Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk

Abandoned nominations[edit]

For those who've abandoned GAN's they started reviewing, should there perhaps be a set point at which it's best to close as unsuccessful? The backlog would otherwise be held up for an indeterminate length. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

How would it be fair to the nominator if the nomination was closed as unsuccessful because of an MIA reviewer? Gloss 06:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Beforehand, a note would be left on the review page reminding both nominator and reviewer of review and lack of activity. If it goes unanswered for a certain amount of time, the nomination would be closed. The nominator could renominate afterwards. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Nominations can sit on this page for over half of a year, so telling someone "just renominate it" is much easier said than done. If the nominator goes inactive on the review, it's fair to say to close it as unsuccessful after fair warning, but if a reviewer goes inactive, it's probably better to just ask here for a new reviewer - there's often someone around willing to pick those reviews up. Gloss 06:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If I wait six months for a review, which the reviewer abandons, then my nomination is closed without review and I am asked to renominate, that would discourage me from writing further GAs. I hope that does not happen with Talk:Sungei Road/GA1. --Hildanknight (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
what rules are in place if a reviewer does abandon? It should be cause to block accts in my opinion. Its detrimental to further collaboration.. More so than a simple vandal any day. If you can't do somethin right, you best off not do it at all.David Condrey log talk 21:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@David Condrey: Both nominators and reviewers are humans, who may have busy schedules and may have to abandon nominations (or reviews) due to unforeseen circumstances. I sometimes take two months to fix all issues raised by a reviewer. Since I really appreciate patience from reviewers, I believe reviewers similarly appreciate patience from nominators. "If you can't do somethin right, you best off not do it at all" is not how Wikipedia works. --Hildanknight (talk)

Gender inequality in the United States seems to have stalled again, the nominator disappeared back in April and the current review seems to be dead in the water. If I had to pick one to IAR and fail due to lack of activity, that would be it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: How about I change the GA nominee template at Talk:Sungei Road to point to GA2 (not yet created) instead of GA1, per IAR? --Hildanknight (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that'll help you, I'm afraid. You need someone with a subject knowledge. I've done quite a few geography articles, but I wouldn't know the Sungei Road from the Falls Road from the Old Kent Road. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Why? I review lots of GANs outside my normal areas of interest, and appreciate others taking on mine in the same fashion. In fact, in a recent review I started of Antemoro people I explicitly said I didn't know anything about the subject going in and was only reviewing to learn. A diverse reviewer pool helps reduce the likelihood we'll be speaking to an echo chamber - if nothing else, it increases accessibility. Tezero (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I can certainly appreciate that sentiment, granted, but my point was more than nobody has been prepared to give the requested second opinion on the original review. If you'd like to pick the review up and finish it off, I'm sure that would be very much appreciated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I'd personally rather not with that one specifically, because of my own strong feelings against the way the mainstream social justice movement and academia conceive social inequality, which could cloud my ability to be neutral. I'll gladly take another, though, if you've got any ideas. Tezero (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Current procedure[edit]

This is not official by any means, but in my experience we do not fail the nomination if the problem is reviewer abandonment. After suitable notifications establish that the nominator is still interested (if frustrated) and the reviewer has either disappeared or is no longer interested, the nomination is put back in the nominations pool with its seniority intact, and gets picked up sooner rather than later. This is like what we've done when an incompetent reviewer starts up a bunch of reviews, and they need to be unwound without penalizing the nominator. I would be opposed to the proposal that initiated this section to close the nomination as unsuccessful, as the only failure here is on the part of the reviewer. I do agree that at some point the review needs to be considered abandoned, and effectively taken away from the reviewer who abandoned it—we've had to do this many times in the past, and it will continue to happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone seriously started failing articles due to reviewer inactivity, then I'll just revert them, since that's stupid. Either take it up yourself or just place it back in the queue, which takes maybe two minutes. Wizardman 03:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Aplikasi abandoning reviewing process..[edit]

Hi, I just want to inform here that the two articles I nominate which have been reviewed by Aplikasi have been abandon by him during the reviewing process. After seven days, when I ask him on Facebook on what suggestions, problems or improvements should be done on the articles to meet the GA status, he did not replied to my message instead deactivating his facebook. I requested if there is any reviewers can continue the reviewing process. ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 00:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean, Facebook? User:Muffin Wizard, why don't you try to communicate to this editor on their Wikipedia User Talk page? This editor appears to be taking a short Wikibreak as they have not edited for the past week; be patient; they will probably return soon. What are these articles that you nominated? Prhartcom (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prhartcom, I had email him before and he gives his Facebook link for easy contact, but the facebook has since been deactivated. From his last message, I don't thinks he want to reviewed it anymore. But nevermind, another Wizard already help me to delete the reviewing forms. Anyway, thanks! The articles I nominated is Kuching and Tawau. ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 06:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Jonas Vinther alphabetization issues[edit]

There was no response before this got archived at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 20#User:Jonas Vinther is insisting it is not his responsibility to list nominations that he passes at WP:GA from what I can tell. From what I recall, User:Jonas Vinther still had a few alphabetization issues to resolve:

  1. Rise seems to remain malplaced after your effort
    My last comment: "For some reason you understand where Rise belongs alphabetically, but seem to be challenged in terms of being able to actually move it to the right location in the list. at 21:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)" --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    I will fix this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Your effort to correct these edits with these edits leaves Walther von Brauchitsch and Charles Heaphy out of place.
    My last comment: "It seems that these entries are in the W part of the alphabetical listing where the issue is wheather Walter comes before Walther. at 21:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)" --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    Will also fix this today. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Jonas Vinther, which today?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Jonas Vinther, Why do you think this edit is the proper correction?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Jonas Vinther, I see you tried this, but I think von Brauchitsch belongs with the Vs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    No, the usual way for people with the noble particle "von" is to alphabetise by the name, rather than the particle. RGloucester 04:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Hmm. I don't know if there is a difference between van X and von X, but having a last name starting with Ver, I know vans have always been alphabetized to be near me. I don't know any von Xs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference. Unlike the Dutch "van", "von" in German is a particle that indicates nobility. That is to say, it was granted to a family by a monarch. Therefore, it is not actually part of the name. RGloucester 05:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. What gives with this edit?
    When you get a chance please respond.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    I don't understand this question? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    This had already been fixed when I took a look at the page, so no longer relevant. Wizardman 04:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    Yes. He corrected this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Tony, I will be home very soon. I will respond then. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Jonas Vinther, I hope you have made it home safely.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Good one, Tony. I was actually in process of correcting the last two articles in question ... until you disturbed me with your pinging. Oh well. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger, I believe I have now corrected both Rise and Brauchitsch. Are you satisfied with the latest edits? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I had to fix the your recent entry of Egon Mayer, who had been placed between Sidney Mashbir and Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik‎. Mayer however belongs between Charles A. May and Jan Mazurkiewicz. No big deal. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Poor closure of GA review[edit]

An editor has failed the GA review for the Russo-Georgian War article. He cites "NPOV" issues, but has not actually said what these NPOV issues are. He says the article is "unstable", but the "edit war" he referred to was long resolved before the review started, and was merely the product of IP vandalism. He did not give the submitting editor nearly enough time to respond to his concerns. In fact, I fear that the reviewer has a severe bias himself, and has failed the article as a result. This seems unacceptable. A well-meaning editor who has been working on this article for months, who has suffered a five month queue, was not even given the light of day. I'm starting to become quite cynical about this GA process, as it seems that it really is a system that drives editors away, rather than helping them improve articles. RGloucester 19:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please help me here? This is a travesty, and the fact that I can't even get someone uninvolved to comment is not very encouraging. I fear that the editor who had been working on the article is now gone for good. I'd like to get some kind of fairness, here. It is quite clear that this review was conducted inappropriately. RGloucester 00:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, I will re-review the article for GA-status before the end of the month. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I cannot thank you enough. If you will, please leave a message on UA Victory's talk page so that he knows all is not lost. RGloucester 02:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: I don't see why you couldn't have just posted this at the review page or on the reviewer's talk page. 23W 02:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
As you might imagine, I wanted the opinion of uninvolved parties. RGloucester 05:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The person means well, but simply does not know the GA criteria. Namely "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." and proceeds to go through its entire history when "day to day" is the issue. The editor constitutes sentence structure as a reason to fail under 1b which is simply not proper - the editor has a deep issue and is cherrypicking and caught in the act of deliberately making issues to further an agenda. A second review to the actual neutrality of the article is needed because I simply cannot believe that a sentence of "Foo began shelling... as early as....", cited to a reliable source, is clear enough to warrant a failure of the MOS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


Adamdaley has started a bunch of good article reassessments and plopped a bunch of citation needed tags where they were not needed or already inline. I picked one at random and got found obvious signs of alteration on the Nanbu clan. I restored the page, but the editor seems not to be checking sources very well or looking for obvious vandalism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And to elaborate the problem, all the reassessments are all copy pasted and he has not even attempted to resolve the issue or give time to correct it before listing it for removal. A clear example is Cornwallis in India which he called for reassessment after adding just one citation needed tag despite it being sourced within the next paragraphs. It is hard to take Adamdaley seriously in light of this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
So what if I am hard on Cornwallis in India all because of one {{citation needed}}. I will say this, I do not have any of the resources for this article. Obviously, ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) doesn't know me that well and I know of at least one person on Wikipedia who does know I have a high standard for sources/references/inline citations and/or whatever you want to call them. If there isn't one at the end of a paragraph I'm not going to go buy a book just to make sure it's there. Hence the {{citation needed}} template. It's sad to say that there has been quite a lot of people who do not patrol these pages such as the Nanbu clan article, yet while it is a "GA-class". You'll be amazed what I've found among not only "GA-class" but other assessed articles in WikiProject Military History. Some of it funny (in a sad way, these people obviously didn't read the template's correctly hence lack to detail of entering such attributes) and some are clearly templates not being correctly done which I have managed to correct not only several hundred but into a few thousand articles. Adamdaley (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Adamdaley, a single "citation needed" template is not a valid reason to call for a GAR, especially one you have just added. Indeed, your explanation on each of the GARs you've initiated, Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment let alone a "B-class" assessment., is not a valid reason, even ignoring its grammatical infelicities. The good article criteria are specific, and it is up to you to explain which of those criteria are not met by a particular article. The goal of a reassessment is to, if at all possible, fix those facets of the article that fall short of the GA criteria: without an explanation from you of what is actually wrong with the article beyond inline citations, you're not helping it to be improved. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. A GAR should only be carried out after asking projects, former editors, and experienced editors, and then it should be a final All points bulletin to pool together and get the article back up to GA status. I admit I sent Linda McCartney to GAR a while back without too much pre-activity, but the nominator and reviewer had disappeared, the review was inadequate, and there was too much for me to fix in a short frame of time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I'll withdraw all of them except for: Mars (mythology) and Omar Khadr. Adamdaley (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Adamdaley, how soon? It doesn't take long to withdraw them. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As the author of the uncited statement on Cornwallis in India, I would like to highlight that it is a prime example of a place where a citation is not needed at the end of a paragraph. The sentence in question is an introductory sentence whose summary is (IMHO of course) amply supported by the immediately following (and fully cited) paragraphs. Editors who do not read for comprehension have more than once failed to pay attention on this and other articles I've worked on. I concur with the criticism of Adamdaley's GARs, they were not constructively phrased, but I was also assuming that such a criticism would be forthcoming, especially given the unsubstantiatedly harsh assessment on Cornwallis in India vis a vis the others. (If Adamdaley wishes to dispute the idea that the subsequent material doesn't meet the introduction adequately, he can elaborate on the talk page of the article.) Magic♪piano 01:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
What reference is "citing" the following: Part of Cornwallis's work was the introduction of criminal and judicial regulations that to a significant degree still underpin the Indian judicial system.? Reference 23? Adamdaley (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you should actually read the article before just slapping citation needed on it. Just incase you don't understand it is a summation of the section. It tells readers what the section is about. The fact you do not know, even now, is a sign of the problem. To begin with, references 26-33 and 35 are all indicative of Cornwallis's work and their impact on the Indian judicial system. Magicpiano not only did a great job on the article's flow, but on providing the detail in a textbook fashion. Again, he's not making an argument, he is summarizing in a single sentence what the next four paragraphs (the entire section) are going to demonstrate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not disputing what the content is about in the "Judicial reforms" section. I am clearly asking what citation is being referenced at the end of the first paragraph which states: Part of Cornwallis's work was the introduction of criminal and judicial regulations that to a significant degree still underpin the Indian judicial system. ..... Is it citation 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 or 33? Mind you the citations of these ones are from two books. I do not have these books or resources, that is why I asked in my last comment to clarify what citation it is, so I could put the citation at the end of the paragraph. Not a major problem, I would even add it. Which would clearly stop all the comments on this page and others. Not hard, it's a simple request. I really don't want this to be going on day after day, because we will not get anywhere that is why I asked what citation and I'll correct it in the article. Adamdaley (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As explained twice already: that is a summation sentence to tell the reader the content of the section. Adamdaley - The fact you do not have the source does not change the fact that the sentence serves as a lead-in for the section and references 26-33 and 35 are used to cite examples and give the reader the information which not only comprises the section, but completes it. If you are incapable of understanding this concept you are clearly demonstrating your lack of competence. Magicpiano explained this is a prime example of an instance where a citation at the end of the paragraph is not needed. If you don't understand this, read it again and again until you do understand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri and BlueMoonset – mahal kita and gwapo. As I said, they can be withdrawn and therefore you can do the rest. Adamdaley (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I closed all of them as withdrawn except for Mars (mythology) and Omar Khadr; those two remain at GAR. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Review count[edit]

My review count count didn't go up after a recent review. I suspect that it is because I automatically failed the article (without triggering the bot with a "reviewing" edit), then changed the talk page to a failed GAN. I suspect the bot treated it as a withdrawn nomination, however, this is my theory, and I would like someone more knowledgeable about the bot to confirm if this is correct or not. If it is, I guess I will always trigger the bot first before failing an article.Esprit15d • talkcontribs 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I could be wrong, Esprit, but think the bot only counts reviews that you pass. Whenever I failed a nomination in the past, my review count never increased. It also for some reason reset when I had my username changed back in June. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've failed a good number of articles and the count still went up. But most of the ones I failed I failed because the editors never came back or because the editors asked me to fail it. Still, the count always goes up the minute I post the "I'll be reviewing this article" notice, which I didn't do this time, because the article was too poor to even thoroughly review. When your count did't go up, was it on articles that you failed on contact, without leaving a message first? If so, I'm learning that, even if you fail an article outright, you need to "trip the bot" with a message first, to have an accurate count.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 12:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It seemed to happen whether I failed "on contact" or not. Leaving a message beforehand made no difference. Maybe the bot stopped adding failed nominations to the count some point before I started doing GA reviews. I'm pretty sure that for articles where I failed in one review and passed during another, it only added the passed nomination to my count. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)