Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Good article nominations

WT:GAN

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.

See the Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, several other GA talk pages redirect here.

Archives

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

GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4

Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

GA help: 1, 2

Nominations/Instructions: 1

Search archives

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

Max number of GAR to open?

I have been reviewing the articles listed at WP:SWEEPS2023, and also review articles as I complete WP:OTD sets. Currently, I have been sending five articles a week to WP:GAR and only post at GAR if an article talk page notice goes unanswered for at least a week. The five articles a week is a self-imposed limit, only based on my feelings about how many I could nominate before I got yelled at. I try to nominate articles on a variety of topics and geographic locations, to attract editors from different disciplines and interests.

My list of noticed GAs is currently 15 articles long. If I focused more attention on SWEEPS or the cleanup listing for GAs, the list could get longer real quick. However, I don't review as much because of the self-imposed limit. I would like to nominate more articles to GAR, but only if the community thinks the process can handle it. WP:FAR has a limit of one article a week per editor, and each editor can only have five open FARs at a time (unless they get an extension from the co-ords). Since the GA process is less intense, I think the limits should not be as strict.

What GAR nomination limits (if any) should be imposed/suggested to editors? Z1720 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are currently any official limits. One point to consider is to ensure that the nominations have sufficient quality, meaning that there is actually a good case for nominating the article for GAR and that the nomination clearly explains the main problems of the article. Another point to consider is not to overwhelm individual authors or Wikiprojects with nominations so that they have enough time to address the problems. If there is a bunch of articles written by the same author or belonging to the same Wikiproject, it might be best to put them one after the other instead of all at once (there could be exceptions for cases where the problem is really serious and all suffer from the same problem). Another point would be limits to your own capacities to respond to the nominations in case other editors ask for clarification or challenge them.

As long as these (and possibly other) considerations are fulfilled, I don't think there is a problem in nominating more GARs. It might be best to slowly increase the number to see how it goes. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the comparison with FARs is necessarily all that meaningful -- firstly, GAs get far less scrutiny on nomination than FAs, and there are an awful lot more of them to begin with, so the sheer number of below-par GAs is much greater than that of similar FAs. Similarly, I think the reason for imposing a limit would be to prevent one editor from taking on too much, and opening a GAR doesn't really commit you to doing all that much to the article -- unlike an FAR, which is usually at least in theory an offer to help fix it, often a GAR is more about ascertaining if the article is reasonably possible to fix with the people and energies that we have to hand. With the caveats that Phlsph7 outlines above, I wouldn't be focusing too hard on the raw number of nominations -- if anything, I would be more interested in the number of GARs "targeted" at an individual user (that is, of GAs for which they are a nominator or major contributor), as that seems more likely to be a cause of upset or of other problems. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. GA is a very low ranking. A GA does not need to be comprehensive, nor kept up to date. Limiting the number of nominations per project would be a good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is point 4 of the GAR instructions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye, I would argue that an article that isn't very well kept up to date would fail WP:GACR #3a in most cases, although I suspect you're probably talking about the Australian polo GARs, where there shouldn't be much expectation for recent information when the article subject has withdrawn into private life. Hog Farm _Talk 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A GA is of 'very low ranking': what is the point of this thread and project page then?? Billsmith60 (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it mostly is based on how many you can responsibly manage at one time and limiting how many are related to a limited subject matter or group of editors. For me, that's probably a max of two concurrent due to time constraints I have, but if you feel that you can responsibly manage more, have at it. You can also list the ones you have noticed at WP:GARGIVEN so that others can take them to GAR if you feel that you don't have the bandwidth for it. Hog Farm _Talk 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here what I've done: I've increased the number of nominations that I bring to GAR, but try to avoid overlapping topics. I've also increased the number of articles that I have noticed. At WP:GARGIVEN I've posted articles with notices posted over a week ago: I have to many to post them all and some of them will be at GAR in a couple days (I wait a week for a response to the notice before posting to GAR) so I don't want to spend time to have it on a list for a few days. Help reviewing the oldest nominations would be appreciated: some topics like Math and Agriculture do not have any notices from me, so those looking to diversify the reviews may want to start there. Additional feedback is welcome. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RRR

Requesting a noncontroversial removal of this drive-by nomination from WP:GAN#FILM by User:Thewikizoomer, a relatively new user who has not contributed to this article in any capacity, nor did they ask for the major contributor's consent in article's talk before nominating. It's actually one of nominator's three drive-bys (August 16), two of which have since been marked as quickfails: Talk:Baahubali: The Beginning/GA1, Talk:Baahubali 2: The Conclusion/GA1. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, although not at a glance a bad candidate if someone went in to tidy it up. CMD (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Reviewers should say why they think the previous reviewers concerns are addressed

Sometimes articles are immediately renominated for GA when they are failed. And sometimes the next reviewer doesn't address the concerns raised, which is quite disheartening. This is bad if a) the concerns were legitimate and should have resulted in a failed review (especially around COPYVIO), or b) the concerns were illegitimate, and the initial reviewer is failing nominations based on misunderstanding of the criterion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note to check is already included within WP:RGA, "You should also check to see if the article has been nominated previously and if there are any outstanding issues from the last review." Are you suggesting an amendment to ask reviewers to explicitly mention previous reviews? CMD (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am. It's also implicit in GAFAIL 5, but not in a way that a review can be contested. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review needs looking at

I'm not sure what should be done with Talk:2024 Wayanad landslides/GA1. Besides the fact that it's very surface level, there's an unusual close about disruption. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a new user who was adding info about the landslides, presumably they came across the GAN tag during this. What's odd is the nominator is also a new account that has also only edited about these landslides (and has done so across a myriad of language wikis). The close tag was not added by the reviewer, but by the nominator, and they've also added the exact same template to every section of Talk:2024 Wayanad landslides. Given it's still a somewhat current event and the article is getting tens of edits every day, the GAN should probably should have been a quickfail on stability grounds. However, looking through it I also haven't convinced myself of any particular action to take. CMD (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer (TamilRoman) did not check the sources at all, as required by WP:GAN/I#R3. If they had, they probably would have noted some rather obvious close paraphrasing. I would suggest either an immediate GAR, or a reopening of the review using WP:GAN/I#N4a. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, an immediate GAR is definitely the way to go. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is pretty far from GA quality. Things like the "International" section (a long prose list of reactions, with country flags in prose???) shouldn't have been overlooked during the review. The two "gallery" sections are also discouraged. On a more general note, the sourcing and writing are also subpar in many places, with repeated grammar errors making it obvious the reviewer didn't read the article very closely. A careful reassessment is definitely needed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the nominator and reviewer, both as sockpuppets of Makks2010 based on behavioral evidence. DanCherek (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I considered this possibility but the writing styles seemed distinct. Perhaps one was mostly AI and/or plagiarism. Any thoughts on whether the GAR page is worth keeping around? If it is, I think the GAN serves as context. If not, both can go. CMD (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think both could be deleted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of reviews and GAs

Hi, I just nominated 1, in my signature it says I have 0 reviews, 0 GAs. I seem to recall I might have reviewed an article a long time ago (over a decade). But I also have Talk:Glass/GA3 and previously participated in a GA review (but perhaps doesn't count). Is there a reason the stats are incorrect? Polyamorph (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination of Glass/GA3 is fixed in the database; it should reflect the update on the GAN page the next time the page is updated. Not sure why the bot got that wrong first time but I told it to take another look and it got it right this time. For reviewing, the person who opens the review is the one who gets credit as the reviewer -- there's no facility for crediting coreviewers or those who take over from reviewers who abandon a review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great,thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also have the same problem, as the bot states that I have 3 GAs and 22 reviews, when I have 7 GAs and 30-something reviews. Maybe it's because I changed my name earlier this year. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bot page has instructions for name changes. If you'd like to be credited with the stats from your old name, just let me know the old name and I'll connect them to your new name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please; my old name is "20 upper". Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done; the GAN page should show the revised statistics the next time the page is updated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a second opinion as nominator

A new-ish editor who hasn't even been around for two weeks, opened and reviewed a Good Article Nomination of mine today. Talk:Rogue (Doctor Who)/GA1 is the specific review page. I found a number of problems with their review, requesting adjustments on things, that if changed, would go against Wikipedia policy and the Good Article criteria, which leads to believe they're not quite ready to be taking on GA reviews right now. I was wondering if someone would mind glancing over it really quick and letting me know their thoughts, or what the next steps would be if others agree with me? TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a glance, it's a bit hard to track reference numbers without a fixed oldid, but generally it seems the questions surround source reliability/use. It's possible others will have thoughts on these, but the next step given your reply is to wait for the reviewer to respond. There's no indication this can't be resolved with further collaborative discussion. CMD (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication this can't be resolved with further collaborative discussion. Unfortunately, the reviewer resolved the issues by fixing the article themselves and closing the review. Not only did they do this before the nominator above had the chance to see and comment on the changes, they did so before the co-nominator had been able to get involved at all. See the following diffs for the edits: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]; and the closing of the review here: [6]. I'm not sure what is best to do next; I don't think the article is in bad shape, but I also don't think it passed fairly. Looking at the discussion a couple of sections above, it possibly needs an immediate GAR from an uninvolved editor? JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication this can't be resolved with further collaborative discussion. I should have tried to do that instead of using point 4 of this to be bold and make that many changes, I realise that now. The co-nominator did make a change, just to be technically clear. I would say it follows the criteria for Good articles and therefore passed fairly despite what I have done. But I'll be fine with the immediate GAR from an uninvolved editor, if that's deemed to be the necessary and right thing. - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October GAN backlog drive page up

Participants can now sign up for the next backlog drive at Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2024. To quote from the drive page:

The aim for this month is to completely eliminate the backlog in the first list: we want all nominations submitted before 1 October 2024 by editors who are relatively new to GA to be out of the queue by 31 October. If you're an editor with fewer than 10 GAs, get those nominations in before October begins! As a stretch goal, we're also going to try to eliminate the backlog of GANs by all nominators who have reviewed more articles than they've nominated.

If you've got a reviews-to-GAs ratio that's close to even, now's your chance to take on a few extra reviews to make sure your nominations make it into this drive. -- asilvering (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, volunteer co-ordinators gratefully welcomed. @Vaticidalprophet? @Ganesha811? @Vacant0? Anyone else? -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to help out, count me in as a coordinator. Isn't it a bit early for signups, though? It's not even September yet. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in folks signing up early. Mostly, I wanted to get the page up and the theme settled far enough in advance that interested editors whose GANs would qualify have a chance to submit articles in time for the drive. And (I hate to break it to you, but) September is barely more than a week away. -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help again. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]