Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/New Proposals for GAN, Part I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log
Nominations list: 525 articles (28 of them are on hold) as of 11:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC) | edit

Discussion[edit]

Proposal 1: Improve the instructions[edit]

  • Support this objective. The process is rather simple, but the instructions are excessive. For example, WP:GAN has 3 screens of instructions/preamble, including two Table of Contents and a permanent 5-line (minimum) backlog notice. maclean (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I think your proposal would help this a lot. The "How to review an article" is not too bad. I trimmed out the list of tables a little while ago[1] and if the RFC on the criteria goes through then I think we can safely remove point 2 as well, but can't see how to trim it back much more. Maybe we could separate the "how to nominate" instructions from the "how to review" ones somehow? Or maybe if/when we do the tabs we have one devoted to guidelines? AIRcorn (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Note I did create the Wikipedia:Good article help page a year or so ago. It was intended to provide a place for new reviewers to ask the "stupid" questions without fear. It has not seen much use unfortunately (until a surge recently). I still maintain it was a good idea and I think it might address some of your concerns. Maybe it could be a tab too? AIRcorn (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It is an excellent and immensely useful idea. Particularly if it shows signs of life, which has happened recently. Just so that you understand, when I had a question a couple months ago I looked at it and saw no posts for a year, and searched and found the project talk page and saw question and answer activity there and figured that the only live help page is the project talk page. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
BTW, one of the biggest problems could be fixed in 5 minutes.....the instructions are mislocated (they are on the nominations page) and unlinked from the GA page. And it's not just a matter of finding them, it's a matter of being reassured that these are THE instructions so that someone has the confidence to know that they know in order to proceed. North8000 (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I have written a draft of instructions here--Dom497 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Great! Also make sure it has a link from the MAIN GA page.North8000 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not done yet. Also, the way I plan on laying out the instruction page will replace most of the green squares on the nominations page so when I'm done, should we delete the squares?--Dom497 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
IMO yes, but not right away. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I can also give it a slow read. Being recently-a-dummy-on-this might make me "qualified" to do that.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It looks good. My one concern is that at this point I would limit it to help for reviewing articles, and deal with "nominating" at a later date. By expanding it to nominating you are getting into a more complex area, e.g. working out overlaps with existing material, and additional advice that should be given. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the nomination section has to stay per after we remove the current instructions on the nomination page and replace it with the instructions page, it has to be there or else there will be no instructions on how to nominate articles. I will change the nomination instructions to provide more detail. Also, I know I'm probably getting a bit ahead of myself but I was thinking that, regarding the tab headings, we can split that into two or three phases where the first phase would be to put the tabs/instructions on the nominations page, the second phase would be to redo the WikiProject page and sub-pages of it to incorporate a different set of tabs, while the third phase would be anything extra. And just a note, by adding the taps to all the WikiProject pages, it would likely cause Template:WikiProjectGATasks to no longer be needed. If we agree to this, I can commit some time to help out.--Dom497 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know tabs nor the current GA structure that you are referring to well enough to comment on that area. And your thoughts on the nomination instructions sound good. Eventually adding a few FAQ items would be useful, but that would be best left for later. One important thing that you didn't mention is that this should be prominently linked from everywhere especially all of the main GA pages. Nice work. The sooner this gets put up the better. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Just so everyone understand's what my post above means, I have created this page with the phases (but no timeline just yet).--Dom497 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
But I was pleading ignorance on that and then commenting on the new help page.North8000 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
You right, I'm going a bit off topic, let's put the phase thing aside for now and worry about the instructions (We can talk about phases after the RfC is over).--Dom497 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I have completed a redo of the current nomination page here. Feedback would be appreciate :) .--Dom497 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for asking at my talk page and I posted my responses there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Excellent work. I think that there should still be a secondary help page (e.g. besides the instructions in the template) that is more editable for reviewers to evolve. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, we did this for Featured Portals and it's been helpful. — Cirt (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Green tickY This proposal has been implemented. Feedback can be posted here.

Proposal 2: Point System[edit]

WHAT point system? WHAT barnstars? Whatever this is about, it's not on the wp:ga page, it's not on wp:gan page, it's not on the project page. For all practical purposes, this program does not exist because it is hidden. North8000 (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a new proposal. Obviously, it won't be at any of these pages you mentioned above. — ΛΧΣ21 17:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
It sounded like they were discussing changes to an existing program. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I think they are meaning the backlog drives, where points are awarded for articles reviewed. In the latest one we decided that it should concentrate on the oldest nominations. This proposal would be a variation of that where older nominations are worth more points (so still encouraging reviewing of older noms, but not excluding the newer ones). AIRcorn (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose Probably too complicated for a typical reviewer to be up on and probably not very effective. North8000 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Tabs[edit]

They say the simplest ideas are the best. To hell with a RFC lets just do this, it makes so much sense (I never realised how much of a nuisance it was to click through the pages until now). AIRcorn (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Started a mock up at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Tab header‎. Needs a bit of work (some of the tabs should be moved around and maybe more/added taken away). Feel free to edit. AIRcorn (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I like it. Those tabs provide easier and quicker navigation between related pages. Though, I prefer "Help Desk" over "Help" and "Discussion" over "Talk Page" to reflect their interactive nature and I think "Backlog Elimination Drives" doesn't warrant a tab as it is more of an ancillary (or special event) page (WP:GAN/R may be more useful as a tab than the historical backlog drives). maclean (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Good idea might stop the page from freezing so much in IE. for the nomination page a separate tab header of the categories may be helpful to navigate. GAtechnical (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Mild support Not clear exactly what and where. Probably fine but not that important. North8000 (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this goes a long way in helping with the first proposal as well, making everything a lot more clear. Wizardman 23:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent idea.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a step in the right direction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I've been here how many years and I just found out about Wikipedia:Good article help today, through the headers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems like a good idea, with a little bit of design work. Thanks for starting the process, Aircorn. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Just make sure it's implemented intuitively. It should make the page easier to navigate. —Ed!(talk) 00:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, as the mockup looks very useable. — Cirt (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Green tickY This proposal has been implemented. Feedback can be posted here.

Proposal 4: Recruitment drive[edit]

Good idea....after we improve the instructions.North8000 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

yes, after the process rejigged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the one proposal that I think would have the greatest impact. And yes, start the drive after we've made all the improvements to the system. --Tea with toast (話) 18:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, after new process has stabilized a bit. — Cirt (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the problem is lack of reviewer manpower. Increasing this through increased recruitment will be the most efficient means of reducing the backlog. Arsenikk (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The team of participating reviewers for this process needs all the recruits it can get. I especially like the idea of mentorship for new reviewers; I would not object to helping out in this aspect. So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support And I'd be glad to help out with mentoring newer reviewers, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Pass/Fail/On Hold/Second Opinion Button[edit]

Ha for a moment there I thought you stole my idea[2], but I see it is the other way around. I support it obviously, if it is possible. Would have it on the review page itself though as that will most likely be the page that you will want to make that decision from. AIRcorn (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, you would have stolen my idea....I posted this proposal first! (Just joking around) --Dom497 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Great minds and all that ;) AIRcorn (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have been working on a script on this for months now, so the idea was originally mine ;) The script will allow an easier way to fail/pass articles, just like closing AFDs. — ΛΧΣ21 03:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Clearly possible, if someone ^^ can write one, it would be great! Unfortunately, I know nothing of script-writing, so I can't volunteer to help. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Absolutely support this Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 12:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support But not that important if we improve and unhide the instructions. North8000 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like a good idea.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Open to this - worth a go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as long as it's well implemented. Majoreditor (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This would be really helpful! TCN7JM 00:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • SupportEd!(talk) 00:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, we have something similar to this at Wikinews, and it works quite well. — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Green tickY A unanimous decision has been made to support and "pass" this proposal. It will be implemented in the near future ONLY IF POSSIBLE.

Proposal 6: Make a recommendation to have some indication of an involved editor before nominating[edit]

  • Support (As nominator) Except in the rare cases where the article needs zero changes to pass, an article without an involved editor (to respond to reviewer's comments) is certain to fail. So 95% of articles with no involved editor will fail; they are a big waste of reviewer time and mental energy which could be spent reviewing articles that have a chance and reducing the backlog. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I don't quite follow. Generally the nominator is the person expected to respond to the review. By involve do you mean someone who is a main contributor to the article? After a recent issue the guidelines were changed to suggest that nominators should contact major contributors before nominating.[3] Is this what you are thinking of or is it something more? AIRcorn (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
A typical case that I have in mind is where the nominator is not involved or not currently involved in the article and thus is not responding to reviewer comments, and there is nobody at the article responding to reviewer comments. For one example of many: Go! Pop! Bang! I believe that I also pinged the nominator. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
That is a not an uncommon occurrence unfortunately. I think the large backlog is partly to blame, you nominate an article and then it takes three months to get reviewed. A lot can happen in three months. However, the backlog is a problem with no easy solution. You can ask someone else to take over, either a main contributor or by dropping a note at a Wikiproject page. You can even fix the issues yourself if you are able and willing. One thing I tend to do if I review an article from someone I am unfammiliar with is to check there contributions. If they haven't edited in a while then a simple superficial review can be done and you can see if that gets any response. If that doesn't then there is no point doing a full one and it can be failed. I have even asked at someones talk page before taking a review (particularly if they are students or IPs). We might be able to add something to WP:GAN that gives an indication of a nominators activity, but beyond that I don't know how this would work. I guess we could require two nominators for each article. I personally wouldn't go for that as it would mean many worthy articles will not get nominated. In many cases there is only one person interested in the article and if they are not around for whatever reason then there is no one else to fix issues. AIRcorn (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I like your idea to check the nominators recent activity. I will add it the revamped instruction page I am working on.--Dom497 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
But if, after seeing that the nominator is gone, you pass on reviewing an article, it's going to just sit there open until somebody else reviews it / gives it a disposition. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Its more about knowing what to expect. If you don't think someone is going to respond to a review you may just give a superficial one. If they respond then alls good and a complete review can be conducted. If they don't respond you haven't wasted much time and can fail the article. I don't really know what the alternatives are. You could automatically remove a nomination if no one has reviewed it after x weeks I suppose. AIRcorn (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Fleshing out my proposal, just add something to the "how to nominate" instructions along the lines of: "Most reviews will require involvement by an article editor during the review process. We recommend checking that someone is available to do this before nominating an article". North8000 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem with that. AIRcorn (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Romanticism. Some driveby reader nominated it & disappeared. Parts of it are very old & by God knows who, but most of it is recent & by a small team including myself, who were not contacted - I don't think I was even aware. A reviewer spent a good deal of time doing a review that no one had committed to act on & no one has. If I were a GA reviewer, which I'm not, I'd at least check the involvement of the nominator, & probably ask about it at the nom, if only to avoid wasting my time. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Good example and point. As a side note, if an individual reviewer checks and decides not to review it because nobody is involved, that just leaves it in the backlog and somebody else will have to review it. My proposal creates an expectation (and thus a "soft" requirement that 99% would follow) which would tend to keep those from getting nominated in the first place, which have a high certainty of failing after wasting reviewer time that could be better spent avoiding/reducing backlog. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
There have been discussions about preventing drive-by nominations (i.e. a nominator must have contributed to an article before nominating it), but I think the concern is that it will cause a lot of collateral damage. For example I know of at least one editors that nominates well developed movie articles and gets them through the review with very few edits. It can also be relatively hard to get a quick evaluation of a users contributions, as a high number of edits does not necessarily equate to high contribution. In my experience most absentee nominators are those that have been waiting a long time for a review and then go on a wikibreak. Maybe in the new instructions we should encourage potential reviewers to start the review (in this case just create the review page), and then leave a note at the nominators talk page to check that they are still around and that they have time to respond. Then the reviewer can tailor the review accordingly. AIRcorn (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I think this makes total sense.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support' - yes, zero contrib noms are generally problematic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – I often pass on doing reviews when I see that the nominator has made no contribs to the article. The easiest way to implement this would be North8000's suggestion of adding a few notes to the "How to nominate" section warning that noms without an involved editor are more likely to fail. We might also put that by nominating the article, you are somewhat expected to be the involved editor, and if you are not available, you should find someone else or leave a note that you are not available. --Tea with toast (話) 18:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, logical, sensible, good idea. — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support drive-by nominations need to be met with drive-by fails. Arsenikk (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support based on personal experience (as a reviewer). Just a few months ago an article I was reviewing had a snag I could not fix, myself, and although I notified the nominator, neither that user nor any other who may have edited the article extensively prior to its nomination (if there were others) replied, nor gave any indication they'd even noticed what I'd said. Needless to say, the article was subsequently failed. When an article is nominated for an important process, such as GA, there should always be someone standing by to see the nomination through to the end, and if the nominator can't, for whatever reason, then they ought to have at least one other user's word that they will step in. So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Green tickY A unanimous decision has been made to support and "pass" this proposal. It will be implemented in the near future.

Proposal 7: Adopt a new FAC-like, multi-reviewer, section-separated, queued format with waiting list[edit]

  • What do you think, guys? — ΛΧΣ21 21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
That makes each article MORE work to review, and limits the number of nominations. North8000 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Multi-reviewer, reviews, Really!!!! Looking at File:FA-GA-monthly-growth-Feb2013.png, it seems that FAC do as a long-term-average less than 50 reviews per month, whereas GAN do about 250 per month, so where are these additional multi-reviewers coming from? Note: assuming like-for-like, i.e. the extra reviewers can't have made a "significant contribution" to the nomination. There are very few GAN reviews asking for second opinions, typically two or three at a time, and look how long they wait for a response!
I'm going to have to oppose this. It just doesn't feel right. With the number of reviews that actually review articles within the sub-sections, I actual think this would make the backlog even larger.--Dom497 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
You are free to oppose :) It was just an idea I had in my mind today and wanted to share with you. — ΛΧΣ21 22:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
If we had more reviewer's (which will take a while, if ever, to happen) then I could see this format working...very well.--Dom497 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
While nice in theory this is simply not possible with the limited number of reviewers we have. AIRcorn (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Having multiple reviewers take on a single review would probably produce a better review (and could be more efficient as a division of labour) but nothing prevents multiple reviewers under the current system. The FAC system has always been plagued with an inability to scale; as illustrated in that graph linked to above, there doesn't appear to be a correlation between their output and activity level over time (more reviewers just means more duplication of effort because they don't use a division of labour). Basically, I like the idea of multiple reviewers, but not the duplication of effort if that meant each being an independent, stand alone review. maclean (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Strongly object: Perhaps the most important point in the comment immediately above, is that nothing prevents multiple reviewers under the current system, however this proposal appears to make it compulsory. This is a fundamental change to the GAN system and takes it away from the light-weight single-reviewer system to a much heavier FAC system. The other-main point of FAC, is that the reviewer(s) can't pass or fail the nomination, they only "vote", the passing or failing action can only been done by an individual "director" and/or a deputy. Also, what is the "section-separated, "queued format", does not that happen already: nominations sit in lists separated by topic and subtopic? Or this is a weasel-worded and undercover proposal to force reviewers to take the top article in each queue? Pyrotec (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would make the problem worse, not better. North8000 (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Likely to cause backlogs to grow longer or passes to decline as the number of reviewers seems somewhat limited.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This will create backlogs, or at least the appearance of backlogs, which will slow the process.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose no, process will grind to a halt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, essentially per above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. We don't need to make the backlog even longer than it already is. TCN7JM 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this is the right approach. —Ed!(talk) 00:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, that works for FAC very well, just not here. — Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it increases the workload, which will just accelerate the backlog. Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The rules by which to scrutinize GA qualifications and FA qualifications are quite different, and I believe the reviewing process for each system was arranged according to the respective rules. By this logic it does not make sense to use a process designed for one set of rules on another. Also, as everyone else has pointed out, the whole backlog predicament... So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Red XN A unanimous decision has been made to reject this proposal. It will NOT be implemented.

Proposal 8: Nomination Limit[edit]

Very Weak Support:Oppose: I don't think I dislike the proposal enough to oppose it but this could work though some users may have a hard time accepting it...like me. I have a few nominations right now and though I have never reached 10, I typically spend all my time on Wikipedia rewriting articles to get to GA (I recently took a wikibreak from doing so). If no one reviews my nominations, and I keep pushing out articles, I may eventually reach 10...then what happens, I have to stop?--Dom497 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, under this proposal YES. It's no fault of yours that your nominations don't get reviewed, but if this proposal gets through, then you can't make any more nominations until your total dropped from ten to nine, or less. Perhaps, you'll be reconsidering your vote? Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
If I reconsider, it will be if I should change my vote to oppose which is looking more and more likely. Yes, it's not my fault that my noms don't get reviewed but then having to wait for one of them to get reviewed is like getting punished for creating too many nominations/getting punished for something I have no control over (other users reviewing my nominations).--Dom497 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Support I know this has come up a few times and I have supported it then so will so now. Most articles that spend a long time in the queue do so for various reasons; the nominator has a bad reputation, the topics are very narrow and specialised, the article is very long or contains hard to verify sources, or there are serious problems with the articles that turn off reviewers. Preventing bulk nominations from these types of article is not really a bad thing. To be honest I think ten is too generous and would rather it was reduced to five. Nearly everytime I have seen bulk nominations they have been in very similar articles so I don't buy the common argument that limiting nominations will limit variation for reviewers to choose from. AIRcorn (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Support air's limit of 5. Certain editors routinely spam the process with multiple articles on very similar subject or group of people without reviewing. GAtechnical (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support? Abstain for now' Question mark is because I have little knowledge of the situation in this area. North8000 (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Some light reading here. I think this was the latest proposal. AIRcorn (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Changed my "Support?" To "abstain for now" because I do not have enough knowledge of the situation in this area to comment.North8000 (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly object. Anyone can nomination an article. There is no requirement whatsoever for them to have passed or reviewed someone else's nomination to "qualify" them for nominating articles. Pyrotec (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you are thinking of quid pro quo, another perennial proposal and one I do not support either. This doesn't require editors to review any articles before nomination, but to have a limit on how many nominations they can have going at once. AIRcorn (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I object to any limit. One editor states above "Certain editors routinely spam the process with multiple articles on very similar subject or group of people without reviewing." which could be read as its OK to spam the system provided that you review, but since when has nominating articles been regarded as Spam. If a nomination is SPAM, then it's likely to fail and involve minimal reviewing effort and if they are so booring to review they are likely to sit there unreviewed. This morning's Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report shows quite a few nominators with more than five nominations. Arsennik, for instance, has seven nominations and he's reviewed 316 GANs so he hardly fits that description, i.e. SPAMMING and never reviews GAN, and I've never failed any of his nominations (I've been reviewing his since 2 November 2008). Pyrotec (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I just thought you might have misread the proposal. It is true that this will effect editors that don't abuse the process. However, I don't think editors like Arsennik are going to be hampered by this much as their reviews will always be picked up relatively quickly. Also dedicated contributors will have no problem drip feeding nominations as they will be around most of the time. However we currently have no defence against an editor that decides to nominate 30 articles they have never contributed to and then leave. Or an editor that has pissed off most of the regular GA reviewers, but still keeps nominating articles. Plus many of these editors nominate articles with similar problems. AIRcorn (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless the system is being over-whelmed with such mass nominators, I'd prefer to postpone consideration of such a nomination limit. Currently, there isn't a problem and I don't remember there ever being such a problem the community couldn't handle. This limit to nominations sounds more like a solution to a behavioural problem. If an individual is abusing the system then the GA community should deal with that one editor. maclean (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - As a continuation of your idea, should we remove all rules from wikipedia, so that the community can fix each problem individually as it arises? There is no need to waste time dealing with behavioural issues, when we can just make a simple limit on nominations that will rarely be reached. RetroLord 10:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The latest limit proposal here seems to be a limit of five and there are currently seven people with more than five nominations, the highest has 17 (and I suspect this is the "problem nominator"), and another five editors have five nominations. My proposal is to have no rules on limits and in most cases its not a behavioural problem since some of these nominators review at least as many nominations as they submit. I object to these other 11 editors being blocked from submitting further nominations until they drop below the "limit", since they are not abusing the system. Pyrotec (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
What about the original proposal of 10? It is rare I would assume for people to have that many noms if they are not mass submitting low quality articles. RetroLord 05:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Who said that if a nominator has 10 nom's, they are all low quality? There could be other reason's such as reviewer's simply not reviewing those articles.--Dom497 (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
But why are the reviewers not reviewing them? And if they are not getting reviewed what is the advantage of adding more articles? AIRcorn (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No idea, I have no interest in video games GAs so I don't review nominations, but why is this being used as the sole justification for putting a limit-block other nominators? None of the other objections given for such a limit "hold water" (see below) and these are clearly not block-nominations, since two go back to last September, five go back to October, etc. Quite clearly that nominator did not drop 17 nominations (I found 23 nominations earlier) in to the GAN list at the same time, so its not "abuse" of the system. They appear not to be "quickfail" candidates, since I assume they would have been removed from GAN if they were. Does that nominator review, I've no idea and does it make the slightest difference? Pyrotec (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can nominate a article at at GAN, they don't have to have a username. So that nominator is entitled nominate articles: five a month (highest I've found in the list) is not abusing the system. That user claims on their talkpage to have something like 35 GAs and four FAs and several A-class articles, so someone is/was reviewing those nominations, or is there a claim here of self-reviewing? Pyrotec (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The figures "Nominators with multiple nominations" are available on a daily basis going back to 9 May 2007. A limit of ten would cover most but not all of the cases. But, why presume that these are all mass submissions: for example 24 articles in the list against one nominator does not mean that all 24 were submitted on the same day and in fact every submission is time and date stamped so it is very easy to check? If there is, say, a three-month back-log in a particular topic, they might have been submitting semi-regularly two nominations per week. Considering as a specific example the editor with 17 current nominations: two of them were submitted in Sept 2012, five in Oct, three in Nov, two in Dec, three in Jan 2013 and two in February, all on different days so they are certainly not "mass submissions". That editor had 25 nominations on 30 November 2012, some nominations have been either withdrawn or reviewed (I don't know the details). What evidence do you have that nominators with multiple nominations have behavioural problems and/or "that they are not mass submitting low quality articles and/or that they are not reviewing? Names of two or two possibly more individuals with possible behavioural problems come to mind (I'm not naming them, but at least one of them reviews as well as nominates). Pyrotec (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Would you agree to any limit? As it stands, if a drive by nom nominates 50 articles in one day, with no intention of addressing the reviewers comments, we can do nothing. Could you propose a limit you would agree to? RetroLord 22:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly a ludicrous argument, where nominators and/or reviewers cause disruption to the system they get noticed and they can get banned. I'm aware of reviewers being topic-banned from GAN for set periods and for life. There is also one reviewer User:Mattisse who has a life-ban as well as that user's sockpuppets Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. A check of User:GA bot/Stats will show that Mattisse and MatthewTownsend were prolific reviewers at GAN. Nominators and editors can be banned as well, it's not just reviewers. Pyrotec (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, firstly which nominator is doing that? The nominator of 17 GANs is clearly not doing that and no-one has produced any suggestion that they are drive-by nominations. If the limit is 50 nominations in one day then that nominator appears to be fully compliant since I've only found a max of five of "his" nominations in one month. Secondly, there is no obligation on the nominator to address any non-compliances. I've reviewed (and sometimes failed for lack of corrective actions) GANs where a nominator has nominated on behalf of a wikiproject and has left other project members to fix problems. So if I agree to a maximum daily limit of 50 nominations per editor will you be happy? Pyrotec (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I very much doubt that anyone editor could nominate 50 articles per day that have a reasonably likelihood of passing. Any of these articles that are visibly non-compliant could be failed and removed from GAN without a full review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the two ways to manage backlog in the long run that have been somewhat successful have been limiting nominations WP:FAC and Quid Pro Quo reviews WP:DYK. In the short run elimination drives work, but the backlogs usually revert within a couple months. I am not in favor of either long term solution in their general simple forms at GAC, although, I do think alternate forms are likely to work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose First of all, is this a major issue? Second, I know that I've had over 10 articles up at once. The problem with limiting is that it places an artificial limit on what I as an editor want to accomplish. For instance, if I want to get all The X-Files' articles up to GA, and I start to work on 15 of them, I can only nominated 10, and then I have to wait. For a really, really quick editor like myself, this creates a buildup and can potentially destroy interest in seeing the articles promoted, as the editor will have to wait for a specific amount of time. Basically, I feel limitations like this are just bad.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the time being I think if we eliminate zero contrib noms then this would eliminate this a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe the limiting factor at GAN should be reviewers, not nominations, so we should be working from the other end. —Ed!(talk) 00:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Ed, if I understand what your saying, your suggesting there should be a limit on how many articles reviewers can review? Wouldn't that just make the backlog even larger?--Dom497 (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
No, no, nothing like that. What I'm saying is we should be focusing our attention entirely on more reviewers, not fewer GAs. —Ed!(talk) 11:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but essentially per Casliber (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it isn't a problem. What is a problem is mass nominations by drive-by nominators, which is caused by these people misunderstanding the process. The solution here is better information, not more regulations. Another problem is that a nom cap will limit the throughput of productive article creators based on review time. A cap limit will not restrict the number of nominators over a time period, but instead include a function related to how quickly articles are reviewed, which is independent of quality. If there is a three-month waiting time, this would create an artificial nine-day average between nominations, while if there is a one-month waiting time it limits to every third day. The result is punishing effective editors (which often have only minor issues which need fixing), many of which are also prolific reviewers, while not addressing the initial problem. I fear it could demotivate some of the most enthusiastic participants. Arsenikk (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I'm inclined to oppose this proposal, in part because in my reviewing experience I've promoted several GAs nominated by a couple of users who submit extensive quantities of articles all with remarkably GA-quality content, and I should not like for their progress in amping the quality of Wikipedia's content and getting this content recognized for that quality to be stifled. On the other hand, I don't suppose there is any rush to necessarily increase the GA population of the encyclopedia - to illustrate my point in a clearer fashion, take this (somewhat fantastical) scenario into mind: A fabulously skilled article-writer has, under the course of four days, produced 20 articles all of GA quality - absolutely dripping with it. A quantity of 20 articles is still going to take 20 articles' worth of time to review, of course, and it will take up 20 articles' worth of the space in the backlog. While the (personified) lists of GAs will undoubtedly be thrilled once these beautiful articles are initiated into their circle, in the course of Wikipedia's run, there is no hurry for this to happen ASAP. If 5 of these articles were nominated one month, 5 the next, 5 after that, and the last five after that (assuming during these months the promotions also occurred), and none of the articles' qualities deteriorated in any way during that time, the GA system would be no worse for wear than if they were all nominated (and promoted) at once.
The humour I injected into that reasoning put aside, I'm a bit uncertain about this one, and I may change my vote before the course of this RFC is finished. So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose 10 nominations at once is a rare enough scenario that it wouldn't significantly decrease the backlog, but the proposal would stifle editors like Gen Quon who rapidly produce a large amount of quality content. I don't know that I've ever reached ten noms, but I've occasionally had 5-7 GA noms up at once due to the long wait for reviewers on politics articles. Individual problematic editors can be dealt with individually. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to close this proposal now, seeing as it is rather unlikely it will gain a consensus to implement? RetroLord 02:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Red XN With the majority of the votes to oppose/reject this proposal, it will NOT be implemented.

Proposal 9: Time could be more usefully spent reviewing nominations instead of making proposals[edit]

Support (As nominator). Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Then we get stuck with the status quo. It is always worthwhile thinking of new idea. Lets say we spend 3 hours discussing and implimenting a button that makes it easier to pass and fail an article. Say it then saves two minutes of a reviewers time each review. After 100 reviews we are in credit. Same with the ones here that are aimed at encouraging new reviewers. If they are successful then it will ultimatley mean an overall saving of reviewers time. AIRcorn (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Not quite, but I take your point. That cost-benefit analysis becomes "true" for an idea that leads to a time saving, new reviewers, etc, but not every idea produces benefits. So if one out of two proposals is beneficial, and saves two minutes, it's 200 reviews before we reach brake-even, for one in three its 300 reviews, etc. However, in many cases the status quo will remain. The archives show previous attempts to ban editors from making new nominations because they've exceeded some "limit"; to make GA more like FA such as imposing multiple-reviewers, etc. So these are not necessarily new or even novel ideas. The GA bot automation was requested by someone still at school who'd done one or two reviews but didn't have the patience to do the admin that goes with it. That bot saves some time, but in many ways its an inflexible system. Perhaps with more involvement up front it could have been better.Pyrotec (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I suppose the Bot issues could be an argument to discuss things more (I personally think it works great, but I arrived after it was implemented). I have attempted a few things over the last year or two and it is a lot of work to get them running smoothly and some of the time I admit to wondering if it was worth it. For example I remember thinking when I was making this table that I could have probably reviewed two or three articles in the same time. I have similar sentiments regarding the backlog drives. Still I don't think we can force editors to review if they don't want to and it will ultimately lead to bad reviews. Also given the high number of articles that go through the process it is probably worth the effort to find even slight improvements. As long as there are still enough experienced editor around to make sure the bad ideas don't get passed. AIRcorn (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 10: Revive Collaboration Center[edit]

  • Support restoring project, oppose adding sentence to instructions. The project seems like a worthy one if there are enough volunteers interested in taking it on; I'm not, personally, but I wouldn't oppose others doing it. (Since the project still seems to exist, I'm not sure it really needs a vote to restore it.) But adding a sentence pointing new nominators there until we're sure the project is functioning efficiently is asking for trouble. The last thing we want to do is create a second lengthy backlog for nominators to wait through. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as long as their are enough members willing to contribute. Oppose to the sentence addition (as above).--Dom497 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know what that is. I assume others are in the same boat. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this will help?--Dom497 (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! North8000 (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Seems unrelated Also the real question isn't whether or not we think it's a nice idea, it's whether or not there are people willing to participate. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 11: Adopt "quid pro quo"[edit]

  • Weak Support as this could work if it works out as it should. One major con is how are we supposed to force the nominator to review the reviewers article.....what if the nominator just nominates and doesn't review?--Dom497 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm concerned that this would lead to rubber-stamp reviews in some cases, and in other cases, discourage prolific editors from nominating their own work (or that of others) for review. The quid pro quo at DYK also has the unintended effect of discouraging reviewers from taking on "more than their share", since it creates a mindset of a strict one-for-one exchange. QPQ is a necessity at DYK because of the high rate of nominations, but GAN generally seems able to keep up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly per Khazar2. This works well for DYK because reviewing a hook is much more simple and less time-consuming than reviewing a GAN, and it doesn't require thorough experience. I'm only somewhat confident in my ability to review a GAN, but I could do DYKs anytime. I think I'll go review a hook right now. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already have a problem with occasional shallow reviews; I think this proposal would increase the quantity. As well, generous reviewers should not be discouraged from accepting further reviews. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose (assuming that the undefined meaning of this is what people have been guessing) This isn't really workable, it has many many problems. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Writing good content shouldn't come with a drawback. A lot of people I know just don't have the time to review. TCN7JM 02:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Pyrotec (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too easy to abuse this and, as Khazar2 points out, it could lead to rubber stamp reviews Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 07:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I came here by accident by taking a look at Arsenikk's talk page. I don't even like the way quid pro quo (QPQ) works at WP:DYK. Maybe it is a quite fair idea there because those articles are generally not that long. Aside from this, my view is that the proposal won't help in that it will discourage new nominations. Normally, the major contributor to any article is the one that nominates it. Personally, many of the articles I've been editing for some time are good candidates for future GA nominations. So far, I've reviewed only two articles and it took me a lot of time to finish them (actually one of them was not even concluded and it was closed because my concerns were not addressed in a proper time). If I'm asked to make a review for each article I intend to nominate I'd simply say forget it. The way I see it, that's not a step forward to improving the project.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Red XN With the majority of the votes to oppose/reject this proposal, it will NOT be implemented.

General discussion[edit]

What is the plan for this RFC. It is labelled part I so I am assuming there is meant to be a part II. However, some of the proposals above seem very uncontroversial and should probably be implimented straight away. Also what is the timeframe. If new proposals are added, particularly ones that propose major changes, they need enough time to be discussed. AIRcorn (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer that you need to go back to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#New Proposals for GAN, Part I, which states:- "Okay. I have started this RFC to propose and evaluate all the new proposals to replace the backlog elimination drives, as well as new proposals to encourage users to become reviewers, or to increase the level of active reviewers, etc. Note: This RFC is not to choose which proposals will be implemented, but to work on the proposals brought up, evaluate them, tweak them and get them ready before we vote for the ones that will be implemented (which will be handled on the Part II of the RFC). Therefore, I invite all users to go ahead and write the proposals they might have in mind to solve any of all the issues that the GAN process is dealing with. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 20:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)". So on that basis, Part I is just the collection of a list, and some working through of details; Part II appears to be votes on the implementation of some of the topics from the list collected in Part I. Secondly, just looking at Part I, some, or most of the discussions, are mostly two or three editors (1st is just proposer and three editors; 2nd is three editors; 3rd is two editors; 5th is five editors, 6th is four editors) contributing and the first was posted on 2nd February and the last one was yesterday, can it really be agreed that this represents any agreement from the GAN community? I suspect not. Pyrotec (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that having that 2 phase plan in place is good in case it gets complicated, but maybe we can skip that for proposals that look wp:snow to pass or fail? North8000 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
How about naming these "pass" and "fail" proposals and see whether we can reach some kind of skip them? Since I raised Proposal 9 here merely as a "talking point", I'm not expecting it to be implemented, so that one could "die" here. Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Another way could be to "announce" the ones that have good support and a workable plan at WT:GAN and see if they get any opposition. If they don't then we can probably safely implement them. I am specifically thinking of #1 and #2 at this stage. AIRcorn (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Proposal #1 I could accept as something that could be worked on, but "agreement" on #2 is going to far. It states in the guidance "I have started this RFC to propose and evaluate all the new proposals to replace the backlog elimination drives..." and #2 states Proposal 2: Point System: WHAT point system? WHAT barnstars?.... #2 not a proposal, its more of a series of questions and a final suggestion that it might be related to the backlog drives. I've no idea what #2 is: does it represent a "pass" or "fail", and if so of what? Pyrotec (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Shit sorry. I meant #3, the tabs. AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed summary of discussions so far:

  1. Yes (format and location yet to be decided)
  2. Not a clear proposal yet.
  3. No clear decision yet
  4. No clear decision yet
  5. Yes, if possible / workable
  6. Yes (to make that recommendation)
  7. No
  8. Yes No clear decision yet
  9. Not an actual proposal

What do y'all think of this summary? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of : "Yes" = do it, "no" means drop it, both with no further discussions North8000 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to accept implementation of #8, so if I have to object to all the others then I will do so. Otherwise, I could agree to 1 and 3. Pyrotec (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I changed #8 to "No clear decision yet" North8000 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think 1 and 3 work hand in hand. I would not want to move the instructions to a different page without having a clear link to it. It is far too soon for number 8. It is one that would probably need to be the subject of its own RFC, given that it has been asked before and not received consensus. I think a quick run through WT:GAN, even if it is something along the lines of "At link to section it has been suggested that proposal happen. Are there any objections." would be a good idea. I don't think there will be for most of these, but it is the most watched page in the project and it doesn't hurt to be a bit pedantic about making changes. AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
My plan was to re-write the instructions for nominating, reviewing, and reassessing under the "Instructions" tab. Then, on the nominations page, I would cut and paste only the nominating and reviewing sections, and on the reassessment page, I would just put the reassessing instructions there. Also I created a rough layout of what the new nomination page will look like with the instructions (I think Hahc21 is going to revise it a bit soon).--Dom497 (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I added "format and location yet to be decided" to #1 I tried to make it a different color to show that it was added later but don't know how to do that. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that Hahc21 is retired, we need to figure out what to do with this RfC. Move it to stage II or should we wait for more consensus (I can send out a message to all WP:GA members if needed)?--Dom497 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I would just take the ones with support here to the WT:GAN page and see if anyone objects. If no one does then we can go ahead and implement them. So far that is just 1, 3 and 6. I see 1 and 3 as basically the same proposal and they combine quite well. As you have done most of the work there you should probably propose that one. Number 6 is just the addition of ""Most reviews will require involvement by an article editor during the review process. We recommend checking that someone is available to do this before nominating an article", which can probably be done with a bold edit. AIRcorn (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Saying that I do have some concerns about Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. I think adding in the reassessment instructions just confuses things. I would stick to just the nominating and reviewing. Reassessment is not usually carried out by new reviewers and if they are new they should probably be going through the community route. I am also worried that the instructions go into too much detail. WP:Reviewing Good articles should contain the detail, while the instructions here should be more concise. It is probably too essayish too. It should be written as a guideline as it will be treated like a guideline by reviewers and nominators alike. Therefore it should avoid giving opinions as much as possible (i.e. "If your nomination failed, please do not nominate it again right away as it will fail again." is not strictly true as there are cases when an article does not receive a proper review and the advice is to renominate). Also some of the language is probably too informal for a guideline. For example I would not include "If your nomination passed, congratulations! Now improve another article and go back to Step 1!" that is more appropriate for a userspace essay. To be honest when I thought about improving the instructions I figured it would be better to simply move them to a sub page and use the ones already there as the base. It would probably be more acceptable to make minor improvements to established instructions than to rewrite them wholesale. Also one complaint was that the instructions are excessive, so making them more excessive is probably not the right solution. The tabs should fix one of the biggest problems mentioned (the difficulty in finding them). AIRcorn (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that if we were to try to elevate help/instructions we would be miring down the process by raising the bar in that way. Right now I think we need to get just get tips and details into a clear-cut place. We could go another level up into a guideline later. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Quick sum-up: proposals 3,5,6 have been "passed", proposal 7 has been rejected, and proposals 1,4,8,10 still need opinions.--Dom497 (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the updated status is marked under the discussion for each proposal. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)