Wikipedia:Good article help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk
Welcome to the Good Article Help Desk
  • This page is for asking questions relating to a Good article you have nominated or are reviewing
  • For suggestions relating to the Good article process ask at the nominations talk page
  • For suggestions relating to changes or additions to the Good article criteria ask at the criteria talk page
Search or read Frequently Asked Questions
Search the Good article archives

The following is a list of users who have volunteered to act as mentors to Good article reviewers. New reviewers are strongly encouraged to contact one of the editors below on their user talk page for assistance and advice on using the Good article nominations process, applying the Good article criteria, and producing a good review. All reviewers are welcome to contact mentors for advice on individual issues.


Before reviewing your first Good article you should familiarise yourself with the Good article criteria. You may also wish to read the reviewing Good articles guideline and an essay on what the Good article criteria are not.



I notice there are several articles pending for Star Trek Next Generation episodes. Now I am a fan and perfectly able to spot if they are adding value or simply grabbing chunks from other sources, but my question is this. Considering the number of places I can already find all this information and the potentially huge number of individual articals this could turn into if this guy writes and nominates each episode, what would people feel is the criteria for these to be passed? Or even should this be the place for all these articles? Thoughts please Lemsterboy (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lemsterboy. The criteria for episode articles is the same as the criteria for all other articles. The Good article criteria is not really concerned by notabilty, although it can be hard for an article to pass the broadness criteria without it. Check out Wikipedia:Good articles/Theatre, film and drama#The Simpsons episodes, we have lots of episode articles. AIRcorn (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hot a COI, is it?[edit]

Hello! Just making sure that, if I haven't edited an article since 13 December 2010‎, I'm okay to review it? I did a sizeable amount of editing to Joan Ganz Cooney in 2006 and 2008, but the article is significantly different even between 2010 and now. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I give you the green light! ObtundTalk 23:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Merci, I presumed it would be okay, just new to the hold GA review bit. (Being an editor since December 2002, I thought that I should start to pull some weight in this section.) -- Zanimum (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
If you are worried you could always ask for a second opinion or drop a note here or at WT:GAN and someone will double check your review. I think you will be right though. I can keep an eye on it if you want and am willing to offer further advice if you need it. AIRcorn (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I am currently reviewing Quenya, and the nominator and I have different ideas about how to judge whether an article is "reasonably well written" - and since this is a subjective matter I think some additional input from seasoned reviewers would be good. Best, ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I will have a look through it as soon as I get some spare time this evening. AIRcorn (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you still need someone else to look at this with you? I am a HUGE Tolkien buff so may be able to help (Lemsterboy Talk)

Difficult review[edit]

I started as second reviewer of this article in good faith because the article seemed to be waiting a long time for a second opinion and it read reasonably well. I did see some issues which I have noted. However, reviewing has become hard work because the editor seems to disagree strongly with (almost) every issue I have noted—see the walls of text here. At this moment, I don't feel like proceeding. The article is currently on GA hold. My options would appear to be

  1. continue and remember to AGF at all times whilst concentrating on content
  2. quit and ask for a third opinion
  3. fail the article

In deference to the editor(s), who I can see have worked hard on this article, I will continue for now. I have every intention of passing this article if I can. My tolerance, however, is waning. What advice could be offered in this situation?

It looks to me as if your review is perhaps going into a little deeper degree of detail than the GA criteria in fact requires, which often does provoke annoyance from GA nominators who didn't expect to have pass through the Spanish prose inquisition. I would suggest sticking very closely to the GA criteria wordings "reasonably well written" (i.e. room for different subjective interpretations of what is reasonable, and the nominators idea of reasonable may not necessarily be less reasonable than yours) (for example there is no a priori reason that the phrasing "grandmotherly visage" though perhaps odd, should be any problem for a GA article, you might not word it like that yourself, but that doesn't mean that noone should). The same with "main aspects" and "unnecessary detail" both of which are subjective criteria that needs to be negotiated between reviewer and nominator. I think it is unfortunate for the project that GAs are now often reviewed as mini-FAs. The GA criteria are not supposed to be a high bar - just a reasonably high one. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a lot to read there. As Maunus says most of the criteria is subjective so it really comes down to you and the nominator coming to an agreement. Personally if someone makes a good case for why something should stay as written then I am more inclined to let it be. Saying that you shouldn't compromise on anything if you feel it falls too far from the criteria and I wouldn't want a nominator to change something they strongly disagree with just to get the green spot either. If an article is close and the remaining issue is not a deal breaker then you can probably pass it, just say in your closing statement that you still have concerns over a certain area but it is not enough to prevent you passing it. As you are only offering a second opinion you are under no obligation to close the article anyway, and can in fact walk away whenever you want. Usually the first reviewer is supposed to close it, but it seems they are looking for someone else to here. If you post a specific issue I can give my subjective opinion on it. BTW it is good to see that you are still reviewing articles. AIRcorn (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked reviewer[edit]

I'm in the process of having Bradley Wiggins reviewed, but the reviewer GAtechnical has been given an indefinite block. Of course I'm not going to wait until it's lifted, if ever. What's my next move? Does it need to be closed and renominated? BaldBoris 17:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Article promoted by Wizardman (talk · contribs). AIRcorn (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for an image during GA Review[edit]

Hi all. I've done a review of Ernesto Pérez Balladares (see review here) and was wondering if someone could give a second opinion on whether File:Ernesto Perez Balladares on CSPAN.jpg has an adequate fair use rationale; or whether one is even possible. I'm not convinced, but would appreciate a non-involved editor's opinion. - Shudde talk 03:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are not supposed to have fair use media to illustrate living people. Basically as long as they are alive there is always the possibility that a free one may one day exist, so it fails policy number 1. I would think that it would need a really good explanation as to why it is exempt (WP:NFC#UUI is relevant). AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I fail my own nomination?[edit]

There is a breakdown in a review at Talk:Architecture in early modern Scotland/GA1, which I nominated. There has already been a delay of some weeks, caused, as they accept, by the first reviewer. Whatever the merits of the case, I am unsatisfied that the review follows the GA criteria and, as suggested on the WP:GA nominations page, I wish to take the option of relisting for a new review. I have accordingly requested that the reviewer close the process as a fail so that I can do this. However, I have not as yet received a response and wish to avoid further delay. The wording of the instruction is a bit unclear ("If you wish to withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, then the nomination must be closed using the fail process to record the outcome of the review"). Does that mean I can close the review (withdrawing?), or does the reviewer have to do that? I should also ask, can someone else close the review for me?--SabreBD (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that you can close the review yourself. Just close it as if you are failing the article (it comes up as "not listed" in the article history anyway) and then you can renominate. If you have any further trouble then come back here and I will try and help out. I remember the case that lead to this so I am at least familiar with the spirit of the instructions. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks Aircorn. That is very helpful.--SabreBD (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is a further problem. I closed and renominated. The former first review has now taken it upon themselves to re-edit the article. Some of these edits are probably improvements, some appear completely unnecessary and other are slightly damaging to the information in the article. A few more are problematic, such as introducing inconsistencies in the format of dates and references and the introducing of several one sentence paragraphs - all of those might be an issue at a GA review and I would certainly want to put right. In short, especially if I going into to GA, I would normally want to revert at least some of these or at least question them on the talkpage, but I anticipate that this would be likely to result in another explosion. I am not sure quite what action you might take, but I am a bit stuck on how to move forward and keen to avoid an edit war or more personal insults - even I can get tired of those. Any help would be much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This sounds like a general editing dispute. I would just recommend trying to work with the editor and if need be to follow the normal dispute resolution processes. It could be a problem when it comes to stability I know, so you may wish to withdraw it until it is stabilised or take a chance that it will be sorted before someone picks it up. AIRcorn (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that any attempt to edit on my part will be reverted and that attempts to communicate are unlikely to succeed, since they have been tried already. I really do not want to go to a dispute, which in any case means I would have to exhaust attempts to sort things out first. I see little point in irritating someone who is obviously normally a consciousness editor, but who has just lost a bit of perspective here. I was hoping a gentle word from outside the problem might restore some perspective. If you do not want to get involved I guess I will have to risk more abuse and delay via the talkpage.--SabreBD (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin of wikipedia[edit]

Good morning.Can I talk with one admin of Wikipedia?Mariacciolo (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way is to probably put {{admin help}} on your talk page with your question. If it is private you might want to email one. AIRcorn (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Article isn't appearing in the nominations list[edit]

I have nominated an article several hours ago, see Talk:Stop Crying Your Heart Out, but it's not appearing in the nominations.  — AARONTALK 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You have fixed it. It probably wasn't seen by the bot because you originally placed it inside the WikiProjectBannerShell template. The GAN Instructions page does say to paste the GAN template at the top of the talk page, and that's probably one reason why: the bot can't find a GA nominee template inside another template shell. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On hold review for class assignment[edit]

Hi, I'm looking for guidance as to what to do in case an article is put on hold for more than seven days. Students in a course on Wikipedia have made several changes to the page Driverless tractor for a class assignment and are not sure what more to do after reaching out to the original reviewer. Should they simply delete the review page and renominate? Thanks for your help. --RM395 (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Drop a note at the reviewers talk page, sometimes they forget about it. If it is abandoned, as the review has not started you can just tag it for speedy deletion. That way it will not lose its place in the queue. AIRcorn (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

GAR of Kumbakonam and Madras Presidency[edit]

The reviewer who initiated the GAR seems to be retired. A request to WP:India lead to a discussion (of taking up review) without any conclusion. Can someone please help reviewing the same. I am ready to address the review comments. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved in both these (previously closing a community GAR on one). I have left comments there, but it could really do with some more eyes and comments from editors who have not been involved previously. AIRcorn (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The reassessments are at Talk:Kumbakonam/GA3 and Talk:Madras Presidency/GA2. AIRcorn (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the help.Ssriram mt (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Peer reviewer serving as GAN reviewer, and whether copy editing is a significant contribution[edit]

Can someone who gave comments in an article's peer review also serve as the reviewer for the GAN? Additionally, does contributing a copy edit during that PR process constitute a "significant contribution" that would bar the editor from serving as the GAN reviewer? Couldn't find an answer in the archives, and I was just curious (about both situations separately). czar · · 02:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with precedents on this, but my personal take is that it wouldn't be a rules problem in either case. I'd say in both cases, though, that it would be preferable to let a new reviewer take a look, just to get as many eyes on an article as possible; I know other reviewers sometimes catch what I don't, and vice versa. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Peer reviewers have previously passed good articles without any issues and like Khazar says this doesn't violate any "rules" that I know of. Many reviewers copy edit the article while reviewing so that is not usually a problem either. An issue can arise if the nominator and reviewer disagree on what is a good copy edit, but that isn't really relevant to your questions. What constitutes a "significant contribution" is debatable, but if you are not adding or removing large ammounts of information then I would think you would be fine. Given the shortage of reviewers I would think some leniency on "significant contribution" should be given. AIRcorn (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


Are bare urls (used consistently) acceptable as references in GANs? The article to which I am referring and am considering reviewing is Excalibur Estate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that they're technically acceptable as long as they're not dead links. (I'm inferring this from the rule, "Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url.") But since the links could go dead at any time, that makes the article's GA status very tenuous. I'd probably strongly encourage the reviewee to add article titles to each link; if they refused, and the article looked likely to pass in all other respects, I guess I'd do it myself since it's not quite a GA criterion. Luckily, it looks like in this particular case, many of the bare urls go to the same handful of articles, so this shouldn't take too long. It's a shame someone wrote all those "paragraphs" in there so you can't just do it in a second with reflinks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I will take on the review and do what you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Using Rap Genius as a source[edit]

I'm planning Lenny (Buggles song) to be a good article. The article uses the source Rap Genius. I know I've seen that source being used in other articles, but would the source be unreliable or still credible? Thanks! EditorE (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Since per its Wikipedia article, it's user-generated content, I'm guessing it's not. But I can't say for sure. You might ask at WP:RS/N; they can give you a definitive answer. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


Are you able to fix a little mess I've made? I've nominated ...And Justice for All (album) for GA article, but accidentally I've put myself as a reviewer. Thanks.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Just add {{db-g7}}, a request for speedy deletion; the page can then be recreated later by a reviewer. Thanks for the nomination! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Old GAR link[edit]

The Article History box at Talk:The World Factbook is missing the link for the article's first GAR (dated September 2008), and I'm having trouble finding it. Can someone help?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You might ask Eric Corbett (Malleus), who updated the history.[1] I don't know where GAs were generally stored in those days. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I checked his contributions. It looks like there was no review page at all. He made 3 edits to the article before updating the article history, saying as part of a "GA Sweeps Review".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


Planning for Lock and Key (Rush song) to be a good article. Would songfacts be a reliable source for this article? Thanks. EditorE (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest checking at WP:RS/N for that. Good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

spurious "good article" tag at Steven Sasson?[edit]

I notice that this edit adds the "good article" tag on Steven Sasson. I suspect, given the history of the user, that this was not legitimately added. But I don't really know how to find out. By any chance, was this article nominated and reviewed for good article status? I figure I should ask, rather than just assume bad faith and remove the tag myself. -- Why Not A Duck 19:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this and checking here. Talk:Steven Sasson/GA1 is a red link, and the talk page shows no activity since Sep 2012, meaning that this article at a minimum was not nominated and reviewed through the normal system. I'm assuming this was added fraudulently and have removed the tag for now. I'll inquire on that article's talk page if anyone knows more. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Lock and Key by Rush[edit]

Hi. I'm planning for Lock and Key (Rush song) to be a good article. I was wondering if a background section for a song article is needed for it to be a good article. Thank you. EditorE (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say that just depends on how much the sources discuss the song's background. If you can't turn anything up, I personally wouldn't see it as an obstacle. Material like "Lee said the song to have been a mix of sounds and ideas ... Geddy Lee played both keyboards and bass in the song, which he found to be a "battle"" is a good start at least. I'm less experienced at music reviews than some others, though, so take my comments with a grain of salt. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

new good article not appearing in Good articles/recent[edit]

Yesterday I have finished my first GA review (Apeomyoides). The article has passed, but still does not appear in Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. I fear I may have forgotten something? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what caused the bot to miss that one; you seem to have done all the usual steps. Possibly the GA template has to be at the very top of the page?
But I wouldn't worry about it. GA/recent seems like a pretty unimportant page in the scheme of things (it would have disappeared from the page in a day anyway), and you've updated the article's status in the places that count. Thanks for taking the time to review! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
All right, thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nominator also Reviewer[edit]

Hi, Everyone I nominated Torchwood for a good article and left a comment on the review page for the reviewer but me not thinking, I posted the message when there was no reviewer and It made me the reviewer is there anyway to revert this as obviously I can't be the nominator and reviewer. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just add {{db-g7}}, a request for speedy deletion; the page can then be recreated later by a reviewer. Thanks for the nomination! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help Kelvin 101 (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Siah Bishe Pumped Storage Power Plant[edit]

May I review the Siah Bishe Pumped Storage Power Plant article if I have made three edits to this article at its very early stage; namely: refining category ([2]), adding maintenance tags ([3]) and correcting unit ([4])? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Beagel, looking at those diffs, I don't think that would be a problem. I say go for it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Extend "hold" for more than seven days?[edit]

I have undertaken a GA review of Ambrose Channel pilot cable. I think it is reasonably close to GA status, but has some problems, which the nominator has agreed to address (and I have offered to assist), so I put it on "hold". However, these improvements are going to take more than seven days. Questions:

  1. Is the bot going to automatically fail the article after seven days?
  2. Is there any way of extending the hold?
  3. Upon making any significant contribution am I allowed to review the article upon renomination?
~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
A hold of more than seven days is fine, and the bot won't notice. I'm a bit confused by your third question, though. Do you mean if you fail the article, and then make a major contribution yourself, can you renominate and pass it? I'd say definitely not; another reviewer should take it over at that point. Thanks for reviewing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, if the bot leaves alone, fine. As to the third question: I gather that (in general) once I make significant contribution I shouldn't review on a renomination. Okay. Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
That's correct--no reviewing an article to which you've made a significant contribution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Bradley Manning article...[edit]

Your article on Bradley Manning was obviously written by someone with an agenda. Chelsea Manning? I was surprised and disappointed by the article. When I want to learn about something new Wikipedia is usually my first stop. Now I wonder how much of the stuff I've read and hold as "true" is actually not true. The Bradley Manning article has many inconsistancies and refers to him as a female. Because of this article I will make a conscious decision to no longer visit Wikipedia.

The decision to move the article to Chelsea Manning and use female gendered pronouns is the result of a consensus of dozens of editors on the talkpage and not any individual editors "agend". You can participate in the discussion at Talk:Chelsea Manning. Otherwise if you want to use a wiki encyclopedia that is likely to keep Bradley Manning named Bradley Manning forever and ever amen then maybe Conservapedia may be more to your liking. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

GA bot down?[edit]

I nominated Talk:Modern Benoni a few hours ago but it hasn't shown up in the queue. Noticed over at User talk:Chris G that the bot might be down. Cobblet (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this at WT:GAN, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominator seems reluctant to qualify ambiguous words[edit]

I am reviewing International System of Units and am getting bogged down now. There are a handful of sticking points, two of them to do with the ambiguous use of English words. These ambiguous words would benefit from a few extra words of clarification. I have offered suggested improvements that would fix these issues, but the nominator seems reluctant to accept these or any fixes for these problems and the discussion is now going around in circles.

The problem words are:

  • "prototype", being used without qualification, with two possible meanings in the context used.
  • "special", being used in the term "special name", with no qualification as to why, or in what respect, the names are special.

My opinion is that to be considered well written, these unnecessary ambiguities must be resolved. Can anyone offer any advice to help move this forward please? FishGF (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fish, there's already a discussion open about this at WT:GA. My suggestion to you would be the same as I suggested there. Since you two seem to be quite frustrated with each other, and this review's gone on forever, it would be better if this review was closed and the article got a fresh start from a new reviewer. All best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a shame, but the proposer didn't seem to want to hear what I was saying. I was very patient and made many suggestions for what needed to be done to tip the balance, but this was met with an arrogant refusal to budge. I decided that due to the apparent lack of commitment to fix the relatively easy to fix issues, to fail the article as it is. FishGF (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

How to drop a review?[edit]

I started a review, but due to bad-faith behaviour towards me by the proposer, I would like to drop it, and leave it to someone else. What is the process to do that please? FishGF (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Simply mark the article as failed. The nominator can then renominate it with the same time stamp. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

List of Biographies that have/had Good Article status[edit]

I like a link(s) to a list of WP Biographies that have Good Article status, or a List of all GA WP Bios that link to the permalink when an article got Good Article status (article do lose GA status). The same for WP Bios with/had Featured Articles status. Lentower (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean you do like this or you would like this? Unfortunately, I'm not sure any such list exists. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I want to point new editors at them as examples of what a good WP bio look is. Lentower (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know that there's any list of GA and FA biographies, but you can go to the list of GAs and find some examples very quickly--there's subsections like politicians, musicians, actors, etc. Hope that helps, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Khazar2: Thanks. I found WP:GA before I asked here. Not sure how many new editors will want to wade through that list for bios, but if it ends up the best there is, I'll try it. Lentower (talk)
Do you need a complete list for some reason? I'm still not really clear what you're looking for. If all you need is a few examples for new editors, that should only take moments to find... -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Either redoing this list each time I need it, or maintaining such a list is a chore, that would take time away from my WP editing. Lentower (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As Khazar2 pointed out above, some of the lists linked to at the end of WP:GA have the bios segregated out. E.g. Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Artists_and_architects.

But this list of lists at the end of WP:GA doesn't include these sub-lists, nor do the lists have Table of Contents, which makes finding the bios a chore.

Discovered that at the end of WP:FA the list of lists has the sub-lists of biographies labeled as '(bios}, which makes finding and linking to them much easier. E.g. WP:Featured_Articles#Art.2C_architecture_and_archaeology_biographies. -- Lentower (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Nomination Spam[edit]

I can't help but notice that user "23 editor" has made about a half dozen article nominations for GA review in about a week, most of them with cursory or no attempts to improve them first, and all on Serbian topics. Whilst I applaud their enthusiasm, they are clearly spamming the process and more interested in just getting loads of Serbian articles listed as GA, than actually improving the articles to genuine GA standard. See their latest nomination, Skull Tower. If this is GA standard, we may as well list anything as GA. Is there no rules or guidelines about just spamming dozens of articles for GA review?!?? -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a duplicate thread to Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_Nomination_Spam; it may be easiest for discussants to centralize the conversation there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Which subject area is appropriate?[edit]

I'm thinking of nominating Brislington House at GAC but can't decide whether it should go in the architecture subject area or medicine. Any advice?— Rod talk 16:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Rodw: I think either would be okay. It's probably a question of which area you'd rather your reviewer have a background/interest in, since those will be the parts of the article where they're (in an ideal world) best equipped to give feedback. Thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've put it under "Art and architecture" as lots of the article is about the buildings - but would be happy with a reviewer with interest in either.— Rod talk 17:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific GA-status[edit]

This article does not possess GA status but has a GA-icon on top of the page.. why?

The article was delisted, but the icon wasn't removed from the page. Thanks for the catch. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Review for currently airing television series[edit]

I was just about to start my review for Last Tango in Halifax when the nominator alerted me to the fact that the second series of this show is currently airing. As a result, the content of the article will change within the next month, for better or worse. What would be the best way to approach this article? I can't see a clear guideline for articles that may undergo constructive changes for a short time, and then probably settle down. Moswento talky 14:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I add that as the nominator I am happy to withdraw my nomination, or suspend it until 2014. I was hoping for the article to be reviewed prior to the second series of the show. Eshlare (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@Eshlare: To be honest, I think withdrawing the nomination for now is the best way forward, so if you're happy with that, let's go down that route. When you're ready to nominate again in 2014, drop a note on my talk page and I'll put it to the top of my review list, to save you waiting another 3 months for a review. Moswento talky 09:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes that's the route I want to go down Eshlare (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Current (Dec. 16) article on child prostitution: Look at Canadian and US numbers in the Extent table. Canadian numbers should be roughly an order of magnitude lower than US numbers, NOT twice as much in absolute terms. Your reporting system is too complicated.

"Majida El Roumi" a good article ?[edit]

I was surprised that the Majida El Roumi page is marked as a good article. Firstly, it has only bare URLS, secondly many YouTube 'sources', though these may have been largely added after the page was 'marked'. Some recent edits have added some rather POV and peacocky text. I see that URL only refs are, apparently, acceptable according to an earlier section on this page.

I know nothing about good/featured articles etc, but can't find anything on the talk page about it being nominated or assessed, and when the GA mark was added on 22 March 2013 here, no edit summary was given. The editor concerned has only 2,206 edits from this account. 220 of Borg 16:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the icon as there is no record of any review taking place.--Dom497 (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Passed, but no plus on article page[edit]

Katherine Ritvo was passed for GA on December 24, but the bot hasn't added the little green plus to the article namespace. Possibly a reviewer error? Can this be looked into? Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 02:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

GA reviews for very short articles[edit]

I'm about to write a review of Fajsz, which was nominated for GA on November 20. The article is very short (only 283 words of "readable prose"), and because short articles usually attract reviewers quickly, I'm not sure why this one has been sitting there for more than two months. Is there a restriction on the length of GA articles that I should be aware of? Madalibi (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably people hate the drama of a quick fail. It's way too short. That or the drama of putting it on hold and hoping they fix it in a couple weeks. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion requested[edit]

Would an experienced reviewer be willing to take a look at a somewhat minor content neutrality dispute involving two sentences in the Sydney Leroux article review? This is the only thing holding up the review according to the reviewer. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot-bonkered review count[edit]

It appears that a bot went bonkers with my review count. How do I revert the count to the actual number, which I think is 11? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing a nomination[edit]

I nominated Wookey Hole Caves some time ago. Another editor has contributed to the article and highlighted some other areas which needed work. The review at Talk:Wookey Hole Caves/GA1 was started inadvertently. I asked about this at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Review started accidentally ? withdraw nom suggesting the easiest solution would be to withdraw the nom, but I've not had any response about how to do this. Can anyone advise?— Rod talk 12:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Good article page moves[edit]

Hi, is there a process for Good articles that require a page move? Do the associated assessment pages have to be moved as well? I've recently had to move a GA and wasn't sure what to do with the associated talk pages. Thanks in advance. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

outside input[edit]

I've noticed that on occasion editors involved with an article may chime in on the corresponding GA review although they are neither the nominator nor the reviewer. Do we have any good essays or rules about this? I've always assumed that the review was in the hands of the reviewer. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Troutman, per the instructions, "Other editors are also welcome to comment and work on the article, but the final decision on listing will be with the first reviewer." Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


I'm told that this review can't pass until its images clear OTRS. I didn't see this in the criteria, but I'd like clarification for posterity. czar  19:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I responded on the review page. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
An alternative would be flagging down an OTRS agent with access to the permissions queue, and getting it cleared. --Rschen7754 04:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Which subtopic for Death in Singapore and Singapore Portrait series currency notes?[edit]

If these two articles are nominated in future, which subtopics should the nominations be placed in? --Hildanknight (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it correct that GA images must follow WP:NFCC, even they are not copyrighted?[edit]

If so, where can I find guidelines about that? walk victor falk talk 07:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of what you're talking about? All images must follow WP:NFCC if they are copyrighted. If they are not copyrighted, and that can be demonstrated, then they do not need to follow NFCC. But all images are assumed copyrighted unless we can explicitly demonstrate otherwise.--v/r - TP 01:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this article nominated?[edit]

HIV/AIDS in Malawi is listed on my article alerts for a GA, and has a GA page, so I have taken up the review. However, it's not listed here and neither does it have a GA template on the page? Is this article even waiting for a GA review? Seeking some help determining what to do. --LT910001 (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Request resolved. --LT910001 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you do when a review sets a precedence that causes more problems then solutions for an article?[edit]

I am debating about requesting that something about not giving problems (see link) be added to the criteria for reviewing good article nomination. Its because my main question right now is, What do you do when a review sets a precedence that causes more problems then solutions? This is a question I have repeated asked myself since I got back to editing on wikipedia. The Graphene article was reviewed back in 2011. In the review, the person specifically cites as his/her reason for not good article nomination as: --Physics16 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"After a complete read through, I concur with the addition of the "too technical" template, which was added last month. There are a number of uncited statements, some tagged from 2011. The organization is poor and a number of dead links. The article has potential, but is not near GA standard at present. The nomination is by an IP with no other contribution history - I judge this as C class at best. Quickfail. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)"

The problem with that statement is that it was vague in what was specifically "too technical" even under the Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable. At least one of "uncited" statements remains. The organization being poor is an intentionally vague statement and we have had to rely on creating a new sub-article, in an attempt to resolve the issue. However, the true problem is and always remains the vagueness of that first drive-by tagging of "too technical". Its vagueness set a precedence for accepting drive-by tagging of the article --Physics16 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Over the next 3 years, at least 30-50 separate incidents of drive-by tagging, which is tagging without talk pages. I discovered this while searching Last year alone, there were three instances of still unresolved drive-by tagging, two of which used the "too technical" tag. As I have mentioned on the graphene talk page last month, I am not sure even I don't know where to begin in what people are finding 'too technical'. Because I understand it, I don't feel the article is too technical at all. If I knew even the first sentence people found too technical, then I could try to fix things. I am so immensely frustrated with people tagging without creating talk pages that I am on the borderline of doing 5 things: --Physics16 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. With Lfstevens permission posting giant {{helpme}} or {{Under construction}} along with possibly {{Expert-subject}} specifically requesting a expert in the definition of Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable because I really do think that just referring to that page or "too technical" issue has created more problems than solutions.
  2. Removing the original remaining un-cited statement that has not been resolved since 2011. With a fresh mind on the subject, I believe the original sentence quoted below is Weasel Words:
""This definition is narrower than the IUPAC definition and refers to cleaved, transferred and suspended graphene.""
  1. Redaction of all the "too technical" tags back the orginal 2011 date because someone or some bot has been updating them without giving proper clarification. I don't think it fair or just to update tag dates without at least referring to what is the problem. Tags are supposed to help provide solutions not create problems.
  2. Removal of the outdated (2013) tag and any newly created broken links from last year. It does not make sense to label an article as outdated when it is constantly being updated!

Please answer the question to the best of your ability, so I don't have to do something radical like the number points above. Physics16 (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I do not know much about this topic. However, the article looks technical to me, perhaps there are too many specialized words at the beginning of sections. I would guess that the article is worthy; however, on the Wiki, articles are aimed at general readers even if the subject matter is complex or very complx. May I suggest that the sections are started with easily understood words and them move to the more technical aspects after that. Snowman (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Review - not sure if process has been followed.[edit]

Can someone help as I'm not sure if the right process has been applied to put an article up for review. Yesterday King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge, which I nominated, was passed for GA after various comments and requests for references etc - see Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA1. Following this another user removed the GA star & started Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2 stating that the page is full of basic grammar errors. (I believe there was one introduced during the review, but am not aware of others). It has since been copyedited by another editor. It does not appear on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and I was wondering whether the appropriate procedures had been followed or what I need to do now?— Rod talk 17:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I took reviewing 2 articles Peter Ostrum and Marie of Romania few days back. Now due to the shortage of time, I am unable to continue the review. Is there any way in which I can surrender? Thanks. RRD13 (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

RRD13: Just ask for a second opinion. (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

How to determine an article's "good article" history?[edit]

I did a bunch of digging to figure out the history of Gun violence in the United States good article status - and then I lost it all in a computer crash. Ugh. I found talk-page discussions from 2007 and 2008 in the article's archives that said it had passed GA, but I didn't see the GA tag/template added until 2010. I don't think the article is a GA, and others have made similar remarks on the talk pages. So the questions is: How does one determine an article's good article history? Is one's addition to or removal from the GA list logged somewhere? Lightbreather (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The list of GAs is at WP:GA/ALL. There is also Category:Former good article nominees and Category:Delisted good articles, although these are dependent on the presence of the appropriate templates on the article. On the article in question, this section looks like a GA review, but if you don't think the article should be a GA (if the original review missed something, if the article has changed or is out of date, etc), any editor can initiate a GA reassessment. Sunrise (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a problem[edit]

Dana boomer began a review of Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, she has not responded there since my last post on 6 May 2014, and she has not been on-line since 3 June 2014, do I need to relist the article for review? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and this can help you. Faizan 06:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Another bit of problem[edit]

The reviewer has become inactive and has not responded on his talk page. I tried to follow the instructions on nominating the article again, but that does not produce the desired result. Please help: Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Faizan 06:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Can help? Faizan 14:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Faizan, my recommendation would be to go to WT:GAN and ask whether someone would be willing to take over the review. If no one is, I'm certainly willing to put the nomination back in the reviewing pool. I'm of the opinion that no one who has done so few edits on Wikipedia—as is the case with this reviewer—has any business conducting a GAN review. (The third party issue may nevertheless come up in the course of the review.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks BlueMoonset, I have requested at WT:GAN. I have the same opinion, too. Faizan 16:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Mentor request[edit]

I am interested in getting involved in the GA review process. Because I have not been through the process, I would like to find someone willing to hold my hand through the first one o5 two, to make sure I am doing it correctly.

I am interested in doing science articles, and chose Sebaceous gland as a candidate, choosing it because it was one of the oldest in the queue.

Any volunteers?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I completed my first one, but still would like it is someone were willing to watch over my next one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Einar Jolin[edit]


I am working on the GA review of Swedish artist Einar Jolin and have two questions:

  1. The sources for the article are Swedish language sources, but there are sources in English. My thinking is that the further reading section, at the very least, should have English sources. I posted this at Talk:Einar Jolin/GA1#English sources and further reading. Do you mind responding here or there about what would be expected in this kind of situation?
  2. At the very bottom of the article is a Timeline of Einar Jolin's life. What is my responsibility, if any, regarding review this graphic / template?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Categories[edit]

Ummm...why isn't BIOGRAPHY (no matter the related field) on this list? Just wondering....

Question on GA review procedure[edit]

  • Is this the correct way to renominate a FailedGA article? I couldn't find directions on Wikipieda to confirm if that is the usual approach to renominate an article. Renomination was done within 30 mins of FailedGA.
  • I came to it via "Philosophy and religion category" and the category seemed inappropriate for the article.
  • This was the edit done before renominating, I see some dead link tags removed while the dead links reamin dead -- I know dead links are okay, but why to delete the tag? And I also see Failed verification tags purged which were added by the edtior doing the GA review.

--AmritasyaPutraT 12:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I have been asked to coment here. The dead links were checked and where appropriate an archive link added. The concerns regarding verification were addressed in the GA Review - none of the concerns I examined were upheld. I suspect the previous reviewer was looking at the wrong sources. The previous reviewer had passed the article on all aspects apart from formatting of sources, but had expressed a reluctance to pass a contentious article. That's fair enough, so I said they should close the review - we can't expect volunteers to do something they feel uncomfortable about. Having addressed the reviewer's concerns - adding in archive links, and pointing out where the sources do support what is said in the article, I renominated. The time I took to address the concerns is not important; the concerns were addressed (and see Wikipedia:Good_article_frequently_asked_questions#Reviewing: "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 our recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review.") I have suggested that the current reviewer should either review the article against criteria, or allow the existing quick fail to be deleted so the review can be put back in the pool. Either is fine by me. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that is a plausible explanation (aside: not all dead links were replaced with archive links but all tags were removed), I may not have time to check the sources myself, I wish to backout (remove the quick fail) and have some other more experienced reviewer take this up. I am good if you do that SilkTork. Thanks! --AmritasyaPutraT 10:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. I will check over the article again as regards dead links. Thanks for pointing that out. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

per Talk:Nipo T. Strongheart/GA1[edit]

I need to see about getting another reviewer. I don't know how to "re-list" the article or whatever procedure makes the most sense… Any help would be gratefully accepted! --Smkolins (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review where article subject is now under investigation[edit]

I accepted the review for Robin Raphel a couple of days ago, but since making my initial review, an investigation into the subject has begun to be reported by several major news sources (see also this article). According to the articles, it is a federal counterintelligence investigation, but no charges have been filed against Raphel. This information has already begun to be added to the article by editors.

Given these events certainly affecting the coverage of the article (perhaps moreso if further information comes to light in short order), but potentially also the stability and neutrality of the article, I'm considering placing it on hold for a week or two while more information comes out. Would other reviewers recommend that I place it on hold, or fail it on specific criteria (e.g. stability)? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've now failed it, as further edits rendered the article no longer stable or NPOV. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Sasuke Sarutobi, edits to keep an article up to date do not mean an article is unstable. Instability is only about whether there is highly contentious edit warring. Even a few reverts is not sufficient for instability. Sometimes constant vandalism is even ignored. Instability is a function of whether there is sufficient disagreement about what the article should say among concerned editors of good faith. If there is agreement on what the article should say and if there is a flow of uncontentious new source material that results in new uncontentious editing the article is still stable. The classic example was during the 2008 election cycle, John McCain got promoted to GA although he was in the news every day causing the article to be constantly updated. P.S., it is common for BLPs to have rigorous editorial activity while under review. You should consider reopening your review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
In hindsight, I have probably been somewhat hasty and alarmist; it's been a while since my last GA review, and what I thought would be a fairly straightforward review turned very suddenly into something needing more editorial rigour and pushback, which I'm sure you'll agree is not an enviable position to be in for a relatively inexperienced reviewer. I'll speak to the nominator about re-opening it and placing it on hold while the new information can be incorporated and new issues addressed. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Farm to Market Road 742[edit]

Hi. Can someone confirm that this article has gone through the GA process and is a GA? It looks a bit short to me Gbawden (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Gbawden, you could ask the editor who wrote this page User talk:A Texas Historian/Forest Highway 61. I also found this page User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size, which shows that this Good Article is indeed near the bottom of the list in prose size, but that there are a few others that are even smaller. Prhartcom (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Dyslexia article[edit]

can someone look at my article preliminarily to see if it is ok?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, I read the lede, nice job; may I recommend submitting a request over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? A respectable group of volunteers, and later you can brag on the talk page that they have given it the "second pair of eyes" you're looking for (by inserting Template:GOCE.). Prhartcom (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

thank you, you've been very helpful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Short citations[edit]

I can't find any specific guidelines, but I recall seeing somewhere that "Bibliography" sections are deprecated. The article I'm reviewing (Congolese Independence Speech) uses short citations and has a "Notes and references" section with notes (in a "Footnotes" subsection) and the short citations (in a "References" subsection) followed by a "Bibliography" section that the short citations link to. This doesn't seem right, but I don't know the proper fix. I suggested in the review: The "Notes and references" could be changed to "Footnotes" with no subsection for the two footnotes and the "References" section renamed "Citations". Is this an appropriate fix? I just completed the review and put it on hold and am now waiting for the main contributor to respond. This is also my first GA review and if anyone is willing to look for any mistakes, feedback would be appreciated. AHeneen (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes is a preferred and ideal way to handle references, using the Harvard referencing format, neatly allowing for sources to be listed alphabetically by author, allowing several footnotes to refer to a single bibliography entry, and allowing several footnotes to be combined into a single footnote. Numerous articles on Wikipedia use referencing this way (here's one). Prhartcom (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Update: Very nice job on the GA review. Prhartcom (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand the concept of short citations. The question is about the names of the sections and the way they are displayed as section/subsection. For some reason I thought "Bibliography" sections were deprecated and was simply asking whether or not that is correct. The term does not appear at Help:Shortened footnotes, although it does appear in Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. That was the issue, not the concept of shortened footnotes. AHeneen (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. If I understand you, WP:FNNR in the Manual of Style may be the place to answer your question, which says not only "Editors may use any citation method they choose", but also "Editors may use any section title that they choose", so there is no rule and the title "Bibliography" is certainly not deprecated. I use that title myself in my articles. It does give a little concern note about using that word, but it only applies to biographies. Hope that helps. Prhartcom (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Such rules as apply here are generally permissive. However, in regards of good practice I believe there is some preference for "Sources" or "References" over "Bibliography", the former being more general in scope than "book list".
Strictly speaking, the more familiar term footnotes is inaccurate, as what we have here is more accurately endnotes. Use of "Notes" encompasses both, avoiding the specification of location.
In the article referred to there is an implicit distinction between so-called explanatory footnotes and what might be called reference footnotes, as seen in the sub-sections titled "Footnotes" and "References". These titles are some what unfortunate. Both sections are equally footnotes ("notes"), so it is misleading to give that label to just one section. Usage of "references" is unfortunately ambiguous, but I believe it leans more towards the "full citations" (or "full references") as seen (in this article) under "Bibliography", not the short cites.
My suggestion is to rename these sections as follows.
  • Notes and references -> Notes (alternately: remove this header)
  • Footnotes -> General notes (because that is what they are: notes that apply to the whole topic generally)
  • References -> Citations
  • Bibliography -> Sources
~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Here is a featured article that is in the manner stated above (except it of course has "Notes" as suggested above instead of the quite unusual "General Notes"). Prhartcom (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good example. I suggest "General notes" here because they apply to the text generally, and not to specific material, and to distingush them from the "citation" or "reference" notes, which are equally valid "notes". Such general notes are often put into a box, or (in the print media) at the foot of the first page, even if the rest of the notes are collected at the end as endnotes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on stability[edit]

I've been reviewing this article for several days, and I think it looks good for the most part. My question is on the stability criterion. It seemed stable when I first reviewed it, but since then the review page has attracted several other editors who allege POV concerns. While it's not an edit war, it certainly is a small-scale content dispute. I'd appreciate some more experienced reviewer's opinion on whether it now fails that criterion. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Coemgenus, I would be happy to answer (although you appear to have been on Wikipedia longer than me). A similar occurrence happened to me before. I had submitted an article for GA and the reviewer began to review it, then the stability that was once there disappeared as another editor began to heavily modify the article. I believe that what happened was they had it on their watch list and had been meaning to get around to improving it, then saw that I had nominated it, decided for themselves that it wasn't ready in their opinion, and then jumped in. In your case, it is a bit worse because more than one other editor is involved. I'm afraid I believe the situation you describe is clearly unstable, and therefore that criteria is in jeopardy of failing the review. If I were the reviewer, I would put the review on hold, then ask the nominator to work with all of the editors to stabilize the article. I'm assuming you don't want to fail it, but you could do that too, explaining to the nominator that a failure is just temporary until the content is worked out and the article stability has returned. In the first case you would tell the nominator that you will return in about a week and expect to have it solved by then, and in the second case you could tell them you volunteer to return whenever they ping you. How does that sound? Prhartcom (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I don't want to fail it--it's a well-written article that I probably would've passed already if not for this issue. Thanks for the advice. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Restarting a failed nomination[edit]

Robin Raphel was originally nominated by another editor, who did most of the heavy lifting on it late last year. Because of real-world issues he had to drop it, and the GA was failed. In the past few days I've brought the article back to spec per the reviewers' initial comments. I was wondering what the process is to re-nominate? I'm not sure if I just subst the GAN template on top of the talk page again, but I don't want to screw it up. Many thanks. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 08:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog, thank-you for improving that article. Click "Criteria" at the top of this page and ensure the article meets the GA criteria. When you are ready, paste {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Politics and government}} to the top of the article's talk page; a new review will be started when a reviewer is available. Click "Instructions" at the top of this page for all the information you need. Stop back here if you have questions. Prhartcom (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: Thank you. So I don't have to remove the previous failed GA notice, just add a new one? That's basically the gist of my question. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Good question; you may paste the new template above the previous one, leaving it so that others can still access the older failed review. There is an advanced way to provide previous actions using the Template:Article history that compresses the information a bit; you can investigate that later if you wish. Prhartcom (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: Thank you! I've re-substed the template, now to wait for a reviewer. Face-grin.svg And thank you for the helpful edits as well! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing/ Adding Content.[edit]

Hello! I was just wondering if I would add content on the Nicki Minaj article? I was going to add to the "associated acts" section. I look forward to hearing back from you! -Bekah -- (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bekah, yes. You are in the wrong place now, however. Click "Talk" at the top of your screen; I have left a welcome there for you with information you need to make your first edit. Please ensure you only add information that comes from a reliable source and is not your own original research. Prhartcom (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dyslexia article[edit]

hi, we placed our article more than a month ago, and we were wondering when the review would take place. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You might have to wait as much as six months, and three months is not unusual. This page has a backlog to the stars. ResMar 05:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing: have I got it right?[edit]

Hi. I've reviewed two GA nominations today for the first time. I'd really appreciate knowing if I've got it right! The two articles are Atlanta Flames (nom) and Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary (nom). I notice in particular that a bot so far hasn't added the GA icon to the pages... Thanks for your help. Relentlessly (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Relentlessly: Sorry for the late response. I did a quick spot check and both articles look good. Don't know why the bot didn't arrive; I did what it had to do. I see that you added them to their categories at WP:GA. Good work and hope you review more articles. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)