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

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]

I don't see that he's passed any of his other reviews, but they all start with or contain something like, "I'd suggest adding citations to the lead, infobox and image captions", which is completely contrary to the good article criteria. There's very little else to most of them. To me, this demonstrates that The lad searches the night for his newts is not ready to be a GA reviewer, since he clearly doesn't understand the process or criteria. I'd recommend that all the other opened reviews be deleted/reverted, and that he be directed to obtain a mentor and only review one article at a time until the mentor is satisfied that he can handle two, etc. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In his defense, one of the issues that he raised ("what does X-Rated mean?") was actually an improvement to cult film. Granted, I don't think he quite understands the good article criteria very well, but he's got enthusiasm if nothing else. If someone wants to close Talk:Cult film/GA1 early, that's alright with me, but I'm willing to give him a chance, especially if someone can mentor him. Also, I'd hate to wait another two months to get a potential review started. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was the one review where helpful comments were made, but he's still asking for inappropriate things, like the elimination of red links. As for waiting, the GA Cup has started, and the rate of reviews has picked up noticeably. As long as he has this (and the others) under review, it can't be picked up by someone who knows what they're doing. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand if I appear to be stupid, but can whoever tried to have my GA reviews deleted try adding to still-going nominations (without attacking me, of course) and move ahead civilly instead of being an obstructionist? The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anything I've brought up is "inappropriate". There was no discussion made about my review, and someone rudely deleted my listing and added their own review as if I had never passed the article. If there's something I don't understand, total disregard for my work is NOT the way to go about addressing your concerns to me! I had legitimate reasons for passing the listing which I discussed in clear terms and if you disagree with them, open a GA review, don't remove my listing! The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, suggestion, if my review is contested, start a review to reclassify the article and see if it still holds up to the standards which I passed it for. If it doesn't, improve the article yourself or ask anyone interested to improve it, and if no one can bring it up to standards, delist it. Work through it civilly without making attacks or obstructionist editing tactics. Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment is where you go - not deleting my edits/reverting my listings. The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The lad searches the night for his newts: The problem is that you're judging articles by your own criteria. For example, you criticized the existence of redlinks in cult film. This is not a part of the good article criteria, but I did fix the issue, as I think a redirect was warranted. You also asked for citations in the lead, which is directly opposed by WP:LEADCITE. I think that you might want to look at Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, which is quite helpful. It is admirable that you have sought to help out at a backlogged administrative area of Wikipedia so soon after you created your account, but this really does require a certain degree of experience and knowledge that you may be lacking. I don't think anyone has said that you can't be a GAN reviewer, but you should take a mentor first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:19, 12 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]

One question, Westhaddon: who are they citing for the paraphrasing? Such work could introduce OR into the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea was to treat it like a synopsis, which is usually not cited. One thing to know, as reviewers, is that the status of the review has very little weight on the overall grade. It is more of an extra-credit thing. As you review, call it like you see it. Don't worry that your review will affect someone's grade. Westhaddon (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bot error?

Looks like a repeat of this problem; Zanimum is getting his review count incremented repeatedly for the same review. I'm at work or I'd figure out who to ping and ping them; would someone else take a look? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The counting is done by Legobot (talk · contribs), which is operated by Legoktm (talk · contribs). The problem from February also produced this discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a badly formed parameter caused it; status "held" instead of "hold" in this case. I made an edit that I think fixed it, but the GA passed shortly afterwards so I'm not certain that that's what did it. I'll let Zanimum know in case he wants to reset his GA count. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 Thanks, [[User:Westhaddon|Westhaddon]] ([[User talk:Westhaddon|talk]]) 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 *One question, [[User:Westhaddon|Westhaddon]]: who are they citing for the paraphrasing? Such work could introduce [[WP:OR|OR]] into the article.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 08:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
+**The idea was to treat it like a synopsis, which is usually not cited. One thing to know, as reviewers, is that the status of the review has very little weight on the overall grade. It is more of an extra-credit thing. As you review, call it like you see it. Don't worry that your review will affect someone's grade. [[User:Westhaddon|Westhaddon]] ([[User talk:Westhaddon|talk]]) 02:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 == Bot error? ==