Wikipedia:Good article help/Archive 1

Sensecheck

I notice there are several articles pending for Star Trek Next Generation episodes. Now I am a fan and perfectly able to spot if they are adding value or simply grabbing chunks from other sources, but my question is this. Considering the number of places I can already find all this information and the potentially huge number of individual articals this could turn into if this guy writes and nominates each episode, what would people feel is the criteria for these to be passed? Or even should this be the place for all these articles? Thoughts please Lemsterboy (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lemsterboy. The criteria for episode articles is the same as the criteria for all other articles. The Good article criteria is not really concerned by notabilty, although it can be hard for an article to pass the broadness criteria without it. Check out Wikipedia:Good articles/Theatre, film and drama#The Simpsons episodes, we have lots of episode articles. AIRcorn (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hot a COI, is it?

Hello! Just making sure that, if I haven't edited an article since 13 December 2010‎, I'm okay to review it? I did a sizeable amount of editing to Joan Ganz Cooney in 2006 and 2008, but the article is significantly different even between 2010 and now. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I give you the green light! Obtund^Talk 23:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merci, I presumed it would be okay, just new to the hold GA review bit. (Being an editor since December 2002, I thought that I should start to pull some weight in this section.) -- Zanimum (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are worried you could always ask for a second opinion or drop a note here or at WT:GAN and someone will double check your review. I think you will be right though. I can keep an eye on it if you want and am willing to offer further advice if you need it. AIRcorn (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Quenya

Hi, I am currently reviewing Quenya, and the nominator and I have different ideas about how to judge whether an article is "reasonably well written" - and since this is a subjective matter I think some additional input from seasoned reviewers would be good. Best, ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I will have a look through it as soon as I get some spare time this evening. AIRcorn (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you still need someone else to look at this with you? I am a HUGE Tolkien buff so may be able to help (Lemsterboy Talk)

Difficult review

I started as second reviewer of this article in good faith because the article seemed to be waiting a long time for a second opinion and it read reasonably well. I did see some issues which I have noted. However, reviewing has become hard work because the editor seems to disagree strongly with (almost) every issue I have noted—see the walls of text here. At this moment, I don't feel like proceeding. The article is currently on GA hold. My options would appear to be

1. continue and remember to AGF at all times whilst concentrating on content
2. quit and ask for a third opinion
3. fail the article

In deference to the editor(s), who I can see have worked hard on this article, I will continue for now. I have every intention of passing this article if I can. My tolerance, however, is waning. What advice could be offered in this situation?

It looks to me as if your review is perhaps going into a little deeper degree of detail than the GA criteria in fact requires, which often does provoke annoyance from GA nominators who didn't expect to have pass through the Spanish prose inquisition. I would suggest sticking very closely to the GA criteria wordings "reasonably well written" (i.e. room for different subjective interpretations of what is reasonable, and the nominators idea of reasonable may not necessarily be less reasonable than yours) (for example there is no a priori reason that the phrasing "grandmotherly visage" though perhaps odd, should be any problem for a GA article, you might not word it like that yourself, but that doesn't mean that noone should). The same with "main aspects" and "unnecessary detail" both of which are subjective criteria that needs to be negotiated between reviewer and nominator. I think it is unfortunate for the project that GAs are now often reviewed as mini-FAs. The GA criteria are not supposed to be a high bar - just a reasonably high one. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot to read there. As Maunus says most of the criteria is subjective so it really comes down to you and the nominator coming to an agreement. Personally if someone makes a good case for why something should stay as written then I am more inclined to let it be. Saying that you shouldn't compromise on anything if you feel it falls too far from the criteria and I wouldn't want a nominator to change something they strongly disagree with just to get the green spot either. If an article is close and the remaining issue is not a deal breaker then you can probably pass it, just say in your closing statement that you still have concerns over a certain area but it is not enough to prevent you passing it. As you are only offering a second opinion you are under no obligation to close the article anyway, and can in fact walk away whenever you want. Usually the first reviewer is supposed to close it, but it seems they are looking for someone else to here. If you post a specific issue I can give my subjective opinion on it. BTW it is good to see that you are still reviewing articles. AIRcorn (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked reviewer

I'm in the process of having Bradley Wiggins reviewed, but the reviewer GAtechnical has been given an indefinite block. Of course I'm not going to wait until it's lifted, if ever. What's my next move? Does it need to be closed and renominated? BaldBoris 17:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Article promoted by Wizardman (talk · contribs). AIRcorn (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for an image during GA Review

Hi all. I've done a review of Ernesto Pérez Balladares (see review here) and was wondering if someone could give a second opinion on whether File:Ernesto Perez Balladares on CSPAN.jpg has an adequate fair use rationale; or whether one is even possible. I'm not convinced, but would appreciate a non-involved editor's opinion. - Shudde ^talk 03:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are not supposed to have fair use media to illustrate living people. Basically as long as they are alive there is always the possibility that a free one may one day exist, so it fails policy number 1. I would think that it would need a really good explanation as to why it is exempt (WP:NFC#UUI is relevant). AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I fail my own nomination?

There is a breakdown in a review at Talk:Architecture in early modern Scotland/GA1, which I nominated. There has already been a delay of some weeks, caused, as they accept, by the first reviewer. Whatever the merits of the case, I am unsatisfied that the review follows the GA criteria and, as suggested on the WP:GA nominations page, I wish to take the option of relisting for a new review. I have accordingly requested that the reviewer close the process as a fail so that I can do this. However, I have not as yet received a response and wish to avoid further delay. The wording of the instruction is a bit unclear ("If you wish to withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, then the nomination must be closed using the fail process to record the outcome of the review"). Does that mean I can close the review (withdrawing?), or does the reviewer have to do that? I should also ask, can someone else close the review for me?--SabreBD (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that you can close the review yourself. Just close it as if you are failing the article (it comes up as "not listed" in the article history anyway) and then you can renominate. If you have any further trouble then come back here and I will try and help out. I remember the case that lead to this so I am at least familiar with the spirit of the instructions. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Aircorn. That is very helpful.--SabreBD (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a further problem. I closed and renominated. The former first review has now taken it upon themselves to re-edit the article. Some of these edits are probably improvements, some appear completely unnecessary and other are slightly damaging to the information in the article. A few more are problematic, such as introducing inconsistencies in the format of dates and references and the introducing of several one sentence paragraphs - all of those might be an issue at a GA review and I would certainly want to put right. In short, especially if I going into to GA, I would normally want to revert at least some of these or at least question them on the talkpage, but I anticipate that this would be likely to result in another explosion. I am not sure quite what action you might take, but I am a bit stuck on how to move forward and keen to avoid an edit war or more personal insults - even I can get tired of those. Any help would be much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a general editing dispute. I would just recommend trying to work with the editor and if need be to follow the normal dispute resolution processes. It could be a problem when it comes to stability I know, so you may wish to withdraw it until it is stabilised or take a chance that it will be sorted before someone picks it up. AIRcorn (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that any attempt to edit on my part will be reverted and that attempts to communicate are unlikely to succeed, since they have been tried already. I really do not want to go to a dispute, which in any case means I would have to exhaust attempts to sort things out first. I see little point in irritating someone who is obviously normally a consciousness editor, but who has just lost a bit of perspective here. I was hoping a gentle word from outside the problem might restore some perspective. If you do not want to get involved I guess I will have to risk more abuse and delay via the talkpage.--SabreBD (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin of wikipedia

Good morning.Can I talk with one admin of Wikipedia?Mariacciolo (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way is to probably put {{admin help}} on your talk page with your question. If it is private you might want to email one. AIRcorn (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Article isn't appearing in the nominations list

I have nominated an article several hours ago, see Talk:Stop Crying Your Heart Out, but it's not appearing in the nominations.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You have fixed it. It probably wasn't seen by the bot because you originally placed it inside the WikiProjectBannerShell template. The GAN Instructions page does say to paste the GAN template at the top of the talk page, and that's probably one reason why: the bot can't find a GA nominee template inside another template shell. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On hold review for class assignment

Hi, I'm looking for guidance as to what to do in case an article is put on hold for more than seven days. Students in a course on Wikipedia have made several changes to the page Driverless tractor for a class assignment and are not sure what more to do after reaching out to the original reviewer. Should they simply delete the review page and renominate? Thanks for your help. --RM395 (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Drop a note at the reviewers talk page, sometimes they forget about it. If it is abandoned, as the review has not started you can just tag it for speedy deletion. That way it will not lose its place in the queue. AIRcorn (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

GAR of Kumbakonam and Madras Presidency

The reviewer who initiated the GAR seems to be retired. A request to WP:India lead to a discussion (of taking up review) without any conclusion. Can someone please help reviewing the same. I am ready to address the review comments. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved in both these (previously closing a community GAR on one). I have left comments there, but it could really do with some more eyes and comments from editors who have not been involved previously. AIRcorn (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The reassessments are at Talk:Kumbakonam/GA3 and Talk:Madras Presidency/GA2. AIRcorn (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help.Ssriram mt (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Peer reviewer serving as GAN reviewer, and whether copy editing is a significant contribution

Can someone who gave comments in an article's peer review also serve as the reviewer for the GAN? Additionally, does contributing a copy edit during that PR process constitute a "significant contribution" that would bar the editor from serving as the GAN reviewer? Couldn't find an answer in the archives, and I was just curious (about both situations separately). czar · · 02:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with precedents on this, but my personal take is that it wouldn't be a rules problem in either case. I'd say in both cases, though, that it would be preferable to let a new reviewer take a look, just to get as many eyes on an article as possible; I know other reviewers sometimes catch what I don't, and vice versa. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer reviewers have previously passed good articles without any issues and like Khazar says this doesn't violate any "rules" that I know of. Many reviewers copy edit the article while reviewing so that is not usually a problem either. An issue can arise if the nominator and reviewer disagree on what is a good copy edit, but that isn't really relevant to your questions. What constitutes a "significant contribution" is debatable, but if you are not adding or removing large ammounts of information then I would think you would be fine. Given the shortage of reviewers I would think some leniency on "significant contribution" should be given. AIRcorn (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Are bare urls (used consistently) acceptable as references in GANs? The article to which I am referring and am considering reviewing is Excalibur Estate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that they're technically acceptable as long as they're not dead links. (I'm inferring this from the rule, "Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url.") But since the links could go dead at any time, that makes the article's GA status very tenuous. I'd probably strongly encourage the reviewee to add article titles to each link; if they refused, and the article looked likely to pass in all other respects, I guess I'd do it myself since it's not quite a GA criterion. Luckily, it looks like in this particular case, many of the bare urls go to the same handful of articles, so this shouldn't take too long. It's a shame someone wrote all those "paragraphs" in there so you can't just do it in a second with reflinks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will take on the review and do what you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Using Rap Genius as a source

I'm planning Lenny (Buggles song) to be a good article. The article uses the source Rap Genius. I know I've seen that source being used in other articles, but would the source be unreliable or still credible? Thanks! EditorE (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Since per its Wikipedia article, it's user-generated content, I'm guessing it's not. But I can't say for sure. You might ask at WP:RS/N; they can give you a definitive answer. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Assistance

Are you able to fix a little mess I've made? I've nominated ...And Justice for All (album) for GA article, but accidentally I've put myself as a reviewer. Thanks.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Just add {{db-g7}}, a request for speedy deletion; the page can then be recreated later by a reviewer. Thanks for the nomination! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Old GAR link

The Article History box at Talk:The World Factbook is missing the link for the article's first GAR (dated September 2008), and I'm having trouble finding it. Can someone help?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You might ask Eric Corbett (Malleus), who updated the history.[1] I don't know where GAs were generally stored in those days. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked his contributions. It looks like there was no review page at all. He made 3 edits to the article before updating the article history, saying as part of a "GA Sweeps Review".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Songfacts

Planning for Lock and Key (Rush song) to be a good article. Would songfacts be a reliable source for this article? Thanks. EditorE (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest checking at WP:RS/N for that. Good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

spurious "good article" tag at Steven Sasson?

I notice that this edit adds the "good article" tag on Steven Sasson. I suspect, given the history of the user, that this was not legitimately added. But I don't really know how to find out. By any chance, was this article nominated and reviewed for good article status? I figure I should ask, rather than just assume bad faith and remove the tag myself. -- Why Not A Duck 19:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this and checking here. Talk:Steven Sasson/GA1 is a red link, and the talk page shows no activity since Sep 2012, meaning that this article at a minimum was not nominated and reviewed through the normal system. I'm assuming this was added fraudulently and have removed the tag for now. I'll inquire on that article's talk page if anyone knows more. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Lock and Key by Rush

Hi. I'm planning for Lock and Key (Rush song) to be a good article. I was wondering if a background section for a song article is needed for it to be a good article. Thank you. EditorE (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say that just depends on how much the sources discuss the song's background. If you can't turn anything up, I personally wouldn't see it as an obstacle. Material like "Lee said the song to have been a mix of sounds and ideas ... Geddy Lee played both keyboards and bass in the song, which he found to be a "battle"" is a good start at least. I'm less experienced at music reviews than some others, though, so take my comments with a grain of salt. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

new good article not appearing in Good articles/recent

Yesterday I have finished my first GA review (Apeomyoides). The article has passed, but still does not appear in Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. I fear I may have forgotten something? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what caused the bot to miss that one; you seem to have done all the usual steps. Possibly the GA template has to be at the very top of the page?

But I wouldn't worry about it. GA/recent seems like a pretty unimportant page in the scheme of things (it would have disappeared from the page in a day anyway), and you've updated the article's status in the places that count. Thanks for taking the time to review! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

All right, thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nominator also Reviewer

Hi, Everyone I nominated Torchwood for a good article and left a comment on the review page for the reviewer but me not thinking, I posted the message when there was no reviewer and It made me the reviewer is there anyway to revert this as obviously I can't be the nominator and reviewer. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just add {{db-g7}}, a request for speedy deletion; the page can then be recreated later by a reviewer. Thanks for the nomination! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help Kelvin 101 (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Siah Bishe Pumped Storage Power Plant

May I review the Siah Bishe Pumped Storage Power Plant article if I have made three edits to this article at its very early stage; namely: refining category ([2]), adding maintenance tags ([3]) and correcting unit ([4])? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Beagel, looking at those diffs, I don't think that would be a problem. I say go for it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Extend "hold" for more than seven days?

I have undertaken a GA review of Ambrose Channel pilot cable. I think it is reasonably close to GA status, but has some problems, which the nominator has agreed to address (and I have offered to assist), so I put it on "hold". However, these improvements are going to take more than seven days. Questions:

1. Is the bot going to automatically fail the article after seven days?
2. Is there any way of extending the hold?
3. Upon making any significant contribution am I allowed to review the article upon renomination?

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A hold of more than seven days is fine, and the bot won't notice. I'm a bit confused by your third question, though. Do you mean if you fail the article, and then make a major contribution yourself, can you renominate and pass it? I'd say definitely not; another reviewer should take it over at that point. Thanks for reviewing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the bot leaves alone, fine. As to the third question: I gather that (in general) once I make significant contribution I shouldn't review on a renomination. Okay. Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That's correct--no reviewing an article to which you've made a significant contribution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Bradley Manning article...

Your article on Bradley Manning was obviously written by someone with an agenda. Chelsea Manning? I was surprised and disappointed by the article. When I want to learn about something new Wikipedia is usually my first stop. Now I wonder how much of the stuff I've read and hold as "true" is actually not true. The Bradley Manning article has many inconsistancies and refers to him as a female. Because of this article I will make a conscious decision to no longer visit Wikipedia.

The decision to move the article to Chelsea Manning and use female gendered pronouns is the result of a consensus of dozens of editors on the talkpage and not any individual editors "agend". You can participate in the discussion at Talk:Chelsea Manning. Otherwise if you want to use a wiki encyclopedia that is likely to keep Bradley Manning named Bradley Manning forever and ever amen then maybe Conservapedia may be more to your liking. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

GA bot down?

I nominated Talk:Modern Benoni a few hours ago but it hasn't shown up in the queue. Noticed over at User talk:Chris G that the bot might be down. Cobblet (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this at WT:GAN, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominator seems reluctant to qualify ambiguous words

I am reviewing International System of Units and am getting bogged down now. There are a handful of sticking points, two of them to do with the ambiguous use of English words. These ambiguous words would benefit from a few extra words of clarification. I have offered suggested improvements that would fix these issues, but the nominator seems reluctant to accept these or any fixes for these problems and the discussion is now going around in circles.

The problem words are:

• "prototype", being used without qualification, with two possible meanings in the context used.
• "special", being used in the term "special name", with no qualification as to why, or in what respect, the names are special.

My opinion is that to be considered well written, these unnecessary ambiguities must be resolved. Can anyone offer any advice to help move this forward please? FishGF (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fish, there's already a discussion open about this at WT:GA. My suggestion to you would be the same as I suggested there. Since you two seem to be quite frustrated with each other, and this review's gone on forever, it would be better if this review was closed and the article got a fresh start from a new reviewer. All best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame, but the proposer didn't seem to want to hear what I was saying. I was very patient and made many suggestions for what needed to be done to tip the balance, but this was met with an arrogant refusal to budge. I decided that due to the apparent lack of commitment to fix the relatively easy to fix issues, to fail the article as it is. FishGF (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

How to drop a review?

I started a review, but due to bad-faith behaviour towards me by the proposer, I would like to drop it, and leave it to someone else. What is the process to do that please? FishGF (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Simply mark the article as failed. The nominator can then renominate it with the same time stamp. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

List of Biographies that have/had Good Article status

I like a link(s) to a list of WP Biographies that have Good Article status, or a List of all GA WP Bios that link to the permalink when an article got Good Article status (article do lose GA status). The same for WP Bios with/had Featured Articles status. Lentower (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean you do like this or you would like this? Unfortunately, I'm not sure any such list exists. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to point new editors at them as examples of what a good WP bio look is. Lentower (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any list of GA and FA biographies, but you can go to the list of GAs and find some examples very quickly--there's subsections like politicians, musicians, actors, etc. Hope that helps, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Khazar2: Thanks. I found WP:GA before I asked here. Not sure how many new editors will want to wade through that list for bios, but if it ends up the best there is, I'll try it. Lentower (talk)

Do you need a complete list for some reason? I'm still not really clear what you're looking for. If all you need is a few examples for new editors, that should only take moments to find... -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Either redoing this list each time I need it, or maintaining such a list is a chore, that would take time away from my WP editing. Lentower (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As Khazar2 pointed out above, some of the lists linked to at the end of WP:GA have the bios segregated out. E.g. Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Artists_and_architects.

But this list of lists at the end of WP:GA doesn't include these sub-lists, nor do the lists have Table of Contents, which makes finding the bios a chore.

Discovered that at the end of WP:FA the list of lists has the sub-lists of biographies labeled as '(bios}, which makes finding and linking to them much easier. E.g. WP:Featured_Articles#Art.2C_architecture_and_archaeology_biographies. -- Lentower (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Nomination Spam

I can't help but notice that user "23 editor" has made about a half dozen article nominations for GA review in about a week, most of them with cursory or no attempts to improve them first, and all on Serbian topics. Whilst I applaud their enthusiasm, they are clearly spamming the process and more interested in just getting loads of Serbian articles listed as GA, than actually improving the articles to genuine GA standard. See their latest nomination, Skull Tower. If this is GA standard, we may as well list anything as GA. Is there no rules or guidelines about just spamming dozens of articles for GA review?!?? -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a duplicate thread to Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_Nomination_Spam; it may be easiest for discussants to centralize the conversation there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Which subject area is appropriate?

I'm thinking of nominating Brislington House at GAC but can't decide whether it should go in the architecture subject area or medicine. Any advice?— Rod ^talk 16:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Rodw: I think either would be okay. It's probably a question of which area you'd rather your reviewer have a background/interest in, since those will be the parts of the article where they're (in an ideal world) best equipped to give feedback. Thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put it under "Art and architecture" as lots of the article is about the buildings - but would be happy with a reviewer with interest in either.— Rod ^talk 17:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific GA-status

This article does not possess GA status but has a GA-icon on top of the page.. why?

The article was delisted, but the icon wasn't removed from the page. Thanks for the catch. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Review for currently airing television series

I was just about to start my review for Last Tango in Halifax when the nominator alerted me to the fact that the second series of this show is currently airing. As a result, the content of the article will change within the next month, for better or worse. What would be the best way to approach this article? I can't see a clear guideline for articles that may undergo constructive changes for a short time, and then probably settle down. Moswento ^talky 14:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I add that as the nominator I am happy to withdraw my nomination, or suspend it until 2014. I was hoping for the article to be reviewed prior to the second series of the show. Eshlare (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Eshlare: To be honest, I think withdrawing the nomination for now is the best way forward, so if you're happy with that, let's go down that route. When you're ready to nominate again in 2014, drop a note on my talk page and I'll put it to the top of my review list, to save you waiting another 3 months for a review. Moswento ^talky 09:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's the route I want to go down Eshlare (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Current (Dec. 16) article on child prostitution: Look at Canadian and US numbers in the Extent table. Canadian numbers should be roughly an order of magnitude lower than US numbers, NOT twice as much in absolute terms. Your reporting system is too complicated.

"Majida El Roumi" a good article ?

I was surprised that the Majida El Roumi page is marked as a good article. Firstly, it has only bare URLS, secondly many YouTube 'sources', though these may have been largely added after the page was 'marked'. Some recent edits have added some rather POV and peacocky text. I see that URL only refs are, apparently, acceptable according to an earlier section on this page.

I know nothing about good/featured articles etc, but can't find anything on the talk page about it being nominated or assessed, and when the GA mark was added on 22 March 2013 here, no edit summary was given. The editor concerned has only 2,206 edits from this account. 220 of ^Borg 16:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the icon as there is no record of any review taking place.--Dom497 (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Passed, but no plus on article page

Katherine Ritvo was passed for GA on December 24, but the bot hasn't added the little green plus to the article namespace. Possibly a reviewer error? Can this be looked into? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 02:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

GA reviews for very short articles

I'm about to write a review of Fajsz, which was nominated for GA on November 20. The article is very short (only 283 words of "readable prose"), and because short articles usually attract reviewers quickly, I'm not sure why this one has been sitting there for more than two months. Is there a restriction on the length of GA articles that I should be aware of? Madalibi (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably people hate the drama of a quick fail. It's way too short. That or the drama of putting it on hold and hoping they fix it in a couple weeks. Montanabw^(talk) 19:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

Would an experienced reviewer be willing to take a look at a somewhat minor content neutrality dispute involving two sentences in the Sydney Leroux article review? This is the only thing holding up the review according to the reviewer. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot-bonkered review count

It appears that a bot went bonkers with my review count. How do I revert the count to the actual number, which I think is 11? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing a nomination

I nominated Wookey Hole Caves some time ago. Another editor has contributed to the article and highlighted some other areas which needed work. The review at Talk:Wookey Hole Caves/GA1 was started inadvertently. I asked about this at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Review started accidentally ? withdraw nom suggesting the easiest solution would be to withdraw the nom, but I've not had any response about how to do this. Can anyone advise?— Rod ^talk 12:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Good article page moves

Hi, is there a process for Good articles that require a page move? Do the associated assessment pages have to be moved as well? I've recently had to move a GA and wasn't sure what to do with the associated talk pages. Thanks in advance. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

outside input

I've noticed that on occasion editors involved with an article may chime in on the corresponding GA review although they are neither the nominator nor the reviewer. Do we have any good essays or rules about this? I've always assumed that the review was in the hands of the reviewer. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Troutman, per the instructions, "Other editors are also welcome to comment and work on the article, but the final decision on listing will be with the first reviewer." Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

OTRS

I'm told that this review can't pass until its images clear OTRS. I didn't see this in the criteria, but I'd like clarification for posterity. czar ♔ 19:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I responded on the review page. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

An alternative would be flagging down an OTRS agent with access to the permissions queue, and getting it cleared. --Rschen7754 04:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Which subtopic for Death in Singapore and Singapore Portrait series currency notes?

If these two articles are nominated in future, which subtopics should the nominations be placed in? --Hildanknight (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it correct that GA images must follow WP:NFCC, even they are not copyrighted?

If so, where can I find guidelines about that? ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of what you're talking about? All images must follow WP:NFCC if they are copyrighted. If they are not copyrighted, and that can be demonstrated, then they do not need to follow NFCC. But all images are assumed copyrighted unless we can explicitly demonstrate otherwise.--v/r - TP 01:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this article nominated?

HIV/AIDS in Malawi is listed on my article alerts for a GA, and has a GA page, so I have taken up the review. However, it's not listed here and neither does it have a GA template on the page? Is this article even waiting for a GA review? Seeking some help determining what to do. --LT910001 (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Request resolved. --LT910001 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you do when a review sets a precedence that causes more problems then solutions for an article?

I am debating about requesting that something about not giving problems (see link) be added to the criteria for reviewing good article nomination. Its because my main question right now is, What do you do when a review sets a precedence that causes more problems then solutions? This is a question I have repeated asked myself since I got back to editing on wikipedia. The Graphene article was reviewed back in 2011. In the review, the person specifically cites as his/her reason for not good article nomination as: --Physics16 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"After a complete read through, I concur with the addition of the "too technical" template, which was added last month. There are a number of uncited statements, some tagged from 2011. The organization is poor and a number of dead links. The article has potential, but is not near GA standard at present. The nomination is by an IP with no other contribution history - I judge this as C class at best. Quickfail. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)"

The problem with that statement is that it was vague in what was specifically "too technical" even under the Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable. At least one of "uncited" statements remains. The organization being poor is an intentionally vague statement and we have had to rely on creating a new sub-article, in an attempt to resolve the issue. However, the true problem is and always remains the vagueness of that first drive-by tagging of "too technical". Its vagueness set a precedence for accepting drive-by tagging of the article --Physics16 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Over the next 3 years, at least 30-50 separate incidents of drive-by tagging, which is tagging without talk pages. I discovered this while searching web.archive.org/. Last year alone, there were three instances of still unresolved drive-by tagging, two of which used the "too technical" tag. As I have mentioned on the graphene talk page last month, I am not sure even I don't know where to begin in what people are finding 'too technical'. Because I understand it, I don't feel the article is too technical at all. If I knew even the first sentence people found too technical, then I could try to fix things. I am so immensely frustrated with people tagging without creating talk pages that I am on the borderline of doing 5 things: --Physics16 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

1. With Lfstevens permission posting giant {{helpme}} or {{Under construction}} along with possibly {{Expert-subject}} specifically requesting a expert in the definition of Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable because I really do think that just referring to that page or "too technical" issue has created more problems than solutions.
2. Removing the original remaining un-cited statement that has not been resolved since 2011. With a fresh mind on the subject, I believe the original sentence quoted below is Weasel Words:

""This definition is narrower than the IUPAC definition and refers to cleaved, transferred and suspended graphene.""

1. Redaction of all the "too technical" tags back the orginal 2011 date because someone or some bot has been updating them without giving proper clarification. I don't think it fair or just to update tag dates without at least referring to what is the problem. Tags are supposed to help provide solutions not create problems.
2. Removal of the outdated (2013) tag and any newly created broken links from last year. It does not make sense to label an article as outdated when it is constantly being updated!

Please answer the question to the best of your ability, so I don't have to do something radical like the number points above. Physics16 (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I do not know much about this topic. However, the article looks technical to me, perhaps there are too many specialized words at the beginning of sections. I would guess that the article is worthy; however, on the Wiki, articles are aimed at general readers even if the subject matter is complex or very complx. May I suggest that the sections are started with easily understood words and them move to the more technical aspects after that. Snowman (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Review - not sure if process has been followed.

Can someone help as I'm not sure if the right process has been applied to put an article up for review. Yesterday King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge, which I nominated, was passed for GA after various comments and requests for references etc - see Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA1. Following this another user removed the GA star & started Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2 stating that the page is full of basic grammar errors. (I believe there was one introduced during the review, but am not aware of others). It has since been copyedited by another editor. It does not appear on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and I was wondering whether the appropriate procedures had been followed or what I need to do now?— Rod ^talk 17:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Surrender

Hi, I took reviewing 2 articles Peter Ostrum and Marie of Romania few days back. Now due to the shortage of time, I am unable to continue the review. Is there any way in which I can surrender? Thanks. RRD13 (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

RRD13: Just ask for a second opinion. 175.156.242.240 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

How to determine an article's "good article" history?

I did a bunch of digging to figure out the history of Gun violence in the United States good article status - and then I lost it all in a computer crash. Ugh. I found talk-page discussions from 2007 and 2008 in the article's archives that said it had passed GA, but I didn't see the GA tag/template added until 2010. I don't think the article is a GA, and others have made similar remarks on the talk pages. So the questions is: How does one determine an article's good article history? Is one's addition to or removal from the GA list logged somewhere? Lightbreather (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The list of GAs is at WP:GA/ALL. There is also Category:Former good article nominees and Category:Delisted good articles, although these are dependent on the presence of the appropriate templates on the article. On the article in question, this section looks like a GA review, but if you don't think the article should be a GA (if the original review missed something, if the article has changed or is out of date, etc), any editor can initiate a GA reassessment. Sunrise (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a problem

Dana boomer began a review of Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, she has not responded there since my last post on 6 May 2014, and she has not been on-line since 3 June 2014, do I need to relist the article for review? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and this can help you. Faizan 06:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Another bit of problem

The reviewer has become inactive and has not responded on his talk page. I tried to follow the instructions on nominating the article again, but that does not produce the desired result. Please help: Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Faizan 06:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Can help? Faizan 14:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Faizan, my recommendation would be to go to WT:GAN and ask whether someone would be willing to take over the review. If no one is, I'm certainly willing to put the nomination back in the reviewing pool. I'm of the opinion that no one who has done so few edits on Wikipedia—as is the case with this reviewer—has any business conducting a GAN review. (The third party issue may nevertheless come up in the course of the review.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonset, I have requested at WT:GAN. I have the same opinion, too. Faizan 16:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Mentor request

I am interested in getting involved in the GA review process. Because I have not been through the process, I would like to find someone willing to hold my hand through the first one o5 two, to make sure I am doing it correctly.

I am interested in doing science articles, and chose Sebaceous gland as a candidate, choosing it because it was one of the oldest in the queue.

Any volunteers?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I completed my first one, but still would like it is someone were willing to watch over my next one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Einar Jolin

Hello,

I am working on the GA review of Swedish artist Einar Jolin and have two questions:

1. The sources for the article are Swedish language sources, but there are sources in English. My thinking is that the further reading section, at the very least, should have English sources. I posted this at Talk:Einar Jolin/GA1#English sources and further reading. Do you mind responding here or there about what would be expected in this kind of situation?
2. At the very bottom of the article is a Timeline of Einar Jolin's life. What is my responsibility, if any, regarding review this graphic / template?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Categories

Ummm...why isn't BIOGRAPHY (no matter the related field) on this list? Just wondering....

Question on GA review procedure

• Is this the correct way to renominate a FailedGA article? I couldn't find directions on Wikipieda to confirm if that is the usual approach to renominate an article. Renomination was done within 30 mins of FailedGA.
• I came to it via "Philosophy and religion category" and the category seemed inappropriate for the article.
• This was the edit done before renominating, I see some dead link tags removed while the dead links reamin dead -- I know dead links are okay, but why to delete the tag? And I also see Failed verification tags purged which were added by the edtior doing the GA review.

--AmritasyaPutra^T 12:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have been asked to coment here. The dead links were checked and where appropriate an archive link added. The concerns regarding verification were addressed in the GA Review - none of the concerns I examined were upheld. I suspect the previous reviewer was looking at the wrong sources. The previous reviewer had passed the article on all aspects apart from formatting of sources, but had expressed a reluctance to pass a contentious article. That's fair enough, so I said they should close the review - we can't expect volunteers to do something they feel uncomfortable about. Having addressed the reviewer's concerns - adding in archive links, and pointing out where the sources do support what is said in the article, I renominated. The time I took to address the concerns is not important; the concerns were addressed (and see Wikipedia:Good_article_frequently_asked_questions#Reviewing: "I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified! That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is our recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review.") I have suggested that the current reviewer should either review the article against criteria, or allow the existing quick fail to be deleted so the review can be put back in the pool. Either is fine by me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that is a plausible explanation (aside: not all dead links were replaced with archive links but all tags were removed), I may not have time to check the sources myself, I wish to backout (remove the quick fail) and have some other more experienced reviewer take this up. I am good if you do that SilkTork. Thanks! --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. I will check over the article again as regards dead links. Thanks for pointing that out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

per Talk:Nipo T. Strongheart/GA1

I need to see about getting another reviewer. I don't know how to "re-list" the article or whatever procedure makes the most sense… Any help would be gratefully accepted! --Smkolins (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review where article subject is now under investigation

I accepted the review for Robin Raphel a couple of days ago, but since making my initial review, an investigation into the subject has begun to be reported by several major news sources (see also this article). According to the articles, it is a federal counterintelligence investigation, but no charges have been filed against Raphel. This information has already begun to be added to the article by editors.

Given these events certainly affecting the coverage of the article (perhaps moreso if further information comes to light in short order), but potentially also the stability and neutrality of the article, I'm considering placing it on hold for a week or two while more information comes out. Would other reviewers recommend that I place it on hold, or fail it on specific criteria (e.g. stability)? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've now failed it, as further edits rendered the article no longer stable or NPOV. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sasuke Sarutobi, edits to keep an article up to date do not mean an article is unstable. Instability is only about whether there is highly contentious edit warring. Even a few reverts is not sufficient for instability. Sometimes constant vandalism is even ignored. Instability is a function of whether there is sufficient disagreement about what the article should say among concerned editors of good faith. If there is agreement on what the article should say and if there is a flow of uncontentious new source material that results in new uncontentious editing the article is still stable. The classic example was during the 2008 election cycle, John McCain got promoted to GA although he was in the news every day causing the article to be constantly updated. P.S., it is common for BLPs to have rigorous editorial activity while under review. You should consider reopening your review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

In hindsight, I have probably been somewhat hasty and alarmist; it's been a while since my last GA review, and what I thought would be a fairly straightforward review turned very suddenly into something needing more editorial rigour and pushback, which I'm sure you'll agree is not an enviable position to be in for a relatively inexperienced reviewer. I'll speak to the nominator about re-opening it and placing it on hold while the new information can be incorporated and new issues addressed. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Farm to Market Road 742

Hi. Can someone confirm that this article has gone through the GA process and is a GA? It looks a bit short to me Gbawden (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Gbawden, you could ask the editor who wrote this page User talk:A Texas Historian/Forest Highway 61. I also found this page User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size, which shows that this Good Article is indeed near the bottom of the list in prose size, but that there are a few others that are even smaller. Prhartcom (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Dyslexia article

can someone look at my article preliminarily to see if it is ok?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, I read the lede, nice job; may I recommend submitting a request over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? A respectable group of volunteers, and later you can brag on the talk page that they have given it the "second pair of eyes" you're looking for (by inserting Template:GOCE.). Prhartcom (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

thank you, you've been very helpful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Short citations

I can't find any specific guidelines, but I recall seeing somewhere that "Bibliography" sections are deprecated. The article I'm reviewing (Congolese Independence Speech) uses short citations and has a "Notes and references" section with notes (in a "Footnotes" subsection) and the short citations (in a "References" subsection) followed by a "Bibliography" section that the short citations link to. This doesn't seem right, but I don't know the proper fix. I suggested in the review: The "Notes and references" could be changed to "Footnotes" with no subsection for the two footnotes and the "References" section renamed "Citations". Is this an appropriate fix? I just completed the review and put it on hold and am now waiting for the main contributor to respond. This is also my first GA review and if anyone is willing to look for any mistakes, feedback would be appreciated. AHeneen (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes is a preferred and ideal way to handle references, using the Harvard referencing format, neatly allowing for sources to be listed alphabetically by author, allowing several footnotes to refer to a single bibliography entry, and allowing several footnotes to be combined into a single footnote. Numerous articles on Wikipedia use referencing this way (here's one). Prhartcom (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Update: Very nice job on the GA review. Prhartcom (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concept of short citations. The question is about the names of the sections and the way they are displayed as section/subsection. For some reason I thought "Bibliography" sections were deprecated and was simply asking whether or not that is correct. The term does not appear at Help:Shortened footnotes, although it does appear in Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. That was the issue, not the concept of shortened footnotes. AHeneen (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. If I understand you, WP:FNNR in the Manual of Style may be the place to answer your question, which says not only "Editors may use any citation method they choose", but also "Editors may use any section title that they choose", so there is no rule and the title "Bibliography" is certainly not deprecated. I use that title myself in my articles. It does give a little concern note about using that word, but it only applies to biographies. Hope that helps. Prhartcom (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Such rules as apply here are generally permissive. However, in regards of good practice I believe there is some preference for "Sources" or "References" over "Bibliography", the former being more general in scope than "book list".

Strictly speaking, the more familiar term footnotes is inaccurate, as what we have here is more accurately endnotes. Use of "Notes" encompasses both, avoiding the specification of location.

In the article referred to there is an implicit distinction between so-called explanatory footnotes and what might be called reference footnotes, as seen in the sub-sections titled "Footnotes" and "References". These titles are some what unfortunate. Both sections are equally footnotes ("notes"), so it is misleading to give that label to just one section. Usage of "references" is unfortunately ambiguous, but I believe it leans more towards the "full citations" (or "full references") as seen (in this article) under "Bibliography", not the short cites.

My suggestion is to rename these sections as follows.

• Notes and references -> Notes (alternately: remove this header)
• Footnotes -> General notes (because that is what they are: notes that apply to the whole topic generally)
• References -> Citations
• Bibliography -> Sources

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a featured article that is in the manner stated above (except it of course has "Notes" as suggested above instead of the quite unusual "General Notes"). Prhartcom (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good example. I suggest "General notes" here because they apply to the text generally, and not to specific material, and to distingush them from the "citation" or "reference" notes, which are equally valid "notes". Such general notes are often put into a box, or (in the print media) at the foot of the first page, even if the rest of the notes are collected at the end as endnotes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on stability

I've been reviewing this article for several days, and I think it looks good for the most part. My question is on the stability criterion. It seemed stable when I first reviewed it, but since then the review page has attracted several other editors who allege POV concerns. While it's not an edit war, it certainly is a small-scale content dispute. I'd appreciate some more experienced reviewer's opinion on whether it now fails that criterion. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Coemgenus, I would be happy to answer (although you appear to have been on Wikipedia longer than me). A similar occurrence happened to me before. I had submitted an article for GA and the reviewer began to review it, then the stability that was once there disappeared as another editor began to heavily modify the article. I believe that what happened was they had it on their watch list and had been meaning to get around to improving it, then saw that I had nominated it, decided for themselves that it wasn't ready in their opinion, and then jumped in. In your case, it is a bit worse because more than one other editor is involved. I'm afraid I believe the situation you describe is clearly unstable, and therefore that criteria is in jeopardy of failing the review. If I were the reviewer, I would put the review on hold, then ask the nominator to work with all of the editors to stabilize the article. I'm assuming you don't want to fail it, but you could do that too, explaining to the nominator that a failure is just temporary until the content is worked out and the article stability has returned. In the first case you would tell the nominator that you will return in about a week and expect to have it solved by then, and in the second case you could tell them you volunteer to return whenever they ping you. How does that sound? Prhartcom (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I don't want to fail it--it's a well-written article that I probably would've passed already if not for this issue. Thanks for the advice. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing/ Adding Content.

Hello! I was just wondering if I would add content on the Nicki Minaj article? I was going to add to the "associated acts" section. I look forward to hearing back from you! -Bekah --2.126.107.191 (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bekah, yes. You are in the wrong place now, however. Click "Talk" at the top of your screen; I have left a welcome there for you with information you need to make your first edit. Please ensure you only add information that comes from a reliable source and is not your own original research. Prhartcom (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Restarting a failed nomination

Robin Raphel was originally nominated by another editor, who did most of the heavy lifting on it late last year. Because of real-world issues he had to drop it, and the GA was failed. In the past few days I've brought the article back to spec per the reviewers' initial comments. I was wondering what the process is to re-nominate? I'm not sure if I just subst the GAN template on top of the talk page again, but I don't want to screw it up. Many thanks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog, thank-you for improving that article. Click "Criteria" at the top of this page and ensure the article meets the GA criteria. When you are ready, paste {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Politics and government}} to the top of the article's talk page; a new review will be started when a reviewer is available. Click "Instructions" at the top of this page for all the information you need. Stop back here if you have questions. Prhartcom (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Thank you. So I don't have to remove the previous failed GA notice, just add a new one? That's basically the gist of my question. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Good question; you may paste the new template above the previous one, leaving it so that others can still access the older failed review. There is an advanced way to provide previous actions using the Template:Article history that compresses the information a bit; you can investigate that later if you wish. Prhartcom (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Thank you! I've re-substed the template, now to wait for a reviewer. And thank you for the helpful edits as well! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dyslexia article

hi, we placed our article more than a month ago, and we were wondering when the review would take place. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You might have to wait as much as six months, and three months is not unusual. This page has a backlog to the stars. ResMar 05:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing: have I got it right?

Hi. I've reviewed two GA nominations today for the first time. I'd really appreciate knowing if I've got it right! The two articles are Atlanta Flames (nom) and Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary (nom). I notice in particular that a bot so far hasn't added the GA icon to the pages... Thanks for your help. Relentlessly (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Relentlessly: Sorry for the late response. I did a quick spot check and both articles look good. Don't know why the bot didn't arrive; I did what it had to do. I see that you added them to their categories at WP:GA. Good work and hope you review more articles. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Submitting an A-class article?

Would it make sense to submit an article that was already listed as A-class to GAN, or would that be redundant? (If it matters I didn't think it merited the A-class before I made substantial improvements to it.) Thanks! delldot ∇. 05:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Was the promotion to A-class properly made by an independent reviewer (like GA reviews)? Or was it promoted by the person who worked on the article? A-class is superior to GA, so if the article went through a review for A-class (as it should), then (as far as I understand) there's no reason for a GA nomination. AHeneen (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It was promoted by an independent person, but without a real review. (The article in question is Slavery in Haiti). I think I will nom it (after making a few more changes). Thank you! delldot ∇. 17:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

HELP! Unwanted Good Article Symbol!!

I copied a Good Article symbol from an article with the intention of using it to illustrate a section in my User profile headed Good Articles to whom I had contributed material. However, instead of sticking in the section where I intended it to be, it is at the head of my user profile page, implying my (incomplete) profile itself is a Good Article, which I did not intend to mean! How can I delete this symbol which is also a link?Cloptonson (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cloptonson, you can just take out that {{Good article}} template, and replace it with the image itself. I just use Image:Symbol support vote.svg|11px, which gives , but I bet if you look at the source of other people's pages you'll find a specific template. Let me know if I can help! delldot ∇. 19:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

How do I look at the reviews of nominees?

I've looked around and can't figure out how to look at the reviews of GA nominees (for instance, for articles where it says "4 reviews"). I feel like I'm just missing something obvious. Any help? Puppysnot (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It comes from a count (User:GA_bot/Stats), not an active list. It's also not particularly accurate... – czar 01:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@czar -- I guess I phrased the question incorrectly. What I'd like to do is actually read the reviews of nominees. Is there a review page or something similar for each article that I would be able to access somehow? Thanks for your help. Puppysnot (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Compulsory Miseducation (talk | history | start review) – czar 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Summerhill (book) (talk | history | start review) – czar 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Puppysnot, on the list at WP:GAN, right before the nominator's signature is a link that says "start review" for articles whose reviews have not begun (so there is no review to see). When the review starts, the link text changes to "discuss review" and you can click through to the review. – czar 12:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Puppysnot, you'd like to read the reviews of nominees, the GA review page for each article on the list? This is a list of articles that don't yet have reviews (unless one has started but not yet completed). That's why they're on the list, so that you and others will consider starting an article's review page. I know it is confusing when it seems like it says the article has "4 reviews", but that just means the editor who wants the article's review page to be created has previously created 4 other unrelated review pages. Prhartcom (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay, that makes sense. That was going to be my next question, but you answered it already. Thanks for your help! Puppysnot (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I actually disagree that it makes sense. Instead of "Article name (start review) (Reviews: 4) Editor name" it should probably be ""Article name (start review) Editor name (Reviews: 4)" Prhartcom (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

How do I read other users reviews?

Hey, I am just starting off as a reviewer, and was looking to get some inspiration or examples of reviews. Is there anyplace I can go to see other users reviews? Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

JohnGormleyJG, yes indeed. All Good Articles may be located by starting at the index WP:GA then choosing your favorite topic; you will see many articles listed. If you are instead browsing Wikipedia, look for the green GA icon (a plus sign in a circle) in the top-right corner. Once at your good article, go to that article's Talk page, then look for the "has been listed" message in a box near the top of the page; there you will see a link titled "Review"; click this link. The link may be called "Good article nominee" appearing next to the word "Listed". Now that you are here at the review page, notice that the page is titled "Talk:[Name of article]/GA[#]"; you could have even typed this directly into the search box. Enjoy reading the GA reviews and picking up tips! Notice that the reviewers judge the articles according to the WP:Good article criteria that set it apart from other articles, as well as the WP:Policies and guidelines that should be met for any article. The WP:Good article nominations/Instructions page has helpful information for reviewers as well as nominators. When you feel confident enough to undertake an actual review, go to the WP:GAN index page where all the articles waiting for reviewers are listed, then click "start review", or go to the article's Talk page and click "To start the review process, follow this link." I would read the entire article first before reviewing it. After you click to begin your review, a new GA[#] page will be created for you. Type in a few words for the nominator to read, indicating your willingness to begin the review, then save the page. You will be expected to commit to the nominator to complete your review in a timely fashion (a week). Thank-you, reviewers are sorely needed! A final suggestion: Take a look at Template:GAList2. Many reviewers insert this template as a guide for themselves and for the nominator. Simply copy and paste the block you see there in the template's Usage section into your review page (let me know if you need help with it). I always use this template but the bulk of my reviews are just bulleted suggestions below it. Enjoy the process! Let me know if you have further questions. Prhartcom (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

2nd Opinion requested

I have been having some differences with the reviewer for Bharatiya Janata Party on the review page. In particular, the reviewer has stated that a certain table contains original research and given me a deadline to fix it, but has not responded to my ideas on how to do so; therefore, more eyes would be most welcome there. The review page is here, and the particular issue is about the table of chief ministers. Since the review itself has been open for a month, any general input to speed the process up would also be welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, the WP:Good article nominations/Instructions page explains the process for requesting a second opinion (at the bottom of the page). However, be prepared to wait a long time; there simply aren't enough reviewers these days. I'm sorry to hear about your experience with your reviewer. I have actually just addressed the concerns of another nominator who was unhappy with this same reviewer, but I can't say I entirely agree with that nominator's concerns. I notice this reviewer did mention on their Talk page they are dealing with a personal matter offline that caused them to neglect their duties here for awhile, which would explain their delay. I suggest you try to work with this sole reviewer rather than waste even more time searching for a second opinion; this person seem to be competent enough to do this job. Let me know if issues prevent this from occurring. Good luck, and cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, thanks for your message. Coemgenus, who reviewed the article the previous time (when an edit-war caused it to fail) was kind enough to look in. If the nominator were preoccupied with RL, I would understand; Real life is indeed real. What I am mildly annoyed by is a lack of response when they are clearly editing Wikipedia; only 1 of their last 50 edits has been to the review page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Argo (2012 film)

I have closed my review of Talk:Argo (2012 film)/GA1 and stepped away as the reviewer for the reasons outlined here:[5][6][7] Could someone help the nominator continue the process by deleting the review page and rebooting the nomination? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for closing the GA1 review, which is the proper decision as was discussed here. When some future nominator wishes this article to be GA they will nominate to GA2 at that time. Prhartcom (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

GA for Burzahom archaeological site and Alatskivi Castle

The above artciles have been promoted to GA on 15th June and 27 June 2015 respedtively. But I am not getting any formal confirmation from the Admn of this site and even so for my earlier articles promoted to GA. There appears to be some technical glitch. Can you pl clarify? Thanks.--Nvvchar. 17:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't get GA notifs either. I think it has to do with how the GA bot parses signatures. I reported it a few times but haven't heard from the maintainer. Likely has something to do either with using span tags inside the wikilink or not using a userpage link in the sig. – czar 18:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification.--Nvvchar. 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Škabrnja massacre

Hi I am unable to continue the review of Škabrnja massacre, I would be pleased if someone continues it. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Royroydeb: As you know, I have left communications about your commitments at your Talk page. I'm sorry you are unable to perform this review and I understand if commitments outside Wikipedia have interfered. In the future it would be best to not start several reviews simultaneously. I have placed this article back into the same place in the queue so that another reviewer may review it. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer has been blocked

Hi. The reviewer (ThatKongregateGuy) of my nomination (Patrick Star) has been indefinitely blocked. He started his review last June 22, but he got blocked. So, what to do now? Do I have to close/renominate it? — Mediran [talk] 08:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have placed this article back into its same place in the queue. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

North American Piedmontese Cattle

Article was reviewed and pased GA criteria, but the GA symbol doesn’t appear. Can someone please explain why it isn’t showing up on the article mainpage?

Atsme, not to worry. Legobot would normally handle that automatically, but TheMagikCow, in good faith, unfortunately prevented it from doing so in this edit, which has an extra bracket, circumventing the automated process and preventing the GA icon from being automatically added. As I am quite sure is already known (but to help anyone else reading this), these instructions should be followed to pass the GA: Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Passing. I apologize for the issue. As you know, I have manually added the GA icon for you. Normally Legobot is very reliable but I believe sometimes slight deviations cause it to fail. Hope this was helpful. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Prhartcom - I appreciate the explanation. Atsme^📞📧 16:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Questionable review

Cowlibob recently posted the following on my talk page in relation to a relatively recent promotion:

"I've noticed a dubious GA promotion of a key article [[8]], the biography of Ali, one of the key figures in Islam. The "review" is empty of comments [[9]] and has been reviewed by a reviewer who has significantly deleted content from the said article [[10]] which was subsequently reverted here as controversial [[11]] and has not been restored. Is there a mechanism on wikipedia to quickly reverse this seemingly obvious case of a dubious GA promotion."

I have to agree that this is a problematic promotion. There are some sourcing issues, at least one tag in the text and the prose is not up to scratch in places. Is there a mechanism to "undoing" an out-of-process review, or does it actually have to go through reassessment? - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I had noticed this a couple of weeks ago as well, didn't have the time to do anything about it; also the nominator of Ali was reviewing one of my nominations at the same time. I don't disagree with the content issues raised; but regardless, I feel that the article should be delisted as a matter of procedure, because it has basically not been reviewed. I don't think there's anything but good faith going on; a reviewer who didn't know the process, and a nominator too busy to look closely. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(Pinging an editor who shares this conern: @Sa.vakilian:)

I agree that this vital article did not receive a valid GA review and must be delisted, and I have just done so. A requirement for GA is stability, which this article clearly was not at the time of its dubious promotion, done without a single word of review. Any nominator may now try to create stability in this article and then renominate it (for a fifth try). Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Change of category

Is it possible to change category without losing nomination date? I nominated 4 articles on decompression at the same time, and put them all into Sports and recreation, but two of them, Decompression theory and History of decompression research and development would probably fit better under Biology and medicine. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter (Southwood), this is done. They are at the back of the queue in the new category. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that probably won't make any difference. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Good-article reviewer gave absolutely no time to fix mostly invalid objections, yet claims it was not an immediate fail

Calvin999 picked up the good article nomination for The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill on 26 June and on 12 July they made this revision to the review page, listing complaints (the critical complaints having no basis in Wikipedia guidelines and policy) and archiving it as a failed nomination, not giving a chance to editors to respond to, let alone resolve, the objections. I reverted their archiving of the review page to respond to each of their complaints, citing Wikipedia guidelines when I felt the reviewer was making assumptions based on other stuff on Wikipedia (for a completely unnecessary style change they wanted done at the article they were reviewing, the reviewer actually cited an article of their own they had nominated as precedent). The reviewer's main complaint (according to them, the reason for failing immediately) was the presence of dead links in the article, but the fact is the majority of the links to citations were not dead and even if they were. Furthermore, the reviewer claims not to have performed a quick fail because an immediate fail has no review ([12]), which sounds like a lame excuse not to bother adequately reviewing the article. Many of the issues they listed were valid, but they were also minor MOS issues that were addressed within less than a day after they posted their review. The other claims, particularly about references format and accessibility were not founded in any guidelines or policies. As I pointed out to them, WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link (WP:DEADLINK), not that most of the links in this article were dead when they picked up this review. If Calvin999 was not prepared or in the mood to wait for corrections to the so-called issues they pointed out, they should not have bothered with this review in the first place, or at the very least should have asked for a second opinion or withdrew as nominator altogether rather than immediately failing the article in the same revision they post their review of it, because it's an insult to the contributors to the article, myself and DepressedPer included, who immediately after seeing their "review" went on to fix the actual issues. The reviewer refuses to concede anything or actually respond to my responses to their so-called complaints, instead making arrogant claims in their edit summaries as some kind of entitled reviewer whose final word must be respected, no matter how they go about making that final word. I don't want to regurgitate everything from the review page, but I hope the editors most involved in WP:GAN will review the now-archived review page and respond. I would appreciate if another reviewer could continue that review page since Calvin999 has no interest in doing so or even asking for a second opinion. Dan56 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have investigated this nominator's complaints and I must agree, the reviewer occasionally acted inappropriately. However, the nominator must respect the decision of the reviewer; this review has failed. But I would go ahead and get in the queue again right now and try a new GA review. Best of luck to both nominator and reviewer. Prhartcom (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dan56, it does seem like Calvin999 was a bite harsh in their close; however, their close was still, so far as I can tell, within the bounds of the reviewer guidelines. Therefore, you would be better served by renominating, rather than by beginning a discussion here which won' result in anything positive. Note: I was brought here by a message on my talk. However, I have not previously interacted with either individual involved. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Kk. @Calvin999:, thanks for wasting the time of this article's nominators by picking the nomination up in the first place and waiting three weeks to dismiss it with bogus complaints and no timeframe to possibly address or respond to it, even "archiving" it when that's another thing GA reviewers don't do. Dan56 (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 An immediate fail or quick fail is when the comment is "Quick fail" without any form of feedback at all. I did conduct a review, and I did spend a long time reading the article. So I still don't see how you insist that it was a quick fail? There's nothing quick about spending 30 minutes reading an article which is not terribly long anyway and then leaving comments on a review page. So please desist with that nonsense, first. Secondly, a reviewer doesn't have to give a nominator any time to review an article. I see reviewers all the time who close with just four or five comments, and I left more than that on your review. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, the article was no prepared sufficiently for GA. With as many dead links and connection issues as were present, other reviewers would probably have failed it the grounds of that alone, because it shows a lack of interest and editing and improvement. Yes, you waited a few weeks, but we all have a real life outside of Wikipedia, and if I hadn't have picked up the review, who's to say that anyone else would have? It would most likely still be in the nominations queue waiting for a reviewer. That, combined with your reverting multiple times of my review to re-open it, when the archive template clearly says do not make further edits to this page, please use article talk page also shows a lack of respect. Stop sulking about it. You've massively blown this out of proportion. If you hadn't have been so abrupt and aggressive in your manner, tone and assumption, perhaps a different outcome would have been achieved. That's all I have to say on this, and I won't be checking back here for a response.  — Calvin999 07:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, you wont be because you're clearly in the wrong about your complaints and wont concede anything. I don't see how a different outcome could have been achieved when your "review" was posted in the same revision as your "fail", @Calvin999:. Dan56 (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not wrong here. You are. What did you want me to do? Write a review, press save, then make another edit saying I was failing? Please, your pettiness is pitiful. Please move on and get over it. You're embarrassing yourself and you're wasting my time. You say I'm not addressing anything (though I have), but you've ignored everything in my paragraph above. Oh the irony. Don't ping me again.  — Calvin999 08:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dan56, I'm surprised at you. I said I agreed with you that the reviewer occasionally acted inappropriately and I have spoken to the reviewer. I assumed you would know to stop sniping the reviewer at that point. Let's end this. Prhartcom (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am only an occasional passerby here, but this discussion calls for comment.

On one hand, reviewers commonly give nominators an opportunity to correct any problems, so it might have been better if the reviewer had not been so quick to fail. However, when there are serious and extensive problems this can lead to a very drawn out review process, and a quick fail is often most merciful. And the reviewer (Calvin999) did explain:

I can't pass an article with so many problems with the references. It makes it very difficult, near on impossible, to check the verifiability and reliability of the prose and information.

This may have quicker and harsher than average, but it seems within bounds. And hardly a matter for complaint when the nominator is free to fix and resubmit.

On the other hand, the nominator (Dan56) is stridently self- righteous and argumentive, using intemperate language. (E.g.: "an insult to the contributors", scarequotes around "review", "reviewer refuse to concede anything ... instead making arrogant claims", "bogus complaints", etc.) It seems to me that Dan56 is trying for a quick fail in WP:CIVILITY, particularly in failing to participate in a respectful and considerate way, use of offensive language, and ignoring the positions and conclusions of fellow editors. Dan56 seems a not unreasonable editor in the main, so possibly all of this was just a passing fit of pique. In that case, perhaps he would apologize for his momentary incivility, thank Calvin999 for taking the time to point out some points for improvement, and everyone can move on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@J. Johnson:, @Prhartcom:, it was not true there were "so many problems with the references". I checked the deadlinks tool after the fail was posted and there were only eight dead reference links. After DepressedPer's revisions, there were four, which I then fixed. Calvin999 had a problem with the citation style, which is not enough reason to immediately fail the article, archive its review page, and not allow a response to such dubious complaints as Calvin999 posted. Calvin999 was simply WRONG in failing the article and since they did not respond with civility to my original replies to the review page, I wont respect his review, which I feel none of you have reviewed yourself to see some of the questionable complaints that were made. Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Dan56, you are walking on thin ice here. No more complaining. Resubmit your article. Prhartcom (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dan56, with all due respect, you need to drop the stick. The review may have been harsh, but it followed the guidelines. There is nothing you can do save renominate it; indeed, there is nothing anybody can do. Reverting a good faith close is extremely bad form. Why are you so opposed to renominating? And what do you expect to gain by continuing to insist that your reviewer was in the wrong? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I renominated it yesterday, I don't believe it was a good-faith close, he was in the wrong, and to answer your question, I was hoping you would make the guidelines more specific or write something additional in them so something this ridiculous cant happen again. If you believe a reviewer cant ever be in the wrong, even when it involved posting a questionable review and a decision to fail it in the same revision (which is essentially an immediate fail), then that's another discussion. But when the nominator has made a valid case questioning the review, they should have a right to call for a second opinion rather than go through a waiting process again. Dan56 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, this was reverting a good faith edit, "How dare you" tone included. Dan56 (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between "being wrong" and "acting in bad faith." Calvin999 may have been wrong, but there is no indication that they acted in bad faith; therefore, the call to drop the stick. I would not be opposed to an RfC seeking to add language to the instructions, but I will have to think on it more. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, J. Johnson, Prhartcom Guys, just leave Dan56 alone. He's not listening, he's just sulking. It's only winding him up more than none of you are in his corner on this. Best thing to do when a baby won't stop crying is close the door and let it cry it out. I suggest the same method be applied here, and it will soon blow over (hopefully). Dan56, if you think I acted in any way unreasonable for whatever reason you have come to believe, then I would like to know your stance on your lashings of incivility toward me in the paragraphs above while I have not been online to defend myself. Vana, Johnson, Prhart, thanks for your contributions here. I appreciate it.  — Calvin999 07:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. No gloating. Prhartcom (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And he is acting like a baby (e.g.: "I wont ..."). I believe in trying to work with people, but not if they keep picking a fight. A GA review shouldn't be any kind of adversarial contest. So yes, let's shut the door. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999, no matter how much you disagree, characterizing or implying that your adversary is a crying baby by your use of analogue is a personal attack, is uncivil, and therefore inappropriate. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Criterion 1b dispute

Chiswick Chap has kindly volunteered his time to perform an excellent, thorough, and competent GA review of Lise Tréhot, an article I wrote and nominated. We are mostly in agreement about everything except the interpretation of criterion 1b ("complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation"). I am willing to admit that I may be completely wrong in my position, which is why I've brought this minor dispute here for uninvolved input and review.

Chiswick Chap and I are at loggerheads about the use of the table listing Tréhot's modeling appearances in the selected works section. Could someone take a look at the review and this table and weigh in on whether my use of it in this article is legitimate? Note: I've recently made all of the image titles in the article internal anchors to the table because I intend to point our readers to it instead of using images in the body, as I find the table an ideal appendix for this purpose.[13] Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm really surprised this has been brought here as I've already (a day ago) agreed to Viriditas's use of the table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Should I go for community reassessment?

I nominated Leo Frank for GA and had someone volunteer to review the article. That person left some initial remarks which seemed promising, but I have not received a full review after 12 days and did not receive any response on his talk page. Furthermore, a significant contributor to the article objected to the reviewer because although they only had made one edit to the article prior to reviewing, the reviewer participated in a RfC shortly before and had another minor content dispute just hours before volunteering as reviewer.

I'm curious if I should consider closing the review and going for a community reassessment as I would not have to worry about a conflict of interest from a single reviewer or that reviewer being excessively slow in completing the GA review process. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say withdraw and immediately renominate. You can't really fail the article as the reviewer generally should do that, and reassessment tends to deal with the results of the review. Since there isn't a result (because the reviewer never actually failed it), I don't think there'd be much to go on, and most would probably just recommend a new review putting you in the same spot as a withdraw and renomination. Wugapodes (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My main concern is that the same reviewer could simply sign up to do the next GA nomination, in which case it wouldn't accomplish anything and just leave the article with one more failed GA nomination. If there's any way to avoid that, please let me know. I'm even considering just going straight to FA if the community GA isn't an option. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Followed GA reassessment instructions, didn't transclude...

I'm trying to get a reassessment for Wyangala. I added the GAR template to the talk page, added the new section at the bottom of the talk page, created the GA2 page, and it's not transcluding to the assessment page. MSJapan (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Wyangala GA? Prhartcom (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Kiki Sanford section unknown

For the future, what should I categorize scientists who become science communicators as? Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi reassessment issue

To notify people about Talk:British Bangladeshi/GA1, I have placed the {{GARMessage}} template on a number of WikiProject talk pages, such as here. However, the original GA review seems to be at Talk:British Bangladeshi/GA2, and the template points editors there rather than to the reassessment. Any ideas why this is the case and how it can be fixed? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I've manually fixed the links, but am still confused about the page numbering. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Greyhound review help needed

I've requested a GA review on the Greyhound Lines article. It received, an initial review and I made the requested changes, but now the reviewer @StudiesWorld: has now disappeared. Can the review be redone, assigned to a new reviewer, or whatever is done in a situation like this. Thanks! --RickyCourtney (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Stand down. The reviewer has finally reappeared. --RickyCourtney (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing Plus sign

I recently reviewed a GA nomination, an interesting mathematics article on Reversible cellular automaton and had it pass. I think I did everything right but there is no green Plus sign appearing on the article page. On the Talk page it does mention it is a Mathematics GA. What did I do wrong? Edwininlondon (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it manually. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reviews count not showing by username

I did a review last year, and it is tallied at User:GA_bot/Stats, but "(Reviews: 1)" does not show up by my username on the nominations page. How come? (Ok, I know it's only one review, but still.) Thanks. -hugeTim ^(talk) 02:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I just completed my first GA review a few days ago, and my tally is neither listed at User:GA bot/Stats nor next to my username on the nominations page. Is there a specific action an editor must take for the GA Bot to give them credit for GA reviews? I manually added the green "+" to the article I reviewed, so it's possible the GA bot missed me. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My review count suddenly stopped listing a long time ago (my GA notifs went along with it), so I haven't been doing as many reviews since. I've contacted the bot maintainer at several different times and left a note on this talk page previously but haven't heard back. czar 19:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Article not showing up on list

Hi! I've recently nominated the article Ehrhardt (typeface) after polishing it up. The nomination appears on the article's talk page but not on the list. (I decided to place it under Art & Architecture). Any thoughts? This is my first try at this so probably a stupid mistake of mine. Blythwood (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Blythwood, the bot that handles nominations, new and old, was down for two days, only returning to action about seven hours ago. Unfortunately, you added your nomination during the period it was down. The good news is that with the bot now operating properly, the nomination is showing up in the Art and Architecture section where it belongs, in chronological order near the bottom. Best of luck going forward! (It will probably be a while before the article is picked up for review; we have a large backlog.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Requirements

I have had a previous account, however I went for a clean start. Do I need to have something like a year officially registered on my Wikipedia account or can I review whenever I want. Also, are there any helper scripts? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Dat Guy, thank-you for offering to review; your effort is appreciated. There is no requirement to wait a year, especially if you are already familiar with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. You are expected to be familiar with the Good article criteria and the instructions for reviewing. Reviewing scripts appear on the right side of the review page in the "GA toolbox" after the review is started, and you may add one of these templates to the bottom of the review page to assist you, but obviously no script can substitute for your best judgement on how well the article meets the GA criteria. You may want to look at the work of other reviewers by going to the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page and clicking any "discuss review" link. Feel free to leave another message here if you need further assistance, and thanks again. (P.S. Your "Contribs" link in your signature is broken.) Prhartcom (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Procedure for withdrawing if reviewer can no longer continue review

A reviewer can no longer complete the review for whatever reason - time constraints, or whatever that has nothing to do with the quality of the article. How is that best handled? Atsme^📞📧 02:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This editor's question was answered here: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Reviewer could not continue, left with unfinished business.... Prhartcom (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Serious concerns

Having just gone through an abysmal experience with a GA review, I'd like to know if it is possible or even appropriate to suggest a particular editor not be allowed to do GA reviews. Please see Talk:Billy the Kid/GA2 for continuous examples as to why I feel the reviewer is absolutely not yet ready to be a GA reviewer. Everything from having the original "pass" of the article to GA overturned and taken over by an experienced reviewer, an inability to remain neutral and making derogatory comments about the nominator to other editors, being essentially absent from doing anything more with the review, inappropriate actions, reactions, and comments, a basic lack of understanding general Wikipedia policy, and a final unilateral fail by the reviewer for invalid reasons (and failure to know what has been actually going on at the article) -- all of this brought me here. To say I am frustrated with the final result after working quite hard to comply with the review suggestions to bring it to GA status would be an understatement. But I've had serious doubts about the reviewer's competence from the beginning (and expressed such at the review talk page early on). To be clear, the fail isn't really what brought me here. The consistently demonstrated incompetence of the reviewer is. I don't want to see anyone else go through what I have been through with this reviewer. Any productive and helpful comments about this would be appreciated. Any advice that can be given about whether this needs to be taken elsewhere would also be appreciated. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, first of all, thank-you for your contributions to Wikipedia and for nominating an article for GA. I have just finished the work of reading all of the background on this case. A nominator is often a thankless role, especially in disputes, as their opponents snipe at their work from all sides but did not have to go through the enormous effort of preparing the article for its nomination. I can fully understand your frustration. To be taken from the high of seeing your work initially pass, to be dragged through the emotions of seeing your work criticized, only to be taken to the low of seeing your work finally fail, must feel, as you rightly said, abysmal. Like other editors have already kindly said to you, I am so sorry you suffered pain from the experience.

Please forgive me for my final decision here, but I believe your feelings directed at the reviewer are misplaced; the reviewer largely acted appropriately in their decision to fail the article at this time. It most definitely is not stable, one of the six criteria, and reviewer's decision shall be respected. Please, do not worry; I have three positive things for you to take away from this! First, as BlueMoonset wisely said, a GA fail has no stigma attached. It certainly does not mean "you failed". I myself have received a few GA fails. A fail simply means the GA reviewer has decided that the article does not meet GA right now; that's all. Second, this does not mean you, as nominator, cannot try again. Like it says at the GA instructions, if the nominator's article receives a fail, they can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. No one can stop you from doing that. I suggest you wait as long as six months to allow the dust to settle, your head to clear, others to become distracted with something else, and stability to return before trying again. Lastly, as others have truthfully said, I fully expect your efforts to eventually be rewarded and a GA icon to be added to the top of this article. All that is really happening here is you are agreeing to step back away from the article for a good long while, giving yourself time to consider the advice of others who truly do share the same goals as you, taking a good long honest look at your own behavior, then at last making those few needed improvements that the article deserves, renominating it, and once again hoping for the best as all nominators do. You absolutely know, don't you, that you have the skill, the perseverance, the willingness to do whatever it takes to succeed. I'm quite sure the article is very close. Your efforts will eventually be rewarded. The article will eventually be given the GA it deserves. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom, the article has been renominated. The listing for it, however, seems to think there is already an active review occurring ("Discuss review") and takes one to the GA1 of the article. Is there something that can be done to fix this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, adding the page directly to WP:GAN will not work; it will be overwritten by the bot on the next edit. You need to follow the instructions at WP:GAI § Step 2: Nominating the article. Relentlessly (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Can I slap myself with a trout? Good lord, I knew that. Thanks for your help, Relentlessly. I'm going to go hide my head in shame and self-disgust now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

No, no Winkelvi no shame - this is what help pages are for and why Prhartcom is such a treasure. I just went through something similar so I'll add a trout slap for both of us!!  Self-trout Atsme^📞📧 01:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Atsme, thanks for giving me words to help me lift my head back up just in time to be trout-slapped! And yes, I am learning what a treasure Prhartcom is. Amazing, really. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: ever been to a turkey shoot? Atsme^📞📧 01:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep! Years ago when I was a kid. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear that's sorted out! :-) Atsme, I'm not sure if you're familiar with game fairs - over here in Britain, game is when you hunt animals and leave them to hang out before cooking them (I know a few things about hunting and have been to a game fair personally). Definitely worth checking out. They usually sell the meat as well as camouflage gear - but I digress. My actual question to you is actually regarding the GA Cup; do you have to be a substantial contributor to actually nominate an article for GA? I'd like to nominate David Cameron - I've read through it and think it's worthy. Best, --Ches (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555 the only criteria I'm aware of relates to the article, not the editor who nominates it. See Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step 2: Starting a review The GA Cup on the other hand is a competition. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Good_articles/GA Cup. As for the turkey shoot - when Winkelvi said, " lift my head back up just in time to be trout-slapped!" it made me think of the cartoons I've seen where there's a turkey hiding behind a log, popping its head up every so often to see if the coast was clear. It was my attempt to make W smile and relieve some of the stress over getting his article listed. Anyway, back on point, go ahead and nominate your article if you haven't already but make sure you will be available during the review. Good luck!! Atsme^📞📧 19:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Atsme, that's great, thanks for your help. I understand the turkey thing now, although I must admit I'm not familiar with the cartoons, haha! --Ches (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Good article review

Can any user do a good article review? I want to try reviewing an article.StoryKai (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@StoryKai: In principle yes, but in practice, no. I would recommend the recruitment centre were it still in operation. Long story, short: If you haven't been a major editor to a nominated article follow the instructions for reviewing. If the article is nowhere near passing to the point it can't be fixed, quickfail. Otherwise, let the nominator what needs to be done to meet the GA criteria. Give them some time to fix it. If the article passes criteria, promote the article. Not performing a quality review may result in your efforts being reverted because many editors hold subjective criteria for what reasonable reviews should be. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

StoryKai, good article mentors are also available to help you during your first review. Chris is right to urge caution, as you haven't been on Wikipedia very long, but it's true that the project needs more reviewers. We appreciate your offer; I personally wish to encourage you if you really want to take the responsibility and commit to doing the best you can. Let me know if you need more help. Prhartcom (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Criterion 6

I am currently reviewing the article on Vladimir Lenin, and am trying to get to grips with the rules on images. I wonder if anyone can give me any pointers.

As far as I can tell, images in GAs have to meet one of three requirements:

1. They are released under a free license, or
2. They are in the public domain in the USA, or
3. They are considered to be fair use and have a fair-use rationale on the file page.

So far, so good. (At least, so long as I am understanding the requirements correctly.)

I am having more trouble, however, with identifying whether some of the images are either a) in copyright, and therefore need a fair-use rationale or b) public domain in the USA.

About half of the images are tagged as public domain in the US, or are released under a free license, so they're okay. Of the remainder, one is "not an object of copyright" according to Russian law; twelve are tagged as being Public Domain in author's life+70 countries, but without anything discussing their copyright status in the US (of those, ten were published before 1923, one after, and one probably before but the information is not available); and one I don't even know where to begin.

I assume that the rouble is fine, as the Russian government doesn't claim copyright over it, but I'm totally confused about the others. So I suppose my questions are:

• How can I tell which ones are PD in the USA? (Or can anyone who actually understands these things tell me?)
• If they are public domain in the USA, are they okay as-is or does this information need to be added to their pages if they are to be included in a Good Article? And if so, how?

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Arsenikk, Nehrams2020, and Bibliomaniac15: pinging users registered as GA mentors who mention being able to help with images. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

LivingBot missed a recent GA listing

If I follow correctly, near the top of WP:GA, the "Recently listed good articles" are updated by User:Jarry1250's User:LivingBot at WP:Good articles/recent. For some reason, it seems to have completely missed the OPEC article that was promoted to GA yesterday (the morning of April 10). If anyone understands how the process works, was there a human procedure that got overlooked somehow, or was the bot malfunctioning? —Patrug (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like something has gone wrong somewhere; Talk:OPEC says that it was listed as a good article on April 10 2014, despite the fact that the GA review quite clearly happened in 2016... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I just corrected the reviewer's typo. We'll see if the bot revisits. —Patrug (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Five articles got added in the same 15 minutes, which triggered the bot to think something was wrong and skip the edit.

• Item added: Toby Creek
• Item added: OPEC
• Item added: Space Station Silicon Valley
• Item added: Grand Theft Auto III
• Item added: Maverick Hunter

You can go ahead and add them manually though if you want though :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 20:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Harry. It looks like 3 of those 5 were posted simultaneously by the same reviewer, which probably isn't such a rare occurrence. Maybe revise the bot to consider something wrong only if 5 different reviewers post within 15min? And if it does skip an edit, have it post an alerting message somewhere that you or another human can take a closer look? —Patrug (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't get that many complaints so presumably it doesn't happen that often :) I cba programming the process you describe, but since the script has been stable for yonks, it makes sense to bump the limit slightly. Now, simultaneous adding of up to 5 articles will work. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 19:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This should help a bit, and I've documented it on Wikipedia talk:Good articles/recent so it'll seem less of a "bug" and more of a "feature" ;-) —Patrug (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ga failed review

Hello there. I believe I was unfair during a GA review I just conducted and I failed per say review. Therefore I would like to revert my edit and place it on hold so that the nominator could carry on with the review. If that is possible of course, otherwise a more experienced editor could tell me what to do in these situations. Thank You. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi MarioSoulTruthFan, I assume you are referring to Talk:I Will Possess Your Heart/GA1, nominated by Antony-22. Thank-you for reviewing and I'm sorry you had a bit of trouble; Antony-22, thank-you for nominating. Since the article has already been failed and the bot has already removed the nomination from the WP:GAN list, the GA1 review is finished. There is no penelty or harm in starting a new review, so I reccomend that a new review immediately commence after the nominator creates a new GA2 nomination by following the usual instructions. Antony-22, why don't you go ahead and nominate today to get it back on the WP:GAN list. MarioSoulTruthFan, you could then pick it up for review today and start a new review, adding notes to the GA2 referring to the GA1 page if necessary. Or if Antony-22 would rather, it could sit on the GAN list and wait for a different reviewer; please find out if that is their preference. Let me know if you need my help answering specific questions about reviewing. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 12:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Prhartcom, no that was not the nomination, it was Talk:Bedtime Story (Madonna song)/GA1 nominated by User:IndianBio. It was bad judgment on my behalf while reviewing. The one you raised I was concise with what I wanted and intended. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would rather nominate it later and wait for a different reviewer thanks. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

MarioSoulTruthFan, some advice: On your next review, do not quick fail unless you are dealing with a nominator that does not intend to respond to your review, because of the bad feelings quick fail tends to cause. If the nominator is responsive, I would allow them a little time to address the issues you raise, as they may actually solve every issue you raise and improve the article according to the criteria. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Prhartcom for the reply and for the advice I will take that into consideration on my next reviews. @IndianBio: once more I'm truly sorry and I understand why you might want to wait for another reviewer. Hopefully this won't cause bad blood between us. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

GA bot malfunction?

I have selected an article for review, Stand Up for Love, I'm planning to do this review over the weekend. However, the bot is not assuming me as a reviewer on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Songs page. Anyway to fix this?

Thank you in advance, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Some how it was sorted out. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Jason Isaacs

I need help here. I know very little about GA's. However, I noticed at the Talk page that Jason Isaacs is tagged with "GA"-class status. However, there's no {{good article}} tag at the actual article, and the article has had long-term maintenance tags added. There's also no 'GA' "history" to follow at the Talk page, so I can't figure out when the article was originally promoted to GA, or whether it's even been "demoted" from GA. Any chance somebody can help me out here?... I almost tried to have the article individually "assessed", but I'm pretty ignorant of even that process, so I aborted that. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

IJBall, thanks for pointing this one out. I found this edit from nearly a decade ago where an editor added the first "revised article rating" because it had just been promoted to GA here. it was reassessed in January 24, 2008 but was kept GA. I notice the article is not listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama. I see that it was reassessed again here Talk:Jason Isaacs/GA1 and stripped of its GA here. It was removed from the rolls then, but they forgot to change the class values. Please go ahead and change them to whatever you believe is correct (possibly "C"). —Prhartcom♥ 06:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Thank you! That was enormously helpful – with the info you have provided, I was able to add an {{Article history}} to the Talk:Jason Isaacs (please feel free to correct or add to it if I've done anything wrong or missed anything!...), and have demoted the article to C-class as you suggested. This is one of those articles that's on my radar for a "renovating" back to GA-status project (and learn the "GA process") if I can find the time to put the work into it... Thanks again! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

IJBall, you're likely the one, then, that is destined to bring new sources and new prose to this article, then nominate it for GAN and see it through to GA. I suggest you start just one small corner of it now; the rest will come. All the best, —Prhartcom♥ 03:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: It is literally on my mental "To Do" list to get several articles at least to "B-class" this summer (as I've never done that before), and I think Jason Isaacs is actually at the top of my mental list. If I get it to "B-class", I may then try for WP:GA. But I likely won't get to that before mid-July, when one of my two summer jobs finishes up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood; there's never a deadline (and hopefully no one will beat you to it). Oh, I really wouldn't bother with B, go straight for GA. Start with one new source; it think you'll be very happy with your own result. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 03:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Gladiator (2000 film)

An individual resassessment was initiated by FutureTrillionaire in March 2015 but is still unresolved, despite the user being reminded about it four months ago. Not sure what the procedure is here, but FWIW I think it should be delisted, the lead does not adequately summarise the article and there are numerous statements throughout that lack citations. PC78 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

PC78, thanks for pointing this out. FutureTrillionaire, I see you are editing on Wikipedia recently. It's time to close the reassessment you started at Talk:Gladiator (2000 film)/GA1. Thanks for taking care of this. The decision to delist is yours, but notice how many support your proposal. If you need assistance, PC78 will probably help you. PC78, if he ignores his duty, please do step in. It would also be great if someone could bring the article back to GA. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 02:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Operation Infinite Reach

On July 30, a reviewer declared their intent to review this article (which I nominated for GA). However, they do not seem to have started yet, although I have contacted them twice whether they were still intending to review it (no response). They've also been rather inactive lately. Anyways, I'm seeking advice on how to deal with this particular situation. I hope to get this done before the end of the month. Thanks, GAB^gab 15:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi GeneralizationsAreBad, I put it back into the pool with the same seniority it had before. It seems like the reviewer is only active once a week, and was last active 6 days ago, so hopefully they get back to you tomorrow. Regardless, it's been a while to wait, and perhaps someone will be able to complete the review sooner for you. If not, there's nothing stopping the previous reviewer from taking it on again and doing the review if they're ready again. Hope that helps! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! GAB^gab 19:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

GA icon doesn't appear on the article page

The article Count On Me (Bruno Mars song) was recently passed as GA, however, a GA icon was not added. The reviewer forgot to change some parameters so I (nominator) did it for him. Nevertheless, the "plus symbol" still doesn't appear. Can someone add it manually. I have seen this done here, therefore I would like for someone to add it. Thank You.

Kind Regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I added it for you. Carbrera (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: How do you do that? Thank you in advance, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Just a teeny tiny template: [14] Carbrera (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Technical Question

I recently approved this article for GA status: Taylor–Burton Diamond. However, it had failed a previous nomination. Should I have remove the FailedGA tag? Also, presumably related to this, the nominator received an automatic message on their talk page telling them they had failed. I have notified them otherwise, but am now concerned that bots may have misinterpreted the result. Thanks. --♫CheChe♫ talk 14:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No you don't remove the failed GA tag. However, you should put your review after the failed one (chronological order). No idea regarding the second question, but maybe has to do with what I just said. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@CheCheDaWaff: You're not qualified to perform Good Article reviews and you failed to follow instructions. Please fix. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thank you, but I'm not sure what to do the 'fix' this? I reordered the templates. Is that all? I guess I could revert the page to before I approved it, and then make the edits exactly as the instructions say. Is that a good idea? Any direction would be nice.--♫CheChe♫ talk 11:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@CheCheDaWaff: Yes, revert and go step by step. You can't have two GA tags on the same talk page, which is part of the problem. Be sure to only have one tag saying it was approved. Be sure to list the article as GA on the applicable list, too. Step-by-step will fix this. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

GA review cancellation request

Can I please have Talk:All We Know Is Falling/GA1 disregarded? The reviewer did not intend to give a full review and was new to the process, considering it to be the same as FAC (see this revision). I have a reviewer who would actually like to take up the article now. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Returned to queue with seniority intact. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, while you're at it, do the same for Talk:Revolutions per Minute (Rise Against album)/GA1 for the same reason. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, done. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Richfield NY

Richfield NY, is in the Southern Tier of The State of New York. Look at a map some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.145.250 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)