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, 33

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 .

GAN backlog drive almost over

Hi all, we have fewer than 90 articles left in the first list (nominations by people with fewer than 10 GAs) and three and a half days to get through them. If you haven't been taking part in the drive so far, it's not too late to join up and take on one of these, or even a handful of them! The goal we set was well in line with previous GAN backlog drive outcomes, so I know it's possible to clear this. Either way it's been a big success - we've gotten almost 200 articles off of that list! - but it would be great to get it right down to the wire.

Thanks to everyone who has participated so far! -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who joined. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One might suspect that the Internet Archive outage threw a monkey wrench into things, which could be considered an extenuating circumstance if the goal of clearing the first list is not attained. TompaDompa (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of that, but you may be right. I think a more likely factor is "data insufficient to predict result" - most of the previous drives were held in a different month, in years where we held fewer drives. -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's actually over!

Aaaaand done! Postmortem incoming eventually, but for now: thanks to everyone who participated! If you've still got reviews outstanding, that's fine - just try to clear them up soon so that you can get barnstars for all your hard work. -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor opened a review for his own nomination.

Putting this here, as I'm not sure what the correct course of action is:

@Absolutiva has started a review for an article he has nominated: Talk:Sex offender/GA1. SSSB (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past when this has happened it's been because the editor didn't understand how GAs work. I would suggest leaving them a note and G6ing the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Braves nomination

I nominated Atlanta Braves back in February and an editor picked it up for review today. Forgive me if this is the wrong venue, but the editor reviewing appears to be inexperienced in this area and could use some help. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sadly do not have time to review an article of such length but that looks like a drive by review to me. Someone should re-review the article again, considering that the reviewer already promoted it to GA. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone remove the botched review? I realize it's a large article and it's already been waiting several months. This attempt it just a waste of time and it's clear the person who is attempting to review the article lacks the experience to do it correctly. Nemov (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews being done in under a minute??

I'm starting this convo because I'm confused and I'm sure others are as well. I've found three different GANR passed within one minute, all by the same reviewer and nominator. Talk:Jim Dillard (gridiron football)/GA2, Talk:Henry Janzen/GA2, Talk:Tony Pajaczkowski/GA2. I know these are all second time reviews but the reviews being done show no proof that the nominator source checked anything. Pinging the editors involved: BeanieFan11 and WikiOriginal-9. I am a fairly newer reviewer so I could just be missing something here but I am confused. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The points were addressed on the talk pages of the articles, see Talk:Jim_Dillard_(gridiron_football)#GA_comments. Thanks. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To explain: WikiOriginal-9 had previously performed all the checks in the GA1, but it was failed due to me being unable to get to all the issues at the time. Recently, I copied all the comments on each talk page (e.g. Talk:Jim Dillard (gridiron football)), addressed them there, and once the issues were all fixed, I re-nominated and he passed them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's happened six times:

Date	Article	Talk page discussion	GAN	Time between GANR and pass
August 22, 2024 (UTC)	C. A. Clingenpeel	Talk:C. A. Clingenpeel#GA	Link	3 minutes
August 27, 2024 (UTC)	Cedric Oglesby	Talk:Cedric Oglesby#GA notes	Link	1 minute
August 29, 2024 (UTC)	Lewis Manly	Talk:Lewis Manly#GA	Link	1 minute
October 30, 2024 (UTC)	Jim Dillard (gridiron football)	Talk:Jim Dillard (gridiron football)#GA comments	Link	Same minute
October 31, 2024 (UTC)	Tony Pajaczkowski	Talk:Tony Pajaczkowski#GA comments	Link	1 minute
October 31, 2024 (UTC)	Henry Janzen	Talk:Henry Janzen#GA comments	Link	Same minute

As someone not involved with GANRs, I'm curious, is it normal to complete reviews outside of the review page? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not typically done like this, but I don't think it is a problem for GAN per se. The issue here is the complete lack of evidence of source spotchecks in any of these reviews. Per WP:GAN/I#R3, these must be done. @WikiOriginal-9, please undo your promotions and perform spot checks for these. If you do mass GA reviews, your reviews should be absolutely up to scratch. Your reviews are "prose reviews" only and do not qualify as proper GA reviews. —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than de-promote, could spot checks just be done, and if there's any issues I'll make sure to address them? I assume that sources are usually checked though; e.g. Talk:Paul Loudon (another nom that I was going to work on) has comments such as "winning All-American honors by Walter Camp." Dont see that in ref 3 / don't see birthdate in ref 1 etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the reviews above, Talk:Kim Bong-hwan/GA1, Talk:Oh Yoon-kyung/GA1, Talk:Madeo Molinari/GA1, Talk:Karl Thielscher/GA1, Talk:Fran Foley/GA1, Talk:Armwell Long/GA1, Talk:Bethwel Henry/GA1, Talk:Rod Taylor (American football)/GA1, Talk:Grant Hermanns/GA1, Talk:Henri Claireaux/GA1, Talk:J. Nash McCrea/GA1, Talk:Graham Kernwein/GA1, Talk:Lonny Calicchio/GA1, Talk:Bob Hainlen/GA1, Talk:Joseph L. Cahall/GA1, Talk:Paul Chadick/GA1, Talk:Fred Narganes/GA1, Talk:Garnett Wikoff/GA1, Talk:Herbert Gidney/GA1, Talk:Cliff Brumbaugh/GA1, Talk:Larry Kennedy (baseball)/GA1, Talk:Herbert Polzhuber/GA1 lack spotchecks (basically WikiOriginal's reviews. Gonzofan's appear to have consistent spotchecks.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is partially in reply to BeanieFan but doing spot checks after the fact for ALL of these articles seems unrealistic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do checks for sources. I just don't specifically write that unless I find anything off. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you check sources, then say what sources you have checked in your reviews as is standard practice in GA reviews these days. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked over C. A. Clingenpeel to check if anything important was missed. I do find the lead a bit short. Spotchecks throw up the following issues (both of them small but real). Again, it would be good to know which sources were checked to see whether the reviewer noticed these issues.

"Clingenpeel worked for seven years as a journalist for The Kansas City Star" source says he was a pressman, which does not necessarily mean "journalist".
A few years later, he began operating a news agency bearing his name. source does not say when he started, could have been immediately. All we know is he was operating it in 1948.

On Ancestry, I found him both as "Clarence Albert" and as "Clarence Albertus", no idea which is true (he signed with both of these names in different places). It is 100% clear that this is the same person from some of the records there, so the primary source for the date and place of birth is fine. He was married (but I did not find out anything about his wife). —Kusma (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's been a previous discussion about these reviews at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Is teaming with reviewers in the spirit of the cup?. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to move this convo over there as well? (idk how to do that but i’m sure i could figure it out). IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of these problems is the WikiCup, but the need to maintain standards is a GAN issue, so I would prefer the discussion to be here. —Kusma (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is more about the GA process, regardless of how it affects the cup, but it provides context that might be helpful, as well as GAN stats for BeanieFan11 and WikiOriginal-9. Also, I'll raise the same point that I raised there: WikiOriginal-9 said on 18 October that they spent 3 hours this morning to review the 12 articles he asked me about yesterday, which comes down to 15 minutes per review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good in regards to where this convo belongs. As for the 15 minutes per review part, I personally (and this may just be my lack of experience) find it hard to believe that 12 different reviews took 15 minutes each. I don’t even think my quickfails are that short. I’m not trying to make any accusations here I just find it hard to believe that that level of speed could be established without some of the thoroughness being lost along the way. IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the bolded spot check requirement at WP:GAN/I#R3 but I unfortunately I didn't realize that meant you were supposed to list out the sources that you didn't find problems with. Oops. If you look at my reviews, you can find lots of instances where I look at sources and then question the text. Also, I assumed the spot check requirement was always there, I didn't realize it was just added in 2023. In my past reviews and nominations before 2023, reviewers didn't specifically write out the sources like that, so I didn't realize I was supposed to do that now. Sorry. I'll start listing out all the sources from now on. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Standard articles" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Standard articles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31 § Wikipedia:Standard articles until a consensus is reached. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1

Is WP:ORES considered part of WP:GACR? I mean, the WP:GACR states the six criteria involving the prose, sources, images, section arrangement, neutrality, and stability. But ORES is nothing but a tool to provide the descriptions of measuring how high the article's quality is. While WP:GACR does not says explicitly about the tool, can someone enlighten me in this case? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ORES is not related to the GACR. They are evaluated by the reviewer. It can be helpful in rating articles but when you get into peer review processes like GA and FA it isn't relevant. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Do reviewers consider ORES as an optional tool? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it is completely optional and, as Sawyer said below, has nothing to do with evaluating the article based on the GACR. I'd go so far as to say an evaluation with ORES shouldn't be part of a GA review for that reason, although that's my personal opinion and there's nothing forbidding it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr Yeah, ORES also seems to evaluate articles based on length. For example, Si Ronda and How Brown Saw the Baseball Game are both short Featured Articles. They seem fine, but ORES gives them both a C rating.[1][2] This kind of makes sense if it's just looking for patterns (C-rated articles are often short and FA-rated often long) but length is not in either criteria, and it's probably not a desired metric. Idk if there are other issues, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This simply means that ORES does not observe the quality of the article as in the comprehensiveness and broadness coverage, but instead counts how many bytes, words, sentences, paragraphs, and other super long texts might not expected like other FAs or GAs. Anecdotally, I assume a quote of "do not use ORES while reviewing". Lesson learned. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ORES has nothing to do with the GACR and it is absolutely not "the bigger problem" (compared to sourcing issues) as @Randomstaplers says. i have an ORES script installed, but i put about as much faith into it as i put in my roommates' dish-washing abilities. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I've noticed after using this tool it tends to be biased articles that rely on print sources, but TBH, it's not helping my hesitancy.⸺(Random)staplers 02:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This obsession with ORES has got to stop. The only thing it knows is what articles look similar. Everything else is guesswork. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nomination of a article

So I want to nomination princess Princess Alexandra of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha I recently just made bunch of improvements of sourcing addition to references I want to edit this page so some can review and I can get it nomination and pass and make it good article so I need permission to edit this page so I can get put nomination for Princess Alexandra of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Qubacubazamniauser (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qubacubazamniauser, follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I and a reviewer can pick this up when they are ready :) Before you do, there are quite a few broken references which you should fix; you can see these by installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok gotta fix new error just popped up Qubacubazamniauser (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]