Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

This is the list of Frequently asked questions about nominating and reviewing Good articles. If you cannot find the answer to your question here, you might want to ask for assistance at the GA nominations discussion page.

Nomination process

The backlog is huge! Is there something we can do to restrict nominations?: There have been complaints about the perceived backlog in reviewing since the Good article status was created in 2006. Generally speaking, we don't want to restrict nominations along their path to GA. In the beginning, as many as 100 nominations were waiting for a reviewer to volunteer. By 2011, each day typically listed 330 nominated articles, of which 260 were waiting. By 2016, 580 were listed, 460 waiting; by 2021, 470 were listed, 300 were waiting. For comparison, today there are currently 663 nominations listed and 583 waiting for a reviewer.; While it may seem overwhelming, a large backlog isn't a bad thing. It shows that many nominators want to use GA as a tool to improve the encyclopedia. It also allows reviewers to choose from a wide selection of articles that interest them. From a nominator's perspective, the main concern is the expected wait time before receiving a review, not the number of articles on the nominations page.
Can't we force nominators to review articles?: Quid pro quo reviewing (editors must review an article before nominating, perhaps after a grace period) was regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to lower quality reviews and fewer nominations from excellent content creators who may not wish to review another person's work.
What order do nominations appear on the Good article nominations page?: One advantage of reviewing articles to help the Wikipedia community is the GAN appearance order: the more articles you have reviewed relative to articles you have nominated, the higher up in the queue your nomination will appear on the GAN page. Note that above this, order preference is given to nominators who are new to GA.
What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic) IP address?: Any editor with significant contributions to the article may nominate an article for GA status (while only registered users may review), so significant-contributor IP nominators are permitted. Non-significant contributors should follow the advice above for editors who have not significantly contributed to the article. Dynamically changing IP nominators may want to clarify to the reviewer that, despite their signature, they remain the same person.
Can I nominate an article I haven't significantly contributed to?: No. Nominations from editors who have not substantially contributed will be removed unless the nomination shows that the article's regular editors were consulted on its talk page alongside a note on the GAN template showing their commitment to the process, e.g., |note=Adopted following extensive improvement by another editor. In the past, many drive-by nominators did not know the article or its sources and did not respond to questions by the reviewer.

Review process

I want to review an article. Do I have to review the oldest unreviewed nomination first?: Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. You may review any nominated article you are not involved in, regardless of the nomination's age or position in the queue.
As a reviewer, I want to help the nominator improve the article, but it already meets the criteria. What am I supposed to do now?: The purpose of a GA review is to determine whether the article meets the GA criteria. Article-improvement discussions are intended to prevent near-misses in nominated articles that almost meet the criteria. If the article already meets the criteria when you first review it, then explain exactly what you've checked in each of the main criteria (e.g., "I have verified there is no original research, copyright violations, plagiarism, unreliable sources, bias, edit wars, or untagged images.") and list it as a Good article. "Quick passes" are as legitimate as quick fails, although they are less common. Please do not make a list of nitpicky details or exceed the written requirements of the Good article criteria in an effort to make the review look rigorous. Instead, thank the nominator for presenting such a polished article, and encourage them to submit another.
Who can respond to the review?: The nominator is expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article, while everyone interested in the article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. Nominators have no special privileges over other editors except that they can withdraw the nomination.
Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't?: The nominator has an interest in seeing the article become GA, so the nominator will likely want to respond to the reviewer to improve the article. In fact, all editors interested in the article are encouraged to respond to reviewers' concerns. However, nobody, including the nominator, is required to. If the reviewer identifies concerns directly related to the good article criteria and no one addresses the concerns, then no one should be surprised if the reviewer declines to list the article. If the article does not meet the Good article criteria after the reviewer has waited a reasonable amount of time for the nominator to make improvements, the reviewer is sure to fail the nomination. Future article editors may benefit from review comments on how to improve the article.
The nominator disagrees with the reviewer. Can another reviewer take over?: If your GAN experience is not going well or if you are disagreeing with the reviewer's decisions, then you may allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer). If the reviewer has not yet failed the nomination, you may try asking them to ask for a second opinion. Other than these, another reviewer does not normally take over an active review. To prevent avoidable disputes, reviewers should either not make comments unrelated to the Good article criteria, or they should carefully label those suggestions as optional (e.g., "I know that citation formatting is not required by the Good article criteria, and I will not consider this when making my decision, but if you might send this to Wikipedia:Featured articles later, then that process requires consistent citation formatting").
Does an article have to be on hold for exactly seven days?: No. Whether to place the nomination on hold at all, and the length of any such hold, is for the reviewer to decide. Depending on the quality of the article and the responsiveness of the nominator, a hold may not be necessary. If the reviewer decides that it is, they may choose longer or shorter periods of hold time. The reviewer may even modify the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page to include a "time" parameter, for example, "time=fourteen days", and the {{GANotice}} template used to convey messages to the GA nominator to include a "days" parameter, for example "days=fourteen". Keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GA nominations report page.
What should I do if a review page becomes inactive?: This can happen for a number of reasons. Review pages should only be started by reviewers who are willing to take an active interest in the article and are committed to completing their review of the article in a timely manner. Sometimes another editor (such as the nominator) starts the review page by mistake. A reviewer can fix this by placing their signature after "Reviewer:" towards the top of the review page, but if no reviewer is forthcoming, it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions may be posted at the discussion page. If a new reviewer is truly needed, follow the instructions page under "If a review seems abandoned". Do not use this process to void a review you disagree with.
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 the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your comments while independently deciding on their assessment. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and also decline to list the article as GA. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the good article criteria, you can initiate a reassessment.
How can GA be reliable when a single reviewer decides?: The quality of a Good article is only as reliable as the most recent review and articles may deteriorate if unattended. The GA process deals with both of these issues by allowing repeat reviews by any registered user at any time. The process aims to encourage article improvement and build consensus on quality through multiple reviews—even though a single reviewer makes the decision whether to list the article according to the GA criteria. Any editor may contribute to any review discussion and reassessment is available when the "one reviewer decides" model breaks down.
What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process?: You can bring those concerns to the GA nominations discussion page to get help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in any dispute that you have.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33

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

Dated archives

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

Shortcut

WT:GAN

Talk:My Lord John/GA1

The reviewer of my article My Lord John had to drop out due to time constraints, and never began it. He requested a speedy deletion of the review page, which is perfectly fine (life happens to us all). But due to some talk page activity, now the article is no longer listed at WP:GAN. Could someone help restore the article in its proper place in the queue? I am unsure how to proceed. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 02:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruby2010: Hey Ruby, I wouldn't mind reviewing your article if that's ok with you? Best, jona ^{talk to me} 02:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, if you're willing! :) ~~Should I just nominate it again like normal so you can review it?~~ Ruby 2010/2013 02:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reviewing the article tomorrow (I'm free tomorrow and the rest of the weekend). Best, jona ^{talk to me} 02:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks! No hurry. Ruby 2010/2013 02:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Balfour (died 1845)

I just noticed Jonas Vinther failed this article here, which I think was rather draconian, and partially over issues not directly part of the GA criteria (eg: MOS:DATEFORMAT). However, the nominator, BrownHairedGirl, who I thought was quite active, appears to have retired. Can anyone else help fix up the article? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does draconian mean? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at the review page. If you wish to join the discussion I suggest you do it there. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove GA nomination?

A user who goes by the name Jonas Vinther removed the GA nomination template from Russo-Georgian War, which has been in the queue for ages. He said that he did this because there were 15 "dead links". As far as I can tell, having dead links is not grounds for removing the nomination template. Dead links can be remedied in many ways, whether through proper citations or web archives. My understanding is that this process is meant to help improve and showcase articles, not to obfuscate those users who want to improve them. I understand the backlog here, however, having someone who wants to improve article wait for months, only to have the nomination be removed because of "dead links" is utterly absurd. RGloucester — ☎ 22:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the dead links in question, they are not even truly "dead", as links to web archives have been provided for nearly all of them. RGloucester — ☎ 22:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A user who goes by the name RGloucester is trying way to hard to prove a point of matter that is already settled solely in an attempt to humiliate me and have me thrown out of the cup. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Do you live in a goblet? How was the matter "settled"? I reverted your removal of the nomination template, and hence I came here to see if I was right in doing so. I do not know anything about "cups". RGloucester — ☎ 22:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will reformulate myself. Firstly, you obviously have some personal grudge against me, otherwise you would not have gone with the whole "A user who goes by the name Jonas Vinther" thing. Secondly, the GA-criteria has a list of errors that articles must include in order for it to be a "quick fail". Dead or broken links are not listed as one of them, which was my impression when I removed the template, so what is there to discuss? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I have a grudge against you when I've never even interacted with you before? Thank you for explaining yourself. Please don't be so hasty again. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability concerns with Gary Cooper article

I'd like to review the Gary Cooper article but I've got some concerns with stability before we move forwards.

I noted this at the nominator's talk page for Jonas Vinther.

Hopefully if the parties involved can come to some sort of compromise, could the GA nomination continue with review, or does it need to have been stable within a period of time beforehand, regardless of calmness/compromise indicated on the article's talk page ??

— Cirt (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, due to ongoing disagreements and impending new changes to the article to that effect due to conflict between Jonas Vinther and Bede735, I've asked the nominator to remove his nomination. — Cirt (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the nomination as not GA at this time, unfortunately, due to stability issues and ongoing conflicts between multiple editors. I left comments and diffs at Talk:Gary Cooper/GA1. — Cirt (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caligula (film)

The article Caligula (film) has been given a GA class. I'm sceptical of this, seeing as the person who did that, The lad searches the night for his newts (talk · contribs), had made just 18 edits at the time that they started (and passed) Talk:Caligula (film)/GA1, and has made only 25 edits in total. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I had adhered to GA instructions. I'd like to review more GA nominations. --The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from User talk:Redrose64#GAN)

Do I have to ask permission before I pass a nomination? I didn't know that I was supposed to do that. --The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is mainly your lack of experience; the thing is, your entire review of Caligula was made less than 20 hours after you registered. The review is also extremely small; there are just fourteen words, and GA reviews are normally somewhat more substantial (for example, here's one that I recently participated in, and not as the GA reviewer). Did you read Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions? It advises that you contact a GA mentor - there are two people there who explicitly state that they cover films, these are Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) and Sanguis Sanies (talk · contribs), so did you ask for their advice? I notice that you have now taken on five more: Black Sabbath (film); Cult film; Mandatory Fun; Hear My Train A Comin'; and Hoochie Coochie Man, which is a big commitment for somebody with so little experience in GA. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Especially as some of these are hefty, complicated articles. J Milburn (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even say the Hastings Line review is particularly large - try looking Talk:Sega Genesis/GA2. Immediately looking at the article, I can see a lot of citations in the lead (which may or may not be problematic per WP:LEADCITE), the second and third sentences could be merged for clarity, "The film's release was controversial" - according to whom? ... "had long been involved in film production" .. "had never produced a film on its own" - so what did they do with films? ... what makes colsesmithey.com and cinepasson.org reliable sources? .... I could go on, but there are certainly a substantial number of comments that ought to be made in a GA review. I have boldly reverted the pass and restarted the review with these comments and a few more. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then unless there's objection from this WikiProject, I'm going to boldly revert the other passes. I also recommend that we change the wording on the instructions to prevent this in the future. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's sonnets articles

Students in my class have improved and submitted a number of articles on Shakespeare's sonnets for GA status. I realize that there is a backlog, but my hope is that Wikipedians will step up and help make such in-class projects devoted to improvement of the site feasible on a semester basis. If these sonnet articles could be reviewed sooner (i. e. before the end of the semester), that would be wonderful.

Here is a quick link to the nominations: Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Language_and_literature

Thanks, Westhaddon (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 :::::I wouldn't even say the Hastings Line review is particularly large - try looking [[Talk:Sega Genesis/GA2]]. Immediately looking at the article, I can see a lot of citations in the lead (which ''may'' or may not be problematic per [[WP:LEADCITE]]), the second and third sentences could be merged for clarity, "The film's release was controversial" - according to whom? ... "had long been involved in film production" .. "had never produced a film on its own" - so what did they do with films? ... what makes colsesmithey.com and cinepasson.org reliable sources? .... I could go on, but there are certainly a substantial number of comments that ought to be made in a GA review. I have [[WP:BOLD|boldly]] reverted the pass and restarted the review with these comments and a few more. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 ::::::Then unless there's objection from this WikiProject, I'm going to boldly revert the other passes. I also recommend that we change the wording on the instructions to prevent this in the future. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 16:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
+== Shakespeare's sonnets articles ==
+Students in my class have improved and submitted a number of articles on Shakespeare's sonnets for GA status. I realize that there is a backlog, but my hope is that Wikipedians will step up and help make such in-class projects devoted to improvement of the site feasible on a semester basis. If these sonnet articles could be reviewed sooner (i. e. before the end of the semester), that would be wonderful.
+Here is a quick link to the nominations: [[Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Language_and_literature]]
+Thanks, [[User:Westhaddon|Westhaddon]] ([[User talk:Westhaddon|talk]]) 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)