Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Active discussions
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsDiscussionReassessmentReport
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 585 nominations listed and 493 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. It also allows reviewers to choose from a wide selection of 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) was 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?
Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. You may review any nominated 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 renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer). If the reviewer has not yet failed the nomination, you may try asking them to ask for a second opinion. 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?
The nominator has an interest in seeing the article become GA, so the nominator should want to respond to the reviewer to improve the article. In fact, all editors interested in the article are encouraged, but not required, to respond to reviewers' concerns. 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. Future article editors will benefit from review comments on how to improve the article.
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 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 the encyclopedia and is responsive to the reviewer presents no problem to a successful GA review.
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?
A Good article's 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 below 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.

Ringing in 2021 with Drive and Sweep planningEdit

Hi all, happy holidays and best wishes for the new year! I'm assuming we're on for a reviewing drive in March again-- just mentioning it here in case anyone thinks that's too soon-- we want to avoid burn-out at all costs.
There was some mention recently about creating a task force for sweeps and I think January would be a great time to get that set up and start the process-- it's probably going to be a multi-month if not year effort. If there's interest I'd also be happy to re-set up an irregular newsletter (that could be sent out before a drive, after a drive, whenever there are updates or relevant discussions, but probably not more than quarterly). Any interest in any of this stuff? Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd be interested and willing to help, although WP:URFA/2020 is taking up a decent chunk of my attention, so I won't be able to throw as much time towards GA as I have in the past. Hog Farm Bacon 04:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Like with Hog, outside of a few GANs and FACs, I'm going to be mostly spending this year working on maintenance on my old GAs and FAs. By "Sweeps", do we mean going through and rechecking old GAs since the last sweeps? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
David Fuchs The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_24#Some_form_of_GA_sweeps_is_desperately_needed_to_happen_again. I'm not sure what time frame would be swept-- maybe a combination of articles tagged with issues, as needing possible reassessment and promoted before a certain date. I'd be curious to hear what others have to say (Courtesy ping to previous participants who haven't weighed in here: Kew Gardens 613, MrLinkinPark333, Barkeep49, Aircorn, Buidhe, Sdkb, GaryColemanFan and Kingsif) Eddie891 Talk Work 19:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
A sweep would definitely be needed. Per the last discussion, articles at Articles needing possible reassessment need definitely rechecking and various issues at https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Good_articles.html. I don't see why not checking the old GAs per the last sweep considering there's a big gap since the last check. Hopefully the last sweep wasn't 2010 per Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps :/ --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 sweeps was the only Sweeps done, and while the problem has grown since then, I don't think the necessity has lessened. A one-in-a-decade quick reevaluation for at least the appearance of meeting GA quality by established GAN reviewers is well overdue, and I'd be happy to help; people just need to realize that the original sweeps took 30 months with some highly-active contributors who are no longer around, and that a new sweeps is something akin to needing a five-year plan at least. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy to help whatever is needed once I've got myself back into a schedule. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree sweeps is needed and would be happy to help. As far as coordination goes, i.e. not having everyone descend on the reassessment category starting at A, I would be happy to help work out some "plan", too. Kingsif (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
We also may be able to run ORES on the category of good articles to identify articles with large amounts of uncited text and flag articles with low quality assessments, but I'm not familiar with how that technology would work-- can anyone advise on whether that's feasible? Eddie891 Talk Work 19:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think ORES can be used to find large chunks of uncited text but I could be wrong. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Barkeep49 I was basing it off of mw:ORES, under #existing article assessment which says that it can check for how many references there are, though you;re right that doesn't exactly equal finding large amounts of unreferenced content. I also think that Hawkeye7 has programmed MilHistBot to check for references at the end of every paragraph, so it seems like getting something to flag articles in a category with problems should be possible, though I'm not sure how to do it. Apologies for using ORES as a catch-all for 'computer program' -- Eddie891 Talk Work 20:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm definitely in favor of this "sweep" and think it would probably be helpful to prioritize an issue for this sweep, as there are a lot of different kinds of potential problems we could tackle. Them in a future sweep we could highlight a different problem (or two if they are more "minor"). If this works we could even move to essentially a system where every 3 months we have either a GA backlog drive or a GA quality sweep month. I'd be fine with either focusing either on uncited paragraphs or articles with promotional and other similar large scale writing issues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I like the idea of prioritizing issues, but I'm not actually sure about the technology to do it besides tags, and we can't rely on the worst articles having been tagged. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to set up a sweeps page on something akin to the five year plan David mentions above, and look into holding specialized drives on occasion, so that way users can work on what they choose to and if people feel so inclined they can assess outside of a drive. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
ORES can check for unsourced paragraphs to my knowledge, might be worth getting someone a bit more technical on board to see how we could make this work. I feel this would be the easiest thing to check for, along with running every GA through earwigs tool for Copyvios. Finding untagged articles with problems outside this might be a bit more manual. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Late to the party here, but I would suggest editors keen to do a sweep start with the older unswept GAs first. If we could pick out the oldest ones that have not had a re/assessment and maybe work back from there it might be more fruitful. AIRcorn (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple flawed reviewsEdit

Can an admin delete the following reviews: Talk:Stadium MRT station/GA1, Talk:Fraser's Hill/GA1 and Talk:Arbor Hill Historic District–Ten Broeck Triangle/GA1? The reviewer, AussieCoinCollector, has passed the articles as good articles after making a single comment. For example, at Stadium MRT station, the reviewer noted, "1. No copyright/plagiarism 2. Meets all 6 of the GA criteria. So yes, I would pass this article." However, per WP:GAI#Reviewing these are not substantive enough. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If no one else is willing, I will do this for all the ones save Arbor Hill since that was my own nom. But I'd really prefer someone else stepping in. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Note to Daniel Case and Epicgenius: AussieCoinCollector has been blocked as a long-term abuse sock. I think under the circumstances all the reviews need to be undone/deleted, and the nominations restored to await regular reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I have deleted the other two; it seems someone else took care of the rest. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-reviewEdit

An IP just opened the review at Talk:Brodie Lee/GA1, and "passed" it... there hasn't been any follow up yet, and the IP seems more interested in spaceflight than wrestling, so could someone roll it back and hope they don't try again? Kingsif (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, this review was already undone once in November. I've nuked the malformed review, left a note at Talk:Brodie_Lee#GA_review_undone_again along with the text of the review in case anyone missed it, and left a short note at IP's talk. I didn't look to see if there were any others, so feel free to ping me if more cleanup is needed. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverted a GA nominationEdit

An editor who registered an account on 14 January and who has had most edits reverted, nomination Holiday World & Splashin' Safari for GA after one minor edit to this currently C-class article. I reverted the nomination. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Opened their own reviewEdit

Ewf9h-bg is both the nominator and reviewer of Talk:Ancient furniture/GA1. It looks like they might not have realized that they have to wait for an uninvolved editor to open the review. (t · c) buidhe 04:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the review. I guess the bot should notice that soon and clean up? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I assumed once I started the review someone else would come an review it Ewf9h-bg (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Ewf9h-bg, No, you have to wait for an uninvolved editor to open the review. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC on a GAN (IAR?)Edit

G'day all, I am currently reviewing a GAN on a controversial subject, and consider that one aspect of the article does not meet criteria #4 (neutrality). I would prefer to not fail it on my opinion alone, the rest of the article is fine, but am at an impasse with the nominator. Usually, use of a RfC to get a community consensus isn't necessary or even desirable at GAN (in fact WP:RFCNOT says not to), and in nearly 350 GAN reviews, I have never had this arise, but the article seems important enough to me to ask for a community view on neutrality before I fail it on my opinion alone. Is it reasonable to IAR here? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I neglected to say that I am talking about Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/GA2. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, one option is to listen to the other two editors who supported FDW7777's version and consider that the consensus may be against you on this point. Failing that, I can see no other objection to an RfC to decide the content of the article (as opposed to the outcome of the GAN). (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, but given the topic, I am thinking that a wider consensus on the neutrality of the Sectarianism section would be better. Of course, the decision about passing or failing the GAN itself lies with me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Good article nominations".