Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainCriteriaNominationsDiscussionInstructionsReassessmentReportHelp Desk
Good article nominations

This is the discussion page of the good article nominations (GAN). To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the New section link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click to show the frequently asked questions below or search the archives below.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Is there something we can do to restrict nominations?
There have been complaints about the perceived backlog in reviewing since the good article status was created in 2006. Generally speaking, we don't want to restrict nominations along their path to GA. In the beginning, as many as 100 nominations were waiting for a reviewer to volunteer. By 2011, each day typically listed 330 nominated articles, of which 260 were waiting. By 2016, 580 were listed, 460 waiting. For comparison, today there are currently 474 nominations listed and 377 waiting for a reviewer.
While it may seem overwhelming, a large backlog isn't a bad thing. It shows that many nominators want to use GA as a tool to improve the encyclopedia, and it also allows reviewers to choose articles that interest them. From a nominator's perspective, the main concern is the expected wait time before receiving a review, not the number of articles on the nominations page.
Can't we force nominators to review articles?
Quid pro quo reviewing (editors must review an article before nominating, perhaps after a grace period) is regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to lower quality reviews and fewer nominations from excellent content creators who may not wish to review another person's work.
I want to review an article. Do I have to review the oldest unreviewed nomination first?
No. You may review any article you are not involved in, regardless of the nomination's age. As a courtesy to nominators who have been waiting a long time, however, you are encouraged to review the older nominations at the top of the queues first.
The nominator disagrees with the reviewer. Can another reviewer take over?
If your GAN experience is not going well or if you are disagreeing with the reviewer's decisions, then you may allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then immediately renominate the article (to get a different reviewer). You may try asking the nominator to ask for a second opinion if the reviewer has not yet failed the nomination. You may even request a community reassessment. Other than these, another reviewer does not normally take over an active review. You might want to read What the Good article criteria are not.
Is the "nominator" a special position?
No. Anyone may nominate any article, including unregistered users and people who have never edited the article. Nominating an article is not the exclusive privilege of an article's primary authors, as nominators have no special privileges over other editors except that they can withdraw the nomination. Everyone interested in an article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. However, "drive-by" nominations (nominations by editors who do not normally edit that article and may not be watching it) are not encouraged, as the nominator is expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article.
Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't?
All editors interested in the nominated article are encouraged, but not required, to respond to reviewers' concerns, not just the nominator. If the reviewer identifies concerns and no one responds, then no one should be surprised if the reviewer declines to list the article. "Drive-by" nominations, which are permitted, are one source of non-responsiveness. If the article does not meet the good article criteria after the reviewer has explained how the article requires improvement and has waited a reasonable amount of time for the nominator to make improvements, the reviewer is sure to fail the nomination.
What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic) IP address?
Any editor may nominate an article for GA status (while only registered users may review), so IP nominators are permitted. Much content on Wikipedia is contributed by IP users. Communication between nominator and reviewer usually takes place on the review page, not via user talk, so a dynamically changing IP address should be fine (as they sign their comments on the review page, the nominator may want to clarify to the reviewer that they remain the same person). An IP nominator that has demonstrated a desire to build an encyclopedia and is responsive to the reviewer presents no problem to a successful GA review. If a nominator or other article editors are unresponsive and the article does not meet the criteria, then the nomination may be failed. Future article editors will benefit from good review comments on how to improve the article.
Does an article have to be on hold for exactly seven days?
No. Whether to place the nomination on hold at all, and the length of any such hold, is for the reviewer to decide. Depending on the responsiveness of the nominator, a hold may not be necessary. If the reviewer decides that it is, they may choose longer or shorter periods of hold time. The reviewer may even modify the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page to include a "time" parameter, for example "time=fourteen days", and the {{GANotice}} template used to convey messages to the GA nominator to include a "days" parameter, for example "days=fourteen". Keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GA nominations report page.
How can GA be reliable when a single reviewer decides?
The quality of a good article is only as reliable as the most recent review and articles may deteriorate if unattended. The GA process deals with both of these issues by allowing repeat reviews by any registered user at any time. The process aims to encourage article improvement and build consensus on quality through multiple reviews—even though a single reviewer makes the decision whether to list the article according to the GA criteria. Any editor may contribute to any review discussion and community reassessment is available when the "one reviewer decides" model breaks down.
What should I do if a review page becomes inactive?
This can happen for a number of reasons. Review pages should only be started by reviewers who are willing to take an active interest in the article and are committed to completing their review of the article in a timely manner. Sometimes another editor (such as the nominator) starts the review page by mistake. A reviewer can fix this by placing their signature after "Reviewer:" towards the top of the review page, but if no reviewer is forthcoming, it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions may be posted at the discussion page.
However, in rare occasions a review page is created by an editor who intends to review, but then withdraws due to illness or other reasons. In such cases, the first step would be to contact the reviewer. If this does not resolve the issue, then a new reviewer is needed. In order to find one, follow the instructions page under "If the reviewer withdraws". Do not use this process to void a review you disagree with.
What is the difference between GA and GA-Class?
GA status is determined according to the good article criteria, while GA-Class is a WikiProject classification. GA-Class is conventionally given to articles which have GA status. GA-Class is higher than B-Class but not as high as A-Class (although, depending on the WikiProject, an A-Class article may be required to be GA). The input of WikiProject editors can be invaluable in assessing GA nominations and involvement in WikiProjects is encouraged, but GA nominators and reviewers are not obliged to follow WikiProject criteria. GA reviewers who have passed the article should update any WikiProject templates on the article talk page by changing the "class" parameter value to "class=GA".
I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified!
That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your suggestions to improve the article while deciding on their review. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and fail the article again. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the GA criteria, you can initiate a reassessment.
What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process?
You can bring those concerns to the discussion page to get help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in any dispute that you have.

Minimum standard for reviewers?[edit]

I know that we are short on reviewers to clear the backlog, but I am alarmed by the number of recent nominations that have been rushed through to approval by editors with little to no experience with the process or Wikipedia in general. Examples like Talk:Aaron Swartz/GA2 (passed within an hour with no real comment by a user with under 30 edits) make me think we should have a minimum edit count for those who wish to review a GAN. Perhaps we should set it at 500 or 1,000, similar to those for WP:NPR. SounderBruce 04:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think at least 500. How anyone could have even a basic understanding of what articles should be a GA and what shouldn't without having edited the encyclopedia is beyond me.
Further more, I think we should be refraining from promoting articles without any commentary. There is always something to critique, even if it is a straight pass, but things could be improved for after the GAN. I know it's not the same as at the backlog drive, but maybe some sort of minimum review length? We shouldn't be casting away any willing reviewers, but we also don't want editors to simply rubber stamp them either. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think length is a good issue, but I think any GAN should actually be justified in text, even if it's a simple checklist. Personally as someone who's usually looking to take GAs to WP:FAC at some point it's also kind of frustrating in that there's no useful feedback or suggestions about possible areas to improve beyond GA standards. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd also support a minimum 500 or 1000 edits standard for reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Me too (in fact I'd support higher). Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would as well. --Rschen7754 03:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think perhaps, without being too "bitey" to our recent new editors, who clearly perceive GAN as a place to hone their skills, we should look for a minimum of 150,000 edits and 100 GAs. Nope, perhaps just 500 edits. But that's bordering on WP:CREEP really. Who is going to re-review every GAN? Where do we have oversight, especially once the drive has finished? We don't, it's simply impractical to impose a minimum edits count on a reviewer I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle: It's not impractical to state up front that there is a minimum in terms of experience required for editors to have in order to review at GAN: 500 or 1000 sounds like a reasonable amount to expect of users; I'm not entirely sure about the 90 day requirement at NPR. (I note in passing that extended confirmed requires 500 edits and 30 days, though that may not be best here.) We have had quite a few new reviewers who got over their heads, and some of them insist that they're perfectly capable and, as there are no minimum levels, perfectly right to do the review, even though the article that they pass (or peremptorily fail even though it only needs a little work) should not be closed in that manner. Since GAN depends on a single reviewer for a particular nomination, it can be a real problem if that reviewer is unclear on the concept. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why each review? If there's an unfamiliar name doing a review, which will be an infrequent event, you do an edit count; if that shows a problem, you deal with it. If the GA review rules say up front that only people with at least 500 or 1000 and/or 30 days or 90 days (or whatever the minimum level happens to be), then you'll generally have only those who qualify opening up a GA review to begin with. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • An "unfamiliar name"?! Deary me. I think the fact we're already wild-ass guessing over what constitutes sufficient experience here (30 days, 90 days, 1000 edits etc) is indicative that this is a non-starter. This looks like a solution looking for a problem. Are we over-run with poorly reviewed articles? No. Do we have a process for dealing with GAs which aren't deemed up to scratch? Yes. Do we need to make GA any less accessible? No. Do we want to dissuade new reviewers and keep increasing the backlog? No. I think it all speaks for itself. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
If by "Are we over-run with poorly reviewed articles?" you mean "Do many reviews appear to be much too superficial, often giving the impression the reviewer hasn't even read the article thoroughly?" the answer is yes. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
No, I meant what I said. If we have GAs which no longer meet the GA criteria, they should be nominated at WP:GAR. That is, after all, what that process is for. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If we were to impose any standard, it should be that you have a GA before you can review a GA. A very low edit count may be a good indication of a lack of understanding, but a substantial edit count is by no means in indication that an editor understands what GA level content requires. But that's not going to do us any favors on the backlog. GMGtalk 12:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose What we need is reviewers who take the guidelines seriously and do their best. I don't think any minimum number of edits assures that. I wouldn't want to discourage a newbie who closely reads the guidelines, diligently does their best, and maybe misses a few things that an equally-diligent experienced editor would have caught. Those newbies are gold; we need to thank them and give them constructive feedback in a way that will encourage them to do another review, not just tell them they haven't hit the magic number yet. --valereee (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the problems as stated (i.e., concur with Johnbod). I think that trying to enforce higher standards may not the be first step tho. I have for years and years stated thatthe value of GAN is actually less about improving articles and more about improving editing habits (i.e., training) I therefore recommend training/mentoring. [Note there's supposed to be a FAC mentor thingie, and I actually saw it done once, but I dunno if it's a thriving initiative.] Training for GAN is much more basic than training for FAC and therefore more necessary. I know the Teahouse has those badge thingies; I dunno how much they train anyone (I actually have no idea because I have never done it and never asked anyone about it). I have some suggestions about what should be included in training, but don't wanna get ahead of myself... Oh by extension I also agree with David Fuchs: "it's also kind of frustrating in that there's no useful feedback or suggestions about possible areas to improve beyond GA standards." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support In order to maintain the status of articles of GA standard we need reviewers who grasp and understand the processes on Wikipedia as well as how GA criteria is met. This would be a good idea to have a minimun number of edits like 250-500 in order to review GA nominations. Spy-cicle (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't have enough experience at GAN to say whether I support or oppose this, but re: the practicality of enforcing this kind of rule: would it be possible to use creation protection to restrict the creation of page titles of the form */GA# to extended confirmed users? That would automatically impose a 500-edit and 3-month minimum on any editor starting a review. Armadillopteryxtalk 23:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on principle. I'll take a closer look at what people above have said when I have time later, but generally I think we shouldn't be placing restrictions on reviewing. If noms think there's a problem, they can request a second opinion or post on this talk page. And I know experienced reviewers also go around reading reviews to try and catch problems. Encouraging those practices, I think, is better for the encyclopedia than enforcing restrictions that would probably just make our backlog worse with little gain in quality. Wug·a·po·des​ 16:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Excellent work on the drive[edit]

I remember in the summer where I looked at the backlog number and realized that reviews could take months if not years. I proposed an idea as did others, to bring together the GA reviewers to help reduce the backlog. This idea became a reality and we did it. We reviewed almost 200 articles and helped each other out through analysis. Instead of a competition, we banded together to help reduce a backlog. As Good Article reviewers, we will strive to continue this trend and maybe in 6 months, we will come back together.

Great job everyone. Thank you to @Lee Vilenski: and @Barkeep49:.

AmericanAir88(talk) 23:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. Looking at the report archives, we're at the lowest backlog this year with 330ish unreviewed articles! Wug·a·po·des​ 21:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
It's even better than that, Wugapodes. Using the numbers from the Reports page (they vary from the drive's table, but I'm using it so we're comparing apples to apples), the last time we had fewer nominations was when we had 452 on September 21, 2018; and the last time we got below 330 unreviewed nominations was over three years ago on September 3, 2016, when we were at 327 unreviewed ones. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everyone who participated! There is clearly a need, and a want for this to be done. I don't see why this shouldn't be a regular occurrence. I'll have a word with Barkeep about the barnstars and get them out very soon. I do like the idea of it being a 6-monthly thing, as (pointed out above), there are still 330+ reviews outstanding (and the number is likely to grow without a drive). I think February/March would be a good time, but we'll see nearer the time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I enjoyed participating! :) Mujinga (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Co-nominator GAs[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if Co-nominators are given a GA once they are passed. For Talk:Derek Kraus, the nomination was originally worked on by the initial nominator but later completed by a co-nominator. Does the co-nominator get the GA as well? Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as being "given a GA?" Usually people credit themselves with promoting articles, but I've also seen people say that they have "significantly improved" GAs, even if they didn't nominate it. I've also seen people say they have copy-edited a GA and claim it. Only things like the WP:GA CUP and the wikicup really have strict rules on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If want "credit" for your GA, you can update the bot's stats manually. I've done that when people have requested a second opinion on GAs. MX () 19:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the wires may be crossed here. The stats only shows reviewed articles. Not nominated articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio threshold[edit]

Hi all, I was wondering if the copyvio tool was considered a reliable guide for determining criterion 2d. I ask this because an article that I have done a lot of work on was delisted from GA recently, while I was not actively editing on Wikipedia, and the reasoning given was widespread plagiarism in the article. I have run the copyvio tool on the article and it returned "Violation Unlikely", with the closest matching source being used for a short direct quote. If the tool says there is no copyvio or plagiarism issue, is that enough to challenge the delisting and try get the article promoted again? I wanted to ask here first because I have a tricky history with the editor that got the article delisted in the first place and I don't want to get into any unnecessary confrontations. Any insight on this situation would be appreciated! Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Any ideas what the article is? The copyvio tool is exactly that, it is a tool. It's just used to find websites that could contain plagiarism. That doesn't mean that a high rating means copyvio; nor that a lack of one means that the article is clean. If it was delisted, it should have said where the supposed copyvio came from. If it doesn't, it's hardly a good argument. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Plus if the tool returns a high probability of copyvio, you still need to ask the nominator to use WP:BLAME and The Wayback Machine to check whether others downstream copied from Wikipedia instead of vice versa. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I assume this relates to Black Panther (film), and the concerns raised Talk:Black Panther (film)#Close paraphrasing still an issue? Harrias talk 12:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one. I don't see how I'm going to respond to the concerns when the copyvio tool can't point me to any parts of the article that are too similar, and the editor who raised the issue has refused to indicate what passages they feel are plagiarized. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Adam, Wikipedia's copyright policy is not difficult to follow. All you have to do is learn the rules and write articles according to them. Trying to get tools that have been found to have bugs to do your work for you is not going to help you become a better Wikipedian. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The copyvio tool clearly screwed the pooch on the Black Panther article (and Li He for that matter...). Even if it hadn't, there were about a half-dozen other serious problems with that article that should have caused it to fail its initial GAN (not least of which were harassment and personal attacks going on in the GAN itself), so it can't be relisted just because one of the autofail criteria may not have been met due to some technical hiccup like "If the tool says there's no copyvio, then GAN and GAR must treat it as though there were no copyvio". This kind of disruptive gaming is simply unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, Lingzhi2, and Harrias: Thanks for responding to my question. Evidently I am not allowed to re-nominate the article regardless if the tool can't pick up any copyvio, so I guess that's that. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment[edit]

Is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment no longer functioning ???--Moxy 🍁 16:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, very few people are participating these days, though at least one reassessment is quite active, and I've just closed another. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Do we want to actively pursue more GARs? I could plow through the text of all GA articles and develop some mechanical measures of potential problems... Lowest proportion of cited text (watching out for cites at ends of paragraphs)... Maybe... I dunno what else. Stale research on a topic still being researched? I dunno... Would that be worth doing? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The individual reassessment process works well enough and I would encourage any editor who is capable of reviewing a GAN (which I imagine is most who watch this page) to take that route in most circumstances. Like GAN reviews some can get a bit forgotten about (I myself have recently been guilty of this), but a gentle prodding or if needed executive decision can keep things moving. Community reassessments are broken and have been for quite a while. You tend to either get a contentious article with lots of comments by editors more focused on a content dispute than assessing the article against the criteria or the nominated article is largely ignored. Neither are much fun to work with, but we really need uninvolved GA knowledgable editors to comment on them.
I have toyed with the idea of proposing scrapping community GARS, but I think they are still necessary. Some editors might feel not competent enough or too involved to go the individual route and controversial articles sometimes should go through the community instead of being decided by an individual. There also needs to be a way to decide contentious reviews that does not lead to a ping pong match of passing and delisting.
I have found it works alright with two GA competent editors going through them. That way at least one can comment on the status and the other can close. Failing that I have often commented on a reassessment, waited a couple of weeks and then closed it if no one else has. I have just returned from a wikibreak and once I get into the groove a bit more I will go through the old reassessments myself, but it would be great if we got more editors from this project willing to close them. AIRcorn (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Addison's disease[edit]


Addison's disease has been listed as a GAN. Immediately following nomination a review was started by the nominator (presumably in error). Could this be rectified? Thanks, PeaBrainC (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)