Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:GAN)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsMarch 2024
Backlog drive
DiscussionReassessmentReport
Good article nominations
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.

RfC on the sort order of WP:GAN[edit]

How should the nomination categories at Wikipedia:Good article nominations be sorted?

  • Option 1: by age, with oldest nominations at the top of sections and newest nominations at the bottom (the pre-2023 system).
  • Option 2: by the nominator's ratio of reviews to nominations, with higher ratios placed at top and lower ratios at bottom (the current system, adopted after the proposal drive in early 2023).
  • Option 3: as at option 2, but with the ratio calculated using only reviews and nominations from within the previous 18 months (an adaptation of the current system proposed above by User:Mike Christie).

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Option 4: by a score that incorporates both age and nominator's reviewing activity

Kusma (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Option 1 I supported the change to the current system at the proposal drive. A year and a month on, I do not think it has accomplished its aim of encouraging reviewing. The older system was fairer to all and just plain simpler; the added complexity introduced by the new sort order was not great. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 Ultimately, I also think the current system is a bit of a failed experiment. It's pretty hard to understand what exactly makes a GAN "score" higher. And moreover, often times being good at reviewing and being good at content creation are separate skillsets (although they often overlap). Generalissima (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1. Like Airship, I supported the change at the proposal drive, but have come to see it as a mistake. The sharp increase in backlog can be dated almost precisely to the end of the proposal drive, and I can't see it as unrelated. The dated sort order is, as I said above, transparent, obvious, and impartial. ♠PMC(talk) 05:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 Currently, there are 228 articles that are 3 months or older at GAN. Of these 228, 57 are 6 months or older. Currently, the oldest nomination (9 months) is in the middle of the Politics section. Therefore, I think reordering by nomination date to show the backlog would be more helpful. Perhaps the ratio can be revisited once the backlog of nominations has been lowered to 3 months and under. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 4. The change to review order has led to significantly faster reviews for my noms, which is very pleasant and has encouraged me to keep my reviews-to-noms ratio high. However, I believe nominations should slowly rise to the top with age. Let's have both instead of one or the other. —Kusma (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 I don't think it will make any difference in the review rate, but I agree with some comments above that there is some value to having a simpler system that folks can understand at a glance. I'd still like a reviewer's ratio of reviews:nominations to be visible as I personally prefer to review articles from those who contribute to the process. I'd also support finding some way to highlight newcomers' nominations for review, though I'm not sure what form that should take. Ajpolino (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 is simplest, easiest to understand, and neutral. The experimental order has been interesting but as others have commented has not reduced the backlog, rather the reverse, though whether it was the cause is not easy to determine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1, but I think Kusma's idea is probably worth trialling. I think it will be a more useful test if there's a reset to the earlier status quo and a backlog drive between now and a change to Option 4, though. -- asilvering (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1, the most straightforward of all. Also not opposed to Option 4 or still showing the ratio between reviews and nominations. Skyshiftertalk 17:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2. I like the current prioritization, and especially the way that it groups all nominators by a single nominator together. Option 1 doesn't have that feature. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @David Eppstein Hypothetically speaking, would you prefer this option or one that's grouped first by nominator? Right now they're grouped into headings by topic before being grouped by nom. I think it would be interesting to see GANs grouped by nom, in order of review ratio (highest reviews:GAs at the top), without the articles being sorted out by topic first. -- asilvering (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I definitely want them grouped by topics first. That is the first thing I look for when finding nominations to review. Most of the big popular topic categories are of no interest to me and having to wade through their nominations to find the ones I care about would be very off-putting. Grouping by nominator is secondary to that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1. To the extent there's any perceived need to organize these by some other method for certain purposes, that might be something automatable with software (e.g. generate it on another page, or use the same page and render a sortable table, or whatever).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1. I find the old way fairer and more straightforward. I do think there are ways to keep nudging people to review, which was ultimately the reason for the previous change. Definitely keep showing the numbers of reviews and GAs for each nominator. Suggest maybe bolding the nominations of new nominators? A goal was to help keep the backlog down, but I'm not sure that we were accomplishing that since there was no direct reward for your efforts. I'd rather see a predictable GA backlog drive schedule and closer coordination with other efforts such as the WikiCup, or new pages patrol drives. Let's think outside of the GA silo and more about editor engagement overall. Grk1011 (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 for now but I'd be open to Option 4. The current system results in some nominations just not ever being picked up because they appear low-priority despite being among the oldest, while flooding the tops of the lists with 0/0 nominators whose submissions are often well below par or are drive-bys that don't warrant high priority. We should encourage new nominators, but not by burying nominations by experienced nominators who have kept good review/nomination ratios below loads of low-quality 0/0 submissions. Hog Farm Talk 15:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 - I believe that prioritizing newer nominators and incentivizing frequent nominators to review is worthwhile, and the benefits of this outweigh a possible reduction in total reviews completed. However, I can see that Option 1 will likely be re-adopted, and it does have the genuine advantages of simplicity and clarity. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1, to encourage priority of older articles, for efficiency’s sake. Zanahary (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 keep it simple. JM (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 – Age should take precedence, and the current system doesn't add enough weight to push older nominations through. SounderBruce 00:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 makes the most sense to me. -- ZooBlazer 00:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Of course, many thanks to Mike Christie for giving so much time and effort to allow us to fiddle with the sort order in the first place. Your efforts are much appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For what it’s worth, the current system encouraged me to do my first two GA reviews. It’s nice to see an immediate impact of my reviews by looking at the queue. If we go back to a simple time-based sorting, I think it’s worth exploring more ways to positively reinforce reviewing GAs. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Article redirected[edit]

Could someone please clean up the bookkeeping properly for I Choose You (Keyshia Cole song)? The article was promoted from a redirect to a GA by a sockpuppet, and then restored to a redirect when that was discovered. Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also Tropical Storm Debby (2006) was merged per a discussion at Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Debby (2006) into 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. The article history template currently lists it as a former good article, but it's still on Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences and no GAR page was created. Could someone clean that up please? * Pppery * it has begun... 21:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also  Done ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image license[edit]

File:"Randy Travis" Mural.jpg: A mural of Randy Travis in his hometown of Marshville, North Carolina.

Hello, I am hoping that someone here has an expertise in image licensing. I am doing a GAN review on the Randy Travis article and I questioned this image. It was in the article to show the mural but I know that the US does not have FOP for 2d. For now, the nominator has removed the image from the article, but if it is allowed I am sure it would belong in the article. Thanks. Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US does not have FOP for public artworks at all. So unless we have more information about the mural being out of copyright or freely licensed, I think we're out of luck. I have replaced the image in this discussion by a link to the image out of an abundance of caution. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this a drive by nom?[edit]

Ariana Grande is one of the oldest pending nominations, but it doesn't look like the nominator has had much involvement with the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They commented their intentions on the talk page beforehand, and no one seems to have disagreed, so I'd say not. They were also active in responding to the previous (abandoned) review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A couple other issues I happened across:
Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upcoming backlog drive[edit]

Noting here that it is a week until the start of the March backlog drive. This is highly needed, as WP:GAN contains over 700 nominations, which has happened only a couple of times before. A third coordinator, to join Vaticidalprophet and Ganesha811, would be much appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy to help. What needs to be done besides checking that reviews aren't rubber-stamped? Or is that the main job? -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That should be the main job - BlueMoonset will be updating the count as they can, and mass-message sending only needs to be done a couple times. As long as you don't check your own reviews, and do a thorough job, we would love to have your help! —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone delete this page? The nominator seems to have been confused as to how the Good Article process on English Wikipedia works. (For context, Vietnamese Wikipedia's GA process is similar to our FA process.) Spinixster (chat!) 10:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:ScarletViolet[edit]

This editor, ScarletViolet, has unilaterally nominated an article to GAN (which I created/expanded), where they had zero input and contribution, and at the same time initiated a review of said article. I'm quite stunned by the lack of awareness for the GAN process displayed the this editor, but also saw this coming considering this user has a history of this type of behavior, and I have made repeated warnings on the editor's talk page.

As a note, this user has had this behavior within the TFA and FAR.

  • Nominating Regine Velasquez's article to TFA as an April Fools joke [1]
  • Nominating Mariah Carey's article to TFA and then withdrawing it because said editor could not not address issues to improve the article [2]
  • With regard to second bullet, nominating the FA article for Featured Article Reassessment without being able to raise concerns at the talk page [3]

I would like to request that this nomination be deleted, as I have no immediate plans to bring this up to GAN at this time, as this isn't ready just yet pending some rework/copyedits. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the nomination, and requested a speedy deletion of the review page (reviewers are not allowed to review their own nominations even if the nomination is by the rules). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted the review page. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you and much appreciated. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Microsoft Gaming Another invalid GA review[edit]

Well, this might take the record for the quickest quickpass. Talk:Microsoft Gaming/GA1

@Cocobb8: Please review the Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions and various GA reviews similar to the one you're reviewing.

Coords: I am not sure how to undo an improper review, but can we put this one back on the list? Generalissima (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Generalissima. Sure. May I ask which criteria you think is not met? I have spent much time thoroughly reading and reviewing the article and reading sources to check verifiability. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quickly skimming through, the criteria may very well be met, but you have to do a prose, source, and image review even when an article passes. Read through the text and make sure that there are
  • no parts that are unclear or difficult to understand, that it fully complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation (criterion 1a and 1b);
  • check at least some of the sources to make sure they agree with the sections cited by them in the article;
  • make sure it doesn't have any neutrality issues such as unattributed praise or criticism;
  • check the history to make sure that it is not currently affected by an edit war (this one is the easiest);
  • and review the images to make sure none of them are improperly licensed. Generalissima (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For reference, here's another review of a Microsoft-related GA: Talk:Microsoft_Office_XP/GA1 this is the level of depth you have to do, even for an article that primarily meets the criteria! Generalissima (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cocobb8: The point of doing the review page is for you state what you checked and that the article passed each criteria. You cannot just close the review as "passed" because we can then doubt your honesty. You claim to have checked sources for verifiability but with no notes, how can we be sure about statements like rivalry in the console market? Did you check the images for licensing? Please take a look at my past GA reviews to orient yourself to expectations. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see what you're getting at. I didn't know I had to write about what I had been reviewing! Thanks for letting me know. Is there anything I need to do now? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If all criteria are met, you should at least present a source spot-check. Skyshiftertalk 15:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right. Would you like to re-assess the article as B-class for now? I will need a couple days to complete that. Thanks! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also take notes about my progress and be in contact with the authors for areas of improvements if encountered. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are meant to follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I#R3. Wikipedia's processes are an open book test. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, thank you. Is anyone able to move the article back to B-class for the time being? Thanks! I will also be letting the nominator of the article know about this. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not necessarily the case that the article has to revert to B-class. Could you post on the GA review page notes that show what you reviewed, including what you spotchecked? It sounds like that might be enough to meet the GA instruction requirements. If there's still an issue we can talk about that then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I will be completing this over the next few days. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cocobb8, if it helps, this is an example of an easy GA review I did recently where the article was a very obvious pass. The review is still 13,000 bytes long (and I don't request any minor grammar changes - these are only questions/edits I couldn't sort out myself while reading). Furthermore, it's worth keeping in mind that even if you think an article is an obvious pass of the GA criteria and don't have any changes to request to get it up to that level, it's a good idea to give some feedback for improvement. (Just don't imply that these are necessary for the article to pass review.) For a lot of articles going to GAN, this is really their first moment of collaboration. It's not just about putting a seal of approval on an article. The more constructive you can make it, the better. -- asilvering (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading this discussion, I can't help but think about the fact that my own reviews can be quite short when the article is in good shape. I just looked at my last twenty or so reviews; this is the shortest, but there were two or three others not much longer. Would that be an acceptable review under current standards? I did check all the criteria; I just didn't say so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the spotcheck presented, I think it's perfectly acceptable. Skyshiftertalk 20:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK -- then I don't think we should be asking new reviewers to do more than that, either. I understand that for a first-time reviewer we want a bit of extra confidence that they did check the criteria, but if they list what they spotchecked and the article doesn't seem an obvious fail, should we be pushing new reviewers to write more than I would write? I'm asking because (as discussed here many times) every time we raise the bar, we drive away another small percentage of reviewers. I think perhaps both I and Chris T overstated above what Cocobb8 ought to be putting in their review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you all for the feedback! How about I complete my review (I will aim to write quite a lot), and then you guys can give me some feedback? Also, where can I find some templates for review instead of writing out everything from scratch? Thanks again... Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The templates are at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates. Reminder to keep Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing open while you work, until you've got the hang of it. You may also be interested in User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool. -- asilvering (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mike Christie I think it's clear enough, and it's 1500 bytes, so that's very short, but not so short that it would be disqualified in next month's backlog drive, for example. In this case, the article itself is also very short, so I wouldn't expect a huge review. You could use one of the checklist templates if you wanted to make it more obvious that you'd checked everything. I would say that personally I don't think spot-checking only three footnotes is sufficient. Others disagree with me on this, but I literally always turn up something in source-checking, so I would never stop at three. Sometimes it's only minor stuff, like the review I linked in my previous comment. Often though, I find something that suggests to me that the article is missing something important, so I don't check off "broad in coverage" until the source checks are over. -- asilvering (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have finished my review. How does that look in terms of notes taken? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stalled review[edit]

Could we maybe close out and relist Talk:Perfect graph/GA1 before the review drive starts? It is not a substantive review and the reviewer bowed out a month ago. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done per WP:GAN/I#N4a. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]