Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport
Good article nominations
Good article nominations
Shortcut

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.

Several reviews open at once[edit]

I recently reached out to SafariScribe (previously Otuọcha) regarding the reviews they've opened, a total of 22 over the last four weeks:

Completed:

Open:

I've expressed my concerns that this is an unreasonable number of reviews to be doing at once and that they may not be fluent enough in the language to pursue reviewing at this time, but they disagreed. As I said to them, I appreciate their drive and I think they could do a lot of good for Wikipedia, but this isn't the best way to go about it. Previous discussions at their talk page (permalink) and mine (permalink). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed them, but as they haven't actually abandoned a review yet, I haven't engaged. I would suggest that they try to pick up reviews one at a time though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the grammar in their replies to you is not encouraging... -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it's reflected in the copyedits they're asking for in reviews, which is why I was hoping this could be addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thebiguglyalien, I agree. I would recommend all of their open reviews be reset. All they seem to have great intentions, I think there is a lot of learning to do before they are able to go through this type of reviewing process successfully. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see this page now says, "Warning: nomination is malformed -- Status indicates review has started but there is no review page" re: Lashauwn Beyond. I am hoping someone can fix this, so the review can get picked up. Was a bit disappointed with the result of the Dwayne Cooper GAN (Talk:Dwayne Cooper/GA1), but oh well! Thanks for any help with the reset here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SafariScribe appears to have realised they have bitten off more than they could chew with Jude Law, Pure Japanese and Lashauwn Beyond, and requested to delete those reviews without correctly fixing the talk pages, which I have now done. I don't quite know what they were insinuating with "glorious contributions" at Talk:Dwayne Cooper/GA1, but that was definitely a sub-par review; there is in any case no prejudice against immediately renominating. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, @Thebiguglyalien, @Gonzo fan2007, @AirshipJungleman29, @Asilvering, thank you all for such an impactful assessment, it'do add to my person like I always say. However, English is my first language and I do speak it fluently, I may also have some errors in my sentences which I admit and have taken care of it—reading more books, revising my proficiency, and other self improvement works. The problem is that: typo via keyboard, speed typing in mobile, feeling less concerned to the flow of the lang because while speaking, its not usually identified in where I stay, Nigeria. I appreciate what you all discussed and 've taken record of them. In not varying worlds, there are also justifications that seems provocative. One of the things I've learnt do far is that, people changes by day, there are more to improvement as well. I will also be proud of my reviews, even though some says it's not likewise. I'm not here for any argument but addressing such cases will make Wikipedia a better place. I love to see people correct me while I taken it to heart. On civilly, reverting should be done in reviews only if he/she have discussed that with the reviewer. Like I said, no one has found fault with my review, even when I give a little still promising truth of an article. What if I was about asking a second reviewer. Lastly, I appreciate all of you and your contributions but know that It's for the best. Thanks and will needs some piece of "good" advice. For reviewing, I'm stopping for now. Regards. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, you still have Talk:Maybe You're the Problem/GA1, Talk:An Act of Conscience/GA1, and Talk:The Skeptical Environmentalist/GA1 as ongoing reviews; are you saying that you will not complete them? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, please stop adding words to my mouth and understand subjectively based on ones response. Maybe you're missing 'future'. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, the word "future" has not been in any of your comments. What does "For reviewing, I'm stopping for now" mean? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, My bad, apologies. But you are here for years and should possibly know what some editors are up to. I mean taking it slowly for now. Any advice? — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I have been editing for a couple of years, I have not yet received mind-reading abilities. Taking it slowly is probably a good idea. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New mentorship page[edit]

The old good article mentorship page can be found at Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor, where it consists solely of an outdated list of usernames. There's clearly interest in mentoring, as it managed to gather 27 mentors over its run, but a simple list of usernames isn't that helpful. I created a basic outline at Wikipedia:Good article mentorship for a new mentorship process. The key difference here is that instead of having to choose from an intimidating list of names, aspiring reviewers can request a mentor in a similar format as GOCE requests.

Subpages:

It's just an outline right now, so please edit the text and layout. Formatting is not my forte. If even just a few people become regular reviewers through this, it would be a significant improvement to the backlog and the good article process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems pretty good to me. I'd be happy if newish reviewers (and nominators) had a guiding hand rather than some of the crazy threads we see after the fact here sometimes. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Maybe we should start a new page rather than using the old mentors page, since that way we know all the mentors are familiar with this system and actively watching it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I've created a new one with a similar format. Maybe once this is up and running a message can be sent to anyone on the old list who's still active to see if they're interested. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the individual pieces should be put together now. But before this gets "launched", I assume the community here would want to discuss how much involvement a mentor would have, and if there are any specific aspects that should/shouldn't be included in their role. And whether the "norm" would be for the mentor to be more active on the review page or on the reviewer's talk page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien, can you find a guinea pig who wants mentorship and do a first go at it and a debrief? Maybe it's just me but I think the direct approach will get us to a working model more quickly than talking about it here in the abstract. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing, I just wanted to make sure all of the obvious stuff was established. I was thinking about asking for a guinea pig on the WP:DISCORD given its heavy population of editors who are moderately experienced but not heavily involved in these processes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better to ask mentees to request on a dedicated page and have active mentors pick requests up. Could we have some emphasis on "during your first review, consider requesting on this page for someone to provide feedback"? It would be hard to give useful feedback if someone just wrote "I'm thinking of starting GA reviewing—please advise". A mentor needs to have something the mentee has produced (though I suppose that could be contributions history) to scrutinise. — Bilorv (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1: Regular backlog drives[edit]

I've made the backlog drives subpage "permanent" in the tab header to give it more visibility, since we've agreed that we ought to be having drives more often. We didn't agree on timing or number of backlog drives, though. Here's an inventory of most of the suggestions that seem applicable and possible:

  1. We have three backlog drives a year
  2. They are regular and recur in the same months every year
  3. Some are themed/only address part of the backlog, to cut down on reviewer fatigue (this is proposal 14)
  4. January and August look like good times
  5. Swap Unreviewed nominations with Old nominations at Backlog Drives Progress (this is proposal 6)

In light of those, here is a proposal:

  1. Three drives a year, in January, May, and September
  2. The January drive is the "main" one, targetting all nominations, but especially old ones (ie, prop 6); bonus points are given for reviewing longer and older articles
  3. The May drive is particularly newbie-friendly; we put extra effort into recruiting new reviewers, give points for mentorship, etc (I'm happy to brainstorm/co-ordinate on this)
  4. The September drive is focused on some particular element of the backlog drive, and the co-ords will draw up a list of qualifying GANs in advance (possible examples: articles by editors with no GAs, articles by editors with more reviews than GAs, etc); points will still be given for reviews that aren't on that list, but the aim is to wipe out that list in particular.

In the earlier discussion, @AirshipJungleman29 said I mean, sure, but all of them require people to do the things. If you want to showcase model reviews, reward good reviews, be a mentor, or anything else, get on with it. I stepped forward with GAR and have been basically running the process for a year. So, here I am, getting on with it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Regardless of whether we will have regular backlog drives (I expressed against regular backlog drive on Proposal 1 discussion and gave arguments), I liked very much to have a list of past drives at Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives#Past Drives. I didn't know that we had this list. Anyway, the special permanent page for GA drives, even if we will not have many GA drives the future, is a good think that I appreciate. For example, we can have announcements of future drives or analysis of past drives there. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stepping forward. The proposal sounds good and fair—a solid foundation to start with, and to change if things don't work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the proposal, although since the last drive was in March, I think it'd be too soon to have one this May. I'd like to see the next one about recruiting more reviewers—maybe with two streams of awards, "Reviewing" and "Mentoring". — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Encouraging new reviewers sounds great, definitely worth a try in the next backlog drive. —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think it would be good to have a backlog drive this May, that's too soon. So the next drive would be September. Lots of time to figure out how best to make it newbie-encouraging. -- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May is too soon, but September is too far away - what if we did one in July, and one in October? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I considered those months but decided it was best to keep them at equal intervals, since my idea is that this will be a recurring thing with a fixed schedule. Since our most recent drive was all the way back in August of last year, September didn't seem too far away to me. But I don't think anyone will die of confusion if we end up with this year being March/July/October and then every drive thereafter is planned for January/May/September. (For all we know we won't stick with this thrice-yearly schedule anyway.) -- asilvering (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan to me! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv, how do you see this working? I understand you to mean something like dividing participants into two categories (newbies/reviewers and mentors), then giving a point for the completed review to the reviewer and the mentor? -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite know. I think people would sort themselves by either asking for a mentor or volunteering as a mentor. NPP backlog drives often have some "re-reviewing" element with a barnstar, so serving as a mentor might earn you a "teamwork" barnstar. Maybe there would be some special barnstar for completing your first GA review. Or maybe the key element is just advertising (notifying WikiProjects, something well-timed in The Signpost, talk page messaging people we think could be interested). — Bilorv (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list - proposal to fix[edit]

Let me raise the major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list that I observed first time I submitted an article for GA review a few years ago.

The number of reviews and GAs in parentheses before the user name is misleading as if it was a number of reviews ans GAs that the article received, not the user.

Consider the following example:

Boot Monument (talk | history | discuss review) – American Revolutionary War memorial – (6 reviews, 0 GAs) Relativity (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). (32 reviews, 19 GAs) Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the article "Boot Monument" so far has 6 reviews and 0 GAs or 32 reviews, 19 GAs, suggesting a collective review process for a first-time users who don't understand the process.

Initially, it was only me who understood this way, but later I saw other editors understood the same way as me, suggesting that it was not my fault but a major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list.

I could not find particular examples in the archive to prove my point that other users understood as me, but such cases existed. Maybe I will manage to find examples. However, please do not consider my examples as crucial for considering my request, evaluate my request without the examples.

My proposal is to present the list differently:

Boot Monument (talk | history | discuss review) – American Revolutionary War memorial – (nominated by Relativity who has a past history of 6 reviews and 0 GAs) Relativity (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). (being reviewed by Harper J. Cole who has a past history of 32 reviews and 19 GAs) Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The exact phrase "who has a past history of" can be slightly different, for example consider other variants, such as:

  1. (nominated by Relativity with a track record of 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  2. (nominated by Relativity who has accumulated 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  3. (nominated by Relativity boasting 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  4. (nominated by Relativity known for 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  5. (nominated by Relativity with a background of 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  6. (nominated by Relativity having 6 reviews and 0 GAs to their name)
  7. (nominated by Relativity with a history of 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  8. (nominated by Relativity who has previously achieved 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  9. (nominated by Relativity credited with 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  10. (nominated by Relativity who has been recognized for 6 reviews and 0 GAs)

We can use any of these alternatives to convey the experience and contributions of the nominator and the reviewer in a clear and concise manner.

My proposal makes lines longer by having the names used twice per line: first time in parenthesis and the second time as a signature similar to that generated by four tildas ~~~~, still, it will resolve the usability issue.

If you are concerned about the lengths of the lines, remove the signature, the user name will be used only once. Signatures provide automated way to reply, but there is no need to reply in the GA nominations list.

Additional benefit of my proposal is that will not only make the list easier to understand, but it will bring clarity for new users on the steps of the GA review process. The current format can be confusing for new users who are not familiar with the Good Article nomination process. By explicitly stating the track record of the nominator and reviewer, we eliminate any ambiguity regarding the source of the reviews and GAs.

I believe that my proposal is consistent with Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia values clarity and transparency in its content and processes. The proposed change aligns with these values by making the information more accessible and understandable. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will appreciate if the editors or administrator who take care of the overall GA review process nominate my proposal to the whole list of proposals as "Proposal N:..." by putting to to the list of the all proposals. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal drive has ended. And for what it's worth, I never once read the nominations this way, and I don't know if anyone else has either. The proposed change would require a huge use of space on a page that's already full to bursting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider reviewing this proposal separately, on substance, not related to proposal drive. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your concern is space than my proposal also saves space wasted by tildas, so your concern is addressed by the poposal. Here it how it looks without tildas:

Boot Monument (talk | history | discuss review) – American Revolutionary War memorial – nominated by Relativity who has 6 reviews and 0 GAs.
 Review: this article is being reviewed by Harper J. Cole who has 6 reviews and 0 GAs (additional comments are welcome)

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site. You have been told such before, on this very page—if you can't remember, you will find it in the archives; no need for miffling about with "maybes". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would you have proposed to rewrite my comment with this proposal, can you please provide an example? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find in archives due to poor usability of the search feature. Wikipedia should not be for nerds. My recent example was related to the reviews Talk:Ketotifen/GA1, Talk:Modafinil/GA1, and other reviews by User:BeingObjective. He submitted to many reviews and provided pass or fail message but didn't formally conclude the reviews, when we asked him to conclude reviews, he wrote that he he thought that it is a collective process and his opinion was only a vote. This was in 2023. When I submitted my first article I also thought the same way as User:BeingObjective. Maxim Masiutin (talk) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you and BeingObjective did not bother with the GA instructions, which clearly explain the GA process. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30, you can find the sections relevant to you, through a process I believe nerds call "reading"—I don't know if you're as unfamiliar with it as you are with "clicking". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be even simpler: just moving the "(6 reviews, 0 GAs)" after the username and date. So using the examples:

Boot Monument (talk | history | discuss review) – American Revolutionary War memorial – Relativity (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) (6 reviews, 0 GAs)

 Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC) (32 reviews, 19 GAs)

Skyshiftertalk 01:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is also a solution. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there must be a change this is the way to do it, but I am not convinced there is a need to make a change. Say in either case it is read wrongly, does this matter much? Not really. CMD (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters much because misleads the newcomer into belief that the counters are related to the article being reviewed, that the review is collective process of votes so that if they click to add their vote to the already big number of reviews of the article it would not hurt. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I don't think the current structure implies any kind of collective voting process. But let's agree that you thought it was - how many people aside from you have actually made that error? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many people aside from me have actually made that error. The current structure has counters related to user near the article not near the user, there is no reason in positioning it that way. It should be posisioned correctly and unambigously. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BeingObjective made this error, he wrote about it, but this list of users is not exhaustive, as we may not be aware of all cases, users may not complain or we may not ask them the reason. Typical signals to watch if when a reviwer submit to a few reviews and do not complete at least one. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if only me made this error, i.e. was caught by this usability error - that was enough to fix. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This usability error affects not only the newcomers but old editors as well who suffer from their nominations clicked by newcomers misled by this practice of putting counters of user near the article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the "usability error" affects only those who can't be bothered to read the instructions, such as the now-blocked BeingObjective and yourself. Everyone else has managed to get their heads around this, presumably because they spend their time reading instead of making assumptions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see BeingObjective never said anywhere that they were confused by the "(X reviews, Y GAs)" thing, so I don't know why we are citing them as evidence for changing the system. If we were implementing this from scratch I think I would support Skyshifter's proposed ordering, but I really don't think it's so significant that it's worth changing everything around now we have an established order. People are used to the current system, and the chance that changing it confuses people (and potentially breaks any bots or scripts which expect the layout in a particular order) seems to me to be a good reason not to change things unless there's a compelling reason to, which I'm really not seeing at the moment. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else works, read the documentation principle means that you don't have to intentionally make obscure design to force the user read the documentation. You didn't comment on whether the current location of counters or that proposed by me and User:Skyshifter is the correct one. If you prefer instead to discuss rule following without starting a new discussion thread, let us do so.

Before you ask others to follow the rules, start with yourself and show by example. I once joined as a second opinion reviewer and concluded the review as Fail while it was a procedural/technical error, I was not authorized to conclude the review as a second opinion reviewer, it was the exclusive competence of the first reviewer. Instead, you admitted my completion of the review and admitted discussion on merit on whether my Fail vote was appropriate or should I have changed my mind to Pass. This discussion was supported by other editors, yet nobody, following the rules, cancelled my completion vote and provided the way for the first reviewer to complete the review as prescribed by the rules.

As for the blocked user BeingObjective issue that you raised, let us also discuss it if you think it is important. He followed the rules on target audience in medical articles and helped rewrite articles in proper language removing jargon, but didn't follow GA rules. He made valuable contributions to the quality of articles yet got banned.

Folllowing rules on article quality and improving the article quality such as BeingObjective did has more merit as it brings more value to readers than following rules on GA process which brings more value to editors rather then users. We write encyclopedia for readers, we are not a social network. Blocking editors such as BeingObjective led that he was the only one editor ever who answered my calls for expert opinion, other calls just hang for months. More users you block, worse for the reader will be. Editors such as BeingObjective should not cope throught and design minefileds of interface design ambiguities and rules scattered through various texts - the thing he didn't manage to do. We now cannot ask him how he interpreted the GA counters because we blocked him.

George Johnson | "Hanged by mistake 1882. He was right we was wrong but we hung him and he's gone.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing this to a hanging? You ought to be blocked for the amount of bloviating you've done to date all based on your inability to follow simple instructions. If you really think that GAN "is collective process of votes" then we are clearly dealing with a PEBCAK error. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, once you block a Wikipedia user, this user is gone forever, we cannot ask BeingObjective about GA review because we blocked him. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the user BeingObjective, I don't think that it was a PEBCAK error in that case. That user could rewrite articles for simplicity to be understood by general audience as required by Wikipedia, and he could provide expert help on Medicine when I used "expert opinion requested" template. You cannot do that, but you can understand GA counters. Each person has different abilities and we have to acknowledge that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI to achieve the same result for you. You may take that as a final warning. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
information Please see the ANI discussion Maxim started at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:AirshipJungleman29. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GAN[edit]

The Bertram Fletcher Robinson article's GAN was obviously not thorough. The reviewer literally rewrote the GA criteria list with some AI bot and this was the only noteworthy thing the reviewer said:

"After a thorough assessment of Bertram Fletcher Robinson, I can affirm that it successfully meets the criteria for Good Article status on Wikipedia. The article is well-written, with prose that is clear, concise, and accessible to a broad audience, adhering to the Manual of Style guidelines in all respects, including the lead section, layout, and incorporation of lists. It is verifiable, with all references correctly presented and reliable sources cited inline for any content that could be reasonably challenged. There is no evidence of original research, copyright violations, or plagiarism. The article is broad in its coverage, addressing the main aspects of the topic while maintaining focus and avoiding unnecessary detail. It represents viewpoints neutrally, without editorial bias, and remains stable, not subject to ongoing edit wars or content disputes. Furthermore, it is appropriately illustrated with media that are tagged with their copyright statuses and have relevant captions, enhancing the reader's understanding of the subject."

We can see that this was just a rewrite using some artificial intelligence bot, further displaying the fact that this review was just rushed. Otherwise I see some redundancy in the prose as well as one of the sections being way too long.  750h+ | Talk  09:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either Talk:Wii U/GA2, which was also not reviewed seriously. 2001:4455:3AA:B000:699C:DDA6:CE7E:B379 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how a review from two years ago from a different user is informational. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two months ago, that may exceed our statue of limitations for reversion. The lead should be more comprehensive as well, but at a glance it's not a quickfail sort of situation where I'd jump to a GAR before posting on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main image also has obviously incorrect sourcing information (or the nominator is over 120 years old). —Kusma (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. GAR is the only next step I'm afraid. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is this perfunctory and harsh?[edit]

Pokelego999 recently quick-failed Super Mutant, and then nominated it for deletion ~2.5 hours later. It's been a while since I've done GA reviews, but I have a couple of concerns:

Is this article really so bad that a quickfail was appropriate?
Is it normal for a GA reviewer to nominate an article they've reviewed for deletion without waiting for the nominator to make any appropriate improvements? Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would have left it alone, regardless of my concerns, but I've discussed the topic with the nominator and we both agreed to send it to AfD. In any case, I quick-failed on the rationale of Rule 3, which indicates that the subject needs broad and significant in-depth discussion. The discussion in the article is rather bare per reasons I've outlined in my comments on both the review page and in the AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the quick fail and RfD are two separate acts. If you think the subject isn't notable, it can't be a GAN. Whether or not the reviewer wants to give the nominator enough time to find the sources is a bit up to them. Considering the AfD seems to be going towards a "redirect" verdict, it seems like it's suitably non-notable. No amount of work can make it notable.
I think if you have notability concerns, taking the article to AfD seems like a suitable next step. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crusading movement[edit]

@Borsoka has nominated this at GAR, flooded the nomination with his own point of view and closed this without giving me any chance to respond.

That doesn't seem like due process. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more sympathetic if the close paraphrasing wasn't ubiquitous and blatant as described. Good articles simply cannot contain any plagiarism. If there's an acceptable quick, unilateral GAR, it's done for these reasons. Remsense诉 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAFAIL for close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the close paraphrasing incidents raised against the article are outstanding Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During the article's FAC plagiarism was detected by other reviewers as well. Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That ignores the point, that none of the issues raised are outstanding. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the principal problem: you have been unable to understand for years that plagiarism is a serious problem. Borsoka (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, none of the issues are outstanding—that is the key point. That and the fact that has been pointed out to you, you are WP:INVOLVED so should revert you clousre and let a neutral reviewer pick this up. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert your close Borsoka: per the GAR instructions, "After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article." (emphasis added). Additionally, as you opened the reassessment, you are considered INVOLVED. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I closed as per GAFAIL because sections rewritten by the nominator still contain plagiarism. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAFAIL does not apply to GAR, Borsoka, only to GAN, and again, you are involved per NACINV. If you do not revert your close, I will do it for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation may differ from other editors' interpretation. @Remsense and Serial Number 54129: what is your opinion on the issue? Plagiarism is not debated. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no interpretation to be had. WP:GAFAIL applies to Good Article nominations, not Good Article reassessments. The reassessment process is outlined at WP:GAR, which says that "After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article." Clearly NorfolkBigFish was making improvements to the article, and so delisting it was out of process. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this point it would be fine to allow someone else to close the GAR now that eyes are on it, I agree that the GAR guideline says what it says. Remsense诉 14:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It needs reopening, and then someone with a fresh pair of eyes to review it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the close and reopened the discussion, since Borsoka is unwilling to do so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, Norfolkbigfish, WP:FORUMSHOPPING at two different noticeboards is extremely poor behaviour. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point @AirshipJungleman29, I have learnt something and won't repeat this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hasty GA review[edit]

I nominated U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee for GA status a while back, and the reviewer passed it with essentially no comments. That is extremely rare, especially for an article this long. I asked them about it, and they said that in general they thought it met the GA criteria, but weren't very familiar with the GA review process. As such, I would like to request a second opinion. I'm not asking for a reassessment; instead, I'd appreciate if someone would look over the article and suggest comments on the talk page in the same manner as the GA review process. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The review is at Talk:U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee/GA1. Not a pure checklist, but has no source checks and not too much explanation. Looking at the article, obvious questions emerge such as how the entire lengthy second paragraph of Route description could be sourced to two maps. CMD (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The route description is sourced to a lot more than two maps. I'd appreciate if someone would be willing to take a look at it, though. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the look I took the paragraph is sourced to Tennessee Atlas & Gazetteer (Map) (2017 ed.) and this one-page pdf. If there are other sources you should probably add them. CMD (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the mentorship page[edit]

There's a discussion about Wikipedia:Good article mentorship above, but I'm creating a new discussion because this is a visible change that should have clear consensus. Should links to the mentorship page be added to WP:GANI and Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Tab header so they're visible to new reviewers? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree with the addition of these links. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do! -- asilvering (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Good List[edit]

So I was looking over a few pages and found List of Smallville characters which is a GA despite having List in the name. Is there a reason its a GA and not a FL? The nomintation page seems to be unavalible. Should it be taken down and sent to FLC?Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was titled Characters of Smallville when it was promoted so didn't have list in its name. Nomination page is at Talk:List of Smallville characters/GA1. Indagate (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well now it does so should it be reassesed? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the title is itself a reason to do so. The lines between list articles and prose articles are sometimes blurry, and this is a case in point. TompaDompa (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something being called a list doesn't neccesarily make it a list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA bot[edit]

Titanic Memorial (Washington, D.C.) passed GA this morning and the bot hasn't added the icon or left me the standard message. Is there a glitch in the matrix? APK hi :-) (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the article hasn't been added to the GA Lists, although this is probably not the issue. Will add it now. CMD (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. APK hi :-) (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie This is at mismatches now. I'm happy to fix it manually, but checking if you want to troubleshoot this. CMD (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and fix it manually; thanks. I had a look but can't tell what happened, but the bot did crash at around the time it should have promoted this article. I have an idea as to what caused the crash and will be trying to fix it soon -- it is happening every now and then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done manually. CMD (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting GA quick fail[edit]

Child abuse in association football have been quickly failed for WP:COPYWITHIN and WP:OR. While the 1st is a quick fix (that I have done) there is no clear details about the later (see Talk:Child abuse in association football/GA1). I have asked @Schierbecker to provide more elaborate answer as I want to improve the article and did not receive any reply although the editor is active. I understand there is no deadline here but not providing a coherent feedback from the beginning makes it hard to resolve the issues and - sometimes - contesting the editor decision as these decision are not made in vacuum and the assessor does not hold absolute powers to promote or fail an article. I wonder if other editors can take a look and either become a WP:3O or provide a more substance to the quick fail to help me improve the article. At the end of the day the GA process is there to help improve articles up to our standards and this is a very important topic that I truly want to get it right. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Schierbecker was thinking, but at a quick glance the first thing I notice is that there are five paragraphs of text (375 words) in the section §Definitions, of which the first sentence (36 words) is actually about child abuse in football; the remaining four paragraphs do not mention football at all and the sources all appear to be about child abuse more generally.
Once we get into the stuff which is actually about child abuse in football, it all seems to be random collections of stuff: for instance, all we are told about France is that "Ahmed G., former amateur football coach, was sentenced to 18 years for sexually abusing and raping young players." Is this an important fact about Child abuse in association football? Is this the only, or most significant, case of child abuse in association football in France? It's unclear, because the only source is a contemporary news report. This is an article about a broad social issue, but it seems to be made up of a patchwork of random claims sourced to reports about individual examples of the issue: what it really needs is to be based on reliable sources about child abuse in football generally. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section title is “Known cases by country” not sure what are you confusing there.
The definition of child abuse in general is needed because it’s not different from football. It is not like there is a football specific kind of child abuse.
the section also goes into details about other aspects relating specifically to child abuse in football FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Separately from Caeciliusinhorto's insightful comments on this specific article, to answer the question of "contesting" a quickfail in general: there is no process for contesting a quickfail. If you think the reviewer was wrong and they aren't amenable to changing their opinion, you can always renominate the article. Keep in mind that any future reviewer may well agree with the first quickfail, and a failure to address valid concerns from prior reviews is explicitly a quickfail criteria in and of itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be a huge waste of time to re-nominate the article without addressing the first reviewer comments. It will be a circular argument if the first reviewer did not comment properly and the next reviewer just agreed with them because they can read minds which I currently can’t (working on it. And that is why I am here FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&oldid=1220564972"