||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. In 2011, each day typically listed 331 nominated articles, of which 256 were waiting for a reviewer to volunteer. For comparison, today there are 434 articles 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.
- 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 those who have older nominations, however, you are encouraged to review older nominations first, so that the editors won't have to wait too long.
- 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 far lower quality of reviews and to discouraging nominations from some excellent content creators who do not wish to review other people's work.
- The editors at the article disagree with the reviewer. Can we request that another reviewer take over?
- If your GAN experience has not been good or if you disagree with the reviewer's decisions, then you can renominate the article (for a different reviewer) or request a community reassessment. You might also like 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. 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.
- Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't?
- All editors at the nominated article are encouraged, but not required, to respond to reviewers' concerns, not just the nominator. If they don't, they should not be surprised if the article is not listed. "Drive-by" nominations (nominations by editors who do not normally edit that article and may not be watching it) are permitted and are one source of non-responsiveness. If the article does not meet the six criteria, then reviewers normally wait a reasonable amount of time between explaining the specific areas requiring improvement and failing the nomination.
- What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic) IP address?
- Any editor can nominate an article for GA status, but only registered users may review. Communication between nominator and reviewer usually takes place on the review page, not via user talk. If a nominator or other article editors are unresponsive and the article does not meet the criteria, then the nomination can be failed. Future article editors will benefit from good review comments on improving the article.
- Does an article have to be on hold for exactly 7 days?
- No. Whether to place the nomination on hold at all, and the length of any such hold, is for the reviewer to decide. Reviewers may choose longer or shorter periods of time.
- 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 on most occasions. 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 (Talk:ArticleName/GAn) becomes inactive?
- This can happen for a number of reasons, so if in doubt ask at WT:GAN. Review pages should only be started by reviewers willing to take an active interest in the article and in completing a review. 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 can be posted at [[WT:GAN
|Threads older than 7 days may be archived by MiszaBot II.
User:Jonas Vinther is insisting it is not his responsibility to list nominations that he passes at WP:GA
Yesterday, I had a bit of back and forth with Jonas Vinther on his talk page regarding listing Broadway Hollywood Building at WP:GA. Eventually, he said he would do it tomorrow. This was at 23:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC). Since he is a self proclaimed Danish Wikipedians his tomorrow has come and gone. Not only has he blown off the commitment to list the article properly, but also when he promoted Utah Beach to GA at 23:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC), he again opted not to list it at GA. He has been involved in over 40 GA reviews. Presumably he never lists the articles he promotes at WP:GA. I don't know how many other articles he has promoted without listing, but he is shown to have participated in 44 reviews (based on the GAN counters) and he oddly list his reviews on his talk page with GA Icons. There are 40 such icons. I presume this means he has passed 40 articles. I have no idea why he lists reviewed articles with these Icons on his page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. I am just noticing that he has been involved in 44 reviews including 2 that are currently on hold. Meaning at most 42 have concluded and 40 have passed. This is extremely odd. His reviews may need to be evaluated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I apologize if I'm missing something, but why can't you just look through his contributions? Tezero (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Tezero, I apologize, but are you suggesting that I follow his editing forever and make it my responsibility to help him complete his GA promotiong forever by watching his contributions? Wouldn't it be better if we just convinced him to do his own promotions properly?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, no, TonyTheTiger, not forever, only for the ones he's already done. I guess I took it somehow that he was no longer reviewing articles, but if he continues despite being warned, discretionary sanctions might be in order. (And this is only if he can't be reached to at least give a list of ones he's done.) Tezero (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think my point here is that I was seeking confirmation that it is the reviewers responsibility to follow the instructions at WP:GAN, which include listing passed articles at WP:GA. I don't think anyone but Jonas Vinther, himself should be asked to rummage through all the articles he has passed and properly list them. I don't understand why you suggested that I do so. I have no idea what type of sanctions you think might be in order. I think he just needs to understand that he is sort of messing up the system by not listing his promotions at GA and it is no one's responsibility but his own. Do you disagree?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, it's absolutely his responsibility. I was just thinking about ways to fix the problem given that he doesn't seem to be willing to take responsibility. Tezero (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- If he is unwilling to follow the instructions at WP:GAN, he should not be allowed to review. The fix is not to tell other people to run around behind him fixing his reviews.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I meant by "discretionary sanctions". Tezero (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonas has had something like three or four trips to this talk page in the last fortnight. I saw his attention to win the GA Cup at all costs, and thought "that'll end in tears", and it looks like I was proven right. I don't recommend a trip to ANI as I think he'll calm down and back off the GA reviewing for a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Woah, Woah, Woah, Woah! Easy people! TonyTheTiger, I have said I will list them. We had a discussion about this yesterday and I said I will list them all today. There is really nothing to discuss! I have never insisted not to list them, now your just making things up. I will list them ALL TODAY! Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, normally reviewers do it right away. Please be sure that you do list them. Tezero (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can guarantee everybody I will list them all today. The reasons I didn't do it when I started reviewing was because I didn't know you could or had to list them. I know this now, and will list them all today. Is everyone happy? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I assumed you were being belligerent and lazy. Tezero (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I also didn't notice you had to do this when I started reviewing articles, but noticed it since. Can't a bot do it? FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- That actually makes sense... LazyBastardGuy 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the whole bot decision. Best, .jonatalk 16:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't program bots, but I feel it might be a bit much to ask a bot to figure out which section to list articles at on WP:GA. The subcategories their have gotten quite refined and the bot would not be able to simply look at an article talk page parameter and list things accordingly. However, whether or not the bot is ever programmed to do this, it does not change the issue that Jonas Vinther, has not followed the instructions and despite twice promising (on the 15th he said tomorrow and on the 17th he said today) saying he would complete the instructions listed at WP:GAN, it remains an empty promise. I am tiring of Jonas Vinther's empty promises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger, do you really have nothing better to do? Have it ever occurred to you I might have real life responsibilities and other Wikipedia projects going on? It doesn't matter if I list them today, tomorrow or in a week - as long as they eventually gets listed. Geez, chill out will ya'? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Jonas Vinther: It doesn't matter about external issues/things going on. A responsibility of the reviewer is to list the article per the GA instructions. Really, it shouldn't take more than a minute.--Dom497 (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- All is now listed. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Jonas Vinther, I took a quick look at your listings and am curious about the differences between the Danish and English alphabet. It seems half of your listings are not according to alphabetical order in the English alphabet. Is there a difference between the English and Danish alphabets?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The Danish alphabet has 29 letters. The first 26 are the same as in English; there are an extra three after Z/z: Æ/æ; Ø/ø; and Å/å. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The alphabetical order is the same in Danish as in English, the three extra letters come after Z. I'm from Denmark too, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Do the Danish experts concur that even to the Danish eye about half of Jonas Vinther recent WP:GA listings appear to be out of alphabetical order?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- 9-15--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm completely lost here! I listed all in alpha' order? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Take Tony's first example. You place "st" in the middle of the "sc" section. Sorting is done by the first letter, then second, then third, etc. So: Aa, Ab, Ac, Ba, Bb, etc. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I've been just lurking here and really don't care about this, but I think if some of you would have just took some initiative to list these instead of trying to build a case against the guy, this would be a non-issue. Just a member of the community expressing my opinion. InTheAM 21:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- InTheAM, I don't know how closely you have been following, but basically, Jonas Vinther seems to want to get permission to not follow the promotion instructions at WP:GAN. I view his haphazard cooperation as a further attempt to encourage us to grant permission for him to not follow the instructions. Everybody has enough things to do with their own interests and trying to guide the newbies. If you have regs that want to create a lot of work for everybody else, that does not fly with me. His attempt to list things in the most problematic way conceivable does not make me any less interested in him assuming responsibility for completing the GA instructions on his own. I don't want to have to follow him around to make sure he does what is right.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger, if you continue to make stuff up, I will report you. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is not me who has been shirking his responsibilities and doing half-assed stuff. You are surely old enough to know the alphabet. I am not making up the alphabet or the fact that you either have trouble with it or were just causing problems.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- What are you going to report me for? The fact that I have been complaining that you did several dozens of reviews without following the instructions or the fact that I am complaining about how when I finally got you to follow instructions you messed up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Jonas Vinther, do you intend to fix the mess you have made of WP:GA by haphazardly listing articles or leave GA messed up and hope someone else cleans up behind you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- You have an edit button as well. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- As I have stated, I happen to not feel it is my responsibility to run around behind him cleaning up what he does not do, but if you feel it is your responsibility you are free to do so. Be advised, however, that it will probably encourage him to continue haphazard GA listings knowing that you will follow behind him.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- There was a big family get-together today, so only now came on Wikipedia. To answer the questions: The Danish alphabet is, as already explained, the exact same as the English one, exact the last three letters (Æ, Ø, Å). The reason there is some confusion is because I arranged them alphabetically by the first word in the article name. I wasn't aware you had to go through each letter alphabetically, but I know that now so I will fix them. And Tony, what I meant about reporting you if you continued to make stuff up is that you, with this edit said "Jonas Vinther seems to want to get permission to not follow the promotion instructions". I have never said or indicated this, this is pure guessing which I take personal. Like Taketa said, it's like you're trying to build a case against me! Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Jonas Vinther I imagine you are enjoying making me the bad guy here, but since you are 1 for 1 on listing articles since the prior issue, now is as good a time as any to ask when you plan to clean up the old listings.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger, I'll have time to do it today. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was InTheAM that said that, not Taketa. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Jonas Vinther, I will offer a rare apology for stating that you "seems to want to get permission to not follow the promotion instructions". You have not actively sought such permission. You may have been confused on who was suppose to list GA promotions. However, the reasoning behind your haphazard listings that you were putting the S's with the S's and such but not really alphabetizing is perplexing to me. I will WP:AGF and assume that you will properly list all promotions going forward. Although we all make mistakes, I expect that you will do better than 16 out of 31 next time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Aloha. I'm contacting you to find out the status of this discussion, recently archived (it should probably be reinstated to the GA talk page as it was archived too soon). We currently have the following five open reviews by the same inexperienced reviewer:
If the reviewer is interested in finishing one of these reviews, then my suggestion would be to close four of them. However, I suspect the reviewer is long gone now and is probably not coming back, therefore, I recommend closing all five as failed and relisting. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Update: I see there are only three open reviews. I'm going to close two of them because they are clearly too difficult for the reviewer to handle and I have a working relationship with the nominator. I'll leave "Cult film" open until I hear otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I moved this discussion here because these matters deserve wider attention than my talk page would give. I originally started the thread, not because I knew what to do about Talk:Caligula (film)/GA1, but because I didn't know what to do about it. At the time, that editor had only started that one GA review; they started the other five later on, and again, I don't know what to do with those. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever works. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say I've taken over the GA review of Caligula, merely that I added some comments to help move things along. I tend not to touch GA reviews unless I am sure I either have a good understanding of the subject or would like to gain one, frequently doing additional research. I can complete it if there's a strong demand, but I'd rather not have this one hanging over my head. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am willing to take the Cult Film review, but I did just make one edit there. and am not sure how many edits over all I have made there. I will check.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Fixed immediately after closure: renom or reopen?
@ChrisGualtieri: was able to address my concerns with Who's Your Neighbor? less than an hour after I closed the nomination as a fail, solely due to inactivity. Can I reopen the GA1, and pass? If we do a GA2, it'll just be a "quick pass" anyway, so it doesn't seem worth it to reboot. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would argue this is a perfect example of WP:IGNORE, but others may have a different opinion to me. -- Shudde talk 23:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't care. I've been so busy as of late - I'd personally reopen the GA1 and change it back and pass it. GA2 would make another page that would be a rubber stamp that would be more confusing in hindsight. Strangely, I got his note before the bot did. Still catching up on Ashlawn... made those months ago when I had a lot of downtime. Now they all are getting done while I got no time. Haha. Just my luck. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've reopened and passed it. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
History of Burger King
The reviewer of this article has disappeared. Anyone interested in taking it over?--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Jerem43:I'd love to do it, but I won't be able to start until this weekend. :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 01:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The nominator is inactive. Therefore, I posted on the WikiProjects listed on the talk page of the article. The funny thing is, I posted on every single WikiProject that the talk page listed (here, here, here, here, and here) yet there has been no response from a single one of these WikiProjects. Could someone be willing to take over the review? The nominator is now inactive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWooHoo (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)