+ so stating it should have that same length does not make any sense. In addition, considering that the Prime Minister of Vietnam is a GA the decision seems even more incomprehensible.

At last. There are no other major sources on the Laotian prime ministershipin English sources. I couldn't find any and I've searched! --Ruling party (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• It is not acceptable to make personal attacks on GA reviewers even if you disagree with their assessment. I think you should apologize to CMD not the other way around. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This You're either dumb as a brick or lazy is a personal attack, and demanding an apology is incredibly rude. A reviewer has the choice to fail any article if they don't believe they meet the criteria. They are not at liberty to ask you questions or keep the review open for you to respond. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed. We've all been frustrated in waiting a long time for a review and then not getting what we wanted from it: such situations can often be resolved by being polite and conciliatory but very rarely by being rude and hostile. We are all volunteers and the person who comes to review the article is literally the last person to be yelling at as the one at fault for the length of the queue. The review is sufficiently justified that I would oppose any overturning of it. Before renominating, you should resolve the majority of the points raised, such as the unsourced "Officeholders" section, and you would ideally apologise to the reviewer and then discuss with them why you think that the remaining changes are not actionable. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Speaking as no doubt just another guy that doesn't know crap, it's not only rude to insult people for no reason (read: just disagreeing with a reviewer over a point of interpretation is not a reason), but it's completely hypocritical to then demand an apology.
        So yeah, WP:BOOMERANG for those couple of WP:PAs. ——Serial 12:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

If anyone wants to watchlist Wikipedia:Four Award or Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations, the reviewing processes require care but aren't rocket science (especially compared to GAN) and it would be nice to have some more eyes on it. They might only get a nomination each per month but there's only a couple of us that have been reviewing recently and sometimes they threaten to fall off my watchlist and get forgotten. Wikipedia:Four Award/Instructions lays out the Four Award process in full detail and for Triple Crown you need to (if awarding) add to the right table (remove from the old one if upgrading), give a talk page award template to the recipient and update the (cumulative) tallies on the main page. Drop me a message if you have questions. — Bilorv (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Just wondering why or how the article on the 1950s British jet bomber the Vickers Valiant came to be assessed as Religion and Philosophy Good Article.

64.223.92.229 (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It was done in this edit. I'll change it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Editor OgamD218 started a review of SpaceX 10 days ago (Talk:SpaceX/GA1), but there is no indication of any work on it. I tried to contact the editor directly ([14]) to understand if they want to eventually review the article, but I had no reply even though they seem to be actively editing. What is the best way forward here? Maybe it's better to delete the review page so that another editor can work on it? --Ita140188 (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Ita140188 I apologize, I should have responded sooner. Due to sudden issues outside of my control I have had little to zero free time as of late. If you check my contributions timeline you'll see in the last week or so they've come close to zero after several a day for months. I did begin work on the GAN review but this halted suddenly last week. It is my hope to complete the review within the next week but I have no idea what my schedule will be like. In light of the situation I would fully support the review being passed to another editor. Once again, my apologies. OgamD218 (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The review was deleted, but Legobot still thinks there is a review by user "Unknown". Anyone knows how can I fix this? Thanks --Ita140188 (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the bot will now update. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: thanks! --Ita140188 (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Limiting the number of GA nominations per editor, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

On Talk:Yuzuru Hanyu/GA1 Jasper Deng asked to take over as reviewer, and I agreed. But I am still listed as the reviewer. What is the correct way to handle this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, The simplest solution is to have Jasper Deng finish and close the review, but then Legobot wouldn't give him credit for doing it. Another option is procedurally close the review, increment the page counter, and then if Jasper did the review on a new review page he could complete the review and get credit. (t · c) buidhe 04:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that Legobot appears to have stopped working with regard to GANs. I'm not sure if there's some sort of short-term workaround that would be feasible. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I came here to state the same, I just started a review a legbot doesn't recognize me or let the nominator knew. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This issue has now been fixed (at least for now); see the above link. Thank goodness - having to do Legobot's job manually would be rather unpleasant. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

My GA nomination for Karl Marx in Kalbadevi has been passed, but Legobot didn't congratulate me on my talk page. :) --Gazal world (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Me again...this time an IP editor has started conducting a review. Although it seems to be in good faith, this is forbidden (see WP:GAN/I#R2). It's also causing serious issues for Legobot, who is incrementing the IP's review count every 20 minutes (see, e.g., Special:Diff/1018392792). Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they tried to review it, I'd deleted it once before. Legobot is confused because it's a malformed review by an IP. I have deleted the review page, but User:GA bot/Stats where the review numbers are kept will need to be reverted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)