Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsOctober 2024 Backlog DriveMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport

Good article nominations

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

Concerns about a new GA review circles coordinator

I was going to post this here on @PCN02WPS's talk page at first, but having read through it, I think it should be posted somewhere with greater visibility. I may be pinging @GMH Melbourne too many times today now, but I'll do so as a courtesy since GARC is also something you've primarily organized.

Hi there, I don't want to come off as discourteous, but I have concerns that make me believe @TheNuggeteer should step down from being a coordinator for the time being (at least until he is able to demonstrate better understanding of the GAN process). I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest he needs additional experience with Wikipedia and the GAN process to become a coordinator for GARC.

Many of his recent GANs have had significant concerns brought up by editors:

• Talk:Sonny Matula/GA1 (June 27) — quickfailed for being far outside the GAN standards
• Talk:Marcelino Libanan/GA1 (July 5) — quickfailed for being far outside the GAN standards
• Talk:Piñon, Colorado/GA1 (July 8) — quickfailed for failing to meet the minimum level of contribution
• Talk:Afrique Victime/GA1 (July 8) — failed nomination where @Drmies states that he probably shouldn't be submitting and reviewing for GA and @PerfectSoundWhatever tells him I don't think you have a grasp of what is required for a GA.

In addition to his GA reviews:

• His reviews at Talk:Giado concentration camp/GA1, Talk:Jorge Choquetarqui/GA1, Talk:Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics/GA1, and Talk:Sikidy/GA1 were all speedily deleted after Dmries brought up concerns with his reviews here
• @TechnoSquirrel69 wrote on his talk page on July 1 that his reviews may not meet community expectations.

As coordinator, his circles have also had significantly less scrutiny than the ones organized by other coordinators. To provide one example of contrast, one coordinator previously left a message on @IntentionallyDense's talk page advising him that he would need additional experience reviewing articles before participating in the GARC process. However, TheNuggeteer's GA review circles have included editors with dramatically less experience, which you can see here (such as one editor with 153 edits). Most recently, a circle had to be re-organized after he failed to follow step four of the coordinator instructions.

To TheNuggeteer, I want to say I really hope you don't take this badly; I'm only saying that I believe you need to learn more about the GAN/article-writing process first before taking on a role like this. I also think for the benefit of GARC, proposed coordinators should have greater scrutiny (with clear minimum requirements) in the future, before being added. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Freedom4U Hmm, seems like a good option, since I could actually use more time to make more GA's.

But anyway, I don't feel like those quickfailed noms are recent (for me), and after, I have eight other successful reviews and 2 GAs, so I probably don't know. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Your more recent nominations don't inspire much confidence in me either. Your nomination of Typhoon Chanthu (2010) five days ago had to be reverted as a drive-by nomination and after your nomination at Talk:.tv/GA1 failed, you immediately nominated it again without making changes. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This may not be the best place to put this but since I was tagged here and it’s somewhat related to the topic I think it may be a good idea to put some restrictions in place at GARC to avoid newer editors from getting overwhelmed. When I first applied to be apart of the GARC I had only done 3 GARs and I’m really glad the coordinator suggested I got more experience first as I did need it. My proposal would be requiring people who are entering the GARC to have reviewed at least 5 GAs beforehand. 5 is kind of a random number so if anyone has other suggestions please let me know but I do feel implementing some form of restrictions may help with the future of GARCs. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Although it's not common, there are people who don't write much content but still have a good grasp of how to evaluate the GA criteria and review an article. I would have no issue with someone putting their first ever GAN up at GARC if they're already proven themselves a capable reviewer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t have an issue with this either however I do think they should demonstrate they know how to do a review which I don’t know how else that could be demonstrated unless they’ve done a review in the past. We could also say either reviewed or nominated 5 GAs that way people who haven’t done a review but have nominated enough GAs to show they understand could participate. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that. I think any combination of five successful GANs and GA reviews (that were not quickfails; e.g. 2 successful nominations and 3 well-done reviews) is a reasonable standard to participate, so long as there aren't any other pressing issues. Imo coordinators should also scrutinize at least one of these to make sure they're good, but I also don't want to force volunteers to do more work if it's just going to create a backlog (it looks to me that both coordinators aren't as active as they used to be). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I would also be happy with this however I do agree that coordinators having to look over others reviews may add to the workload. I think it’s fair to just look over the users talk page to see if any concerns have been brought up. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense: I really like this idea. I will add requirements for users wanting to participate and see how it goes. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't like saying this, but I don't think the editor should be reviewing GAs, and I have doubts about at least one of their articles that were promoted to GA. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I have to agree. I have seen a marked improvement in their quality of reviews, but I did spend some time co-reviewing a few articles [1], [2] after I saw them comment I think that after "a personal friend of Klein", the comma should be a dot instead, and the next word will be capitalized. on this text:

Directed by Véras Fawaz, a personal friend of Klein, the music video for "Europapa" was premiered live on De Avondshow met Arjen Lubach at 16:45 CET, followed by a release on the Eurovision Song Contest channel on YouTube ten minutes later.

I like TheNuggeteer, and honestly think they've done good work with GACR, but I don't think they're able to evaluate 1a of the Good article criteria just yet. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to comment on TheNuggeteer's reviews later, but in the meantime, would I be able to take over the coordinator position? I don't think I'm an exceptional reviewer by any means and don't have any GAs, but I have done a fair amount of reviews.

In terms of my approach to GARC, I think to make them work at increasing the number of reviews, they should be frequent. I don't think newer reviewers should be excluded, as long as they are mentored in some way, i e. with a second pair of eyes looking over the review, which helps them with understanding what they should be looking for in a review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave Of course! Just as the others accept, I honestly don't want to be a coord anymore (hope the other coords don't take it badly). You have multitudes of experience reviewing GAN's, so you seem like a good candidate. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think requiring experience in GARC is for the best. WP:Good article mentorship is a good program for mentoring new users. I think the process currently compromises on review quality, which is something that this project was setup to try and avoid. Adding requirements should hopefully solve this. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the process currently compromises on review quality. Still, we need more people reviewing, and this is a good incentive to try a first review. If they've got a mentor who will ensure a standard of quality, as an exception to the requirements, then I don't see why they should be excluded. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that is fair, I have added this note on the page. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

TheNuggeteer, you are also simultaneously reviewing five different GANs right now, four of which you have not finished. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this, which still needs to be addressed. It's been said above that TheNuggeteer probably needs to hold off on reviewing for a while and take GAN more slowly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I can leave comments on these to finish these reviews, except Talk:Tumor necrosis factor/GA1 which should probably be deleted. I don't think they have picked up any reviews since this was brought up here so I'm unsure if there remains an issue of needing to slow down. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m willing to review the TNF article as it’s in my scope of interest. What’s the protocol for taking over a review? IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

TheNuggeteer has begun another review at Talk:1991 Hindu Kush earthquake/GA1, despite still having three unfinished reviews from the last few weeks. Between this, their noms, and their previous reviews, I don't believe this user is ready to participate in the GAN process quite yet. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

IntentionallyDense, if you would like to get credit for the review, you can follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4a. If you don't care so much about that, you can just comment that you'll be taking over per this conversation, and add comments from there.

TheNuggeteer, could you address Thebiguglyalien's comment above before continuing to nominate or review articles? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, already finished Harold. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't address the concerns TheNuggeteer. I can see you have just nominated List of Olympic medalists for the Philippines for Featured List. I am not very familiar with FL, but looking at it, I think the same issues we have been discussing here will prevent it from passing. Please gain some more experience with Wikipedia and improve your writing skills before you review or nominate articles at FAC/FLC/GAN. I can see you are active in WikiProject Tropical cyclones, maybe try to get someone to work there on articles and then co-nominate them when you both think they're ready? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

i have to second this - please don't rush into things, and please listen to other editors' feedback. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: There's really no helping this person; they may have worn the juice :P Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

that's unnecessary. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 16:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attack. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 20:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Way out of line. Surely there are better ways to motivate them to contribute more positively. This is clearly an enthusiastic editor doing their best to improve Wikipedia, and these comments just turn editors away. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 00:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I already work with Hurricanehink to hopefully make Tropical Storm Kai-tak an FA. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Editors in this discussion may want to take a look at TheNuggeteer's review of "Cherry on Top" (Bini song) to double-check the validity of its outcome. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm that is a tricky one. I personally don't think I would have failed that article so quickly. They did bring up some good points but didn't really tie them to the GA criteria. I think it would be benificial for @TheNuggeteer to ask for a second opinion before passing or failing reviews as of right now but I'm not sure if that would be the best step moving forward. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Since this one's a fail, I'm less concerned about it (the nominee can just renominate it if they disagree.) But @TheNuggeteer, why are you starting more GA reviews? Several editors have pointed out issues with your reviews and asked you to slow down. I know that I explicitly suggested that you stop, and got no response. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Passed without comment

I just noticed that Talk:Tolkien's Round World dilemma/GA1 had been opened for review and passed very quickly, which is unusual given that source checking is required these days and it takes time to read an entire article and check it for all the GA criteria. Closed Limelike Curves opened the review at 17:15, and passed the article at 17:33, leaving not a single comment as to what was checked and what was found. If we accept a simple "passed" without any commentary, especially in a quick pass after less than a third of an hour to read and digest and check a substantial article, GAN has a problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

They have not shown anywhere whether the article actually meets the six GA criteria. If the reviewer does not respond, the article should be delisted and put up for a review again. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we should give them a chance to respond, it doesn't have to be immediately delisted. The 40/50 people who view the page a day probably aren't going to have their experience changed much, and the article is certainly good given the nominator is Chiswick Chap. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've said that it should be delisted if they do not respond. The reviewer clearly responded now, so it should not be delisted. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I did that by accident, very sorry! Any way I can undo it? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves: I've rollbacked everything, so you should be able to continue your review now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Now passed again with an empty review form with a whole 191 characters of brief questions for the nominator (including the comment delimeters) left as hidden comments in Special:Diff/1246448963. No evidence of source review. Is that supposed to be considered adequate? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

...and unclosed and restored to a blank newly-started review page again with the edit summary "Fixing formatting problem". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I was trying to fix this problem:

Warning: nomination is malformed -- Status indicates review has started but there is no review page

It should be fixed now, I think, but I'm not 100% sure. I thought it might have been related to a mistake I'd made on the talk page, so I tried blanking it and then restoring the content correctly. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

So where is the required source analysis? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Elijah Hewson/GA1

Yesterday, @Royiswariii: passed my Elijah Hewson article. Purely as a matter of principle, given that he passed it with next to no comments and that he is (by his own admission) a new reviewer, I think someone more experienced should give this a once over just to be on the safe side.--Launchballer 01:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Inactive reviewer

AryKun began seven reviews at the same time on August 28 and then went on a wikibreak with six of them still active. Would it be appropriate for someone else to process them or return them to the nominations page?

• Talk:Fishing cat/GA3 (not started)
• Talk:Palaeotherium/GA1 (nominator expressed concern that the review was insufficient)
• Talk:Literature of Botswana/GA1 (nominator responded to the review)
• Talk:Pouyannian mimicry/GA1 (nominator responded to the review)
• Talk:Tiger quoll/GA1 (not started)
• Talk:Evarcha striolata/GA1 (nominator responded to the review)

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I've pinged them on the one they hadn't commented on at all. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We can G6 that one (Fishing cat), to return it to the queue. Tiger quoll has conversation but nothing substantive. The others have prose reviews but no source reviews, so if AryKun is unable to complete those they will have to be incremented and returned to the queue. CMD (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a requirement for GAs to be reassessed every so often?

Given that I just stumbled on an article that has been listed as a GA for just over 17 years (specifically Era Vulgaris, originally listed as a GA in September 2007), it seems that the answer to my question is "no". In that case, I think we definitely should require articles previously rated as GA (and for that matter FA) quality to be reassessed periodically to determine if they still meet the criteria and, if not, to remove their GA status. As I have not been very involved in any aspect of the GA nomination process for many years, I wanted to post this suggestion here so that others who know much more about this process can share their thoughts. IntoThinAir (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

There are 40,000 articles currently marked as Good Articles. Automatically reassessing even a small portion of them would overwhelm the already under-populated GAR process. There is an open project to review a subset of older articles with issues - see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023, but it too has minimal participation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@IntoThinAir: I have been reviewing GAs to ensure that they meet the good article criteria for a couple of weeks and nominating some of the articles with the greatest concerns to WP:GAR. While it is more likely that an older article will need a significant amount of work, it is not always guaranteed and I think the community would feel overwhelmed if we mass-GAR'ed all articles promoted before a certain year. My process is to quickly review articles in a category, and post a message on the article's talk page if I am concerned that an article does not meet the GA criteria. If no one responds in about a week, I will post the article at WP:GAR. I also use this tool to mass-review good articles for uncited paragraphs and orange banners, which helps me select which articles I review. I also try to nominate articles from various categories so as not to overwhelm a group of editors. For example, I will nominate music article a week, then wait a week to nominate the next music article to GAR. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me here or post on my talk page, as any help to review GAs is appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

For Featured Articles, there's the similar WP:URFA/2020, which does aim to at least get eyes on every FA which hasn't been reviewed for a long time. Of course, there are a lot fewer FAs (6,500 vs 40,000 GAs) and they're generally in rather better shape than very old GAs can be. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Copyediting by reviewers

It would help if we were to clarify how much copyediting can/should be done by the reviewer instead of the nominator. Issues like "there's a comma missing in this sentence" or "this word is spelled incorrectly" take longer to type out in the review than they do just to fix while reviewing, and reviewers should be encouraged to make minor edits to the article. But the line gets blurrier when it involves fixing more complex grammar errors in a way that might involve rearranging a sentence. Do we have a standard for this? Should we add a sentence to WP:GAN/I#R3 clarifying this? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a standard written down anywhere. Personally, I wouldn't rearrange a sentence for stylistic reasons, but if it's objectively ungrammatical I don't see any reason why a reviewer shouldn't make the fix themselves if that is easier for them, even if fairly major rearrangement is required. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

imo it's probably best to leave this up to the reviewer and nominator, beyond if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself, which we already have. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

+1 ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)