Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:07, 3 November 2010

Template:FixBunching

Nomination process

The backlog is huge! Is there something we can do to restrict nominations?: There have been complaints about the perceived backlog in reviewing since the Good article status was created in 2006. Generally speaking, we don't want to restrict nominations along their path to GA. In the beginning, as many as 100 nominations were waiting for a reviewer to volunteer. By 2011, each day typically listed 330 nominated articles, of which 260 were waiting. By 2016, 580 were listed, 460 waiting; by 2021, 470 were listed, 300 were waiting. For comparison, today there are currently 660 nominations listed and 542 waiting for a reviewer.; While it may seem overwhelming, a large backlog isn't a bad thing. It shows that many nominators want to use GA as a tool to improve the encyclopedia. It also allows reviewers to choose from a wide selection of articles that interest them. From a nominator's perspective, the main concern is the expected wait time before receiving a review, not the number of articles on the nominations page.
Can't we force nominators to review articles?: Quid pro quo reviewing (editors must review an article before nominating, perhaps after a grace period) was regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to lower quality reviews and fewer nominations from excellent content creators who may not wish to review another person's work.
What order do nominations appear on the Good article nominations page?: One advantage of reviewing articles to help the Wikipedia community is the GAN appearance order: the more articles you have reviewed relative to articles you have nominated, the higher up in the queue your nomination will appear on the GAN page. Note that above this, order preference is given to nominators who are new to GA.
What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic) IP address?: Any editor with significant contributions to the article may nominate an article for GA status (while only registered users may review), so significant-contributor IP nominators are permitted. Non-significant contributors should follow the advice above for editors who have not significantly contributed to the article. Dynamically changing IP nominators may want to clarify to the reviewer that, despite their signature, they remain the same person.
Can I nominate an article I haven't significantly contributed to?: No. Nominations from editors who have not substantially contributed will be removed unless the nomination shows that the article's regular editors were consulted on its talk page alongside a note on the GAN template showing their commitment to the process, e.g., |note=Adopted following extensive improvement by another editor. In the past, many drive-by nominators did not know the article or its sources and did not respond to questions by the reviewer.

Review process

I want to review an article. Do I have to review the oldest unreviewed nomination first?: Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. You may review any nominated article you are not involved in, regardless of the nomination's age or position in the queue.
As a reviewer, I want to help the nominator improve the article, but it already meets the criteria. What am I supposed to do now?: The purpose of a GA review is to determine whether the article meets the GA criteria. Article-improvement discussions are intended to prevent near-misses in nominated articles that almost meet the criteria. If the article already meets the criteria when you first review it, then explain exactly what you've checked in each of the main criteria (e.g., "I have verified there is no original research, copyright violations, plagiarism, unreliable sources, bias, edit wars, or untagged images.") and list it as a Good article. "Quick passes" are as legitimate as quick fails, although they are less common. Please do not make a list of nitpicky details or exceed the written requirements of the Good article criteria in an effort to make the review look rigorous. Instead, thank the nominator for presenting such a polished article, and encourage them to submit another.
Who can respond to the review?: The nominator is expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article, while everyone interested in the article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. Nominators have no special privileges over other editors except that they can withdraw the nomination.
Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't?: The nominator has an interest in seeing the article become GA, so the nominator will likely want to respond to the reviewer to improve the article. In fact, all editors interested in the article are encouraged to respond to reviewers' concerns. However, nobody, including the nominator, is required to. If the reviewer identifies concerns directly related to the Good article criteria and no one addresses the concerns, then no one should be surprised if the reviewer declines to list the article. If the article does not meet the Good article criteria after the reviewer has waited a reasonable amount of time for the nominator to make improvements, the reviewer is sure to fail the nomination. Future article editors may benefit from review comments on how to improve the article.
The nominator disagrees with the reviewer. Can another reviewer take over?: If your GAN experience is not going well or if you are disagreeing with the reviewer's decisions, then you may allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer). If the reviewer has not yet failed the nomination, you may try asking them to ask for a second opinion. Other than these, another reviewer does not normally take over an active review. You might want to read What the Good article criteria are not. To prevent avoidable disputes, reviewers should either not make comments unrelated to the Good article criteria, or they should carefully label those suggestions as optional (e.g., "I know that citation formatting is not required by the Good article criteria, and I will not consider this when making my decision, but if you might send this to Wikipedia:Featured articles later, then that process requires consistent citation formatting").
Does an article have to be on hold for exactly seven days?: No. Whether to place the nomination on hold at all, and the length of any such hold, is for the reviewer to decide. Depending on the quality of the article and the responsiveness of the nominator, a hold may not be necessary. If the reviewer decides that it is, they may choose longer or shorter periods of hold time. The reviewer may even modify the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page to include a "time" parameter, for example, "time=fourteen days", and the {{GANotice}} template used to convey messages to the GA nominator to include a "days" parameter, for example "days=fourteen". Keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GA nominations report page.
What should I do if a review page becomes inactive?: This can happen for a number of reasons. Review pages should only be started by reviewers who are willing to take an active interest in the article and are committed to completing their review of the article in a timely manner. Sometimes another editor (such as the nominator) starts the review page by mistake. A reviewer can fix this by placing their signature after "Reviewer:" towards the top of the review page, but if no reviewer is forthcoming, it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions may be posted at the discussion page. If a new reviewer is truly needed, follow the instructions page under "What to do during a review if it seems abandoned". Do not use this process to void a review you disagree with.
I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified!: That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your comments while independently deciding on their assessment. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and also decline to list the article as GA. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the Good article criteria, you can initiate a reassessment.
How can GA be reliable when a single reviewer decides?: The quality of a Good article is only as reliable as the most recent review and articles may deteriorate if unattended. The GA process deals with both of these issues by allowing repeat reviews by any registered user at any time. The process aims to encourage article improvement and build consensus on quality through multiple reviews—even though a single reviewer makes the decision whether to list the article according to the GA criteria. Any editor may contribute to any review discussion and reassessment is available when the "one reviewer decides" model breaks down.
What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process?: You can bring those concerns to the discussion page to get help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in any dispute that you have.

Shortcut

WT:GAN

Feedback/reevaluation of the GA bot automation of WP:GAN

As promised at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Transition_FAQ, it is now time for comments on the automation of WP:GAN implemented by User:harej using User:GA bot. Obviously there were some teething problems in the first few weeks, and there may still be some things to iron out, but there have not been major problems as far as I am aware. Comments on whether the automation has been effective at saving time would be welcome, as would suggestions for improvements.

This reevaluation only concerns the GA bot automation of the GAN page (i.e., listing nominations and their current status here based on the {{GAnominee}} talk page template). Nevertheless, editors may have suggestions for further automation of GA processes. Geometry guy 20:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the reviewing view point the bot is generally unobtrusive and it saves having to manually update the WP:GAN list every time there is a change of status, e.g. pass, fail, hold. The various bots as a "team", however, don't seem to handle Holds too well. When an article review is initiated the bot updates WP:GAN fully; but should a Hold be placed at a later date on the review, the status on WP:GAN is updated to Hold but the original date/time stamp remains. The net effect of this is that a review that has been ongoing more than 7 days, rightly, appears in the Old reviews (Nominations that have been marked under review for 7 days or longer) subsection of Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report#Exceptions report; but when a Hold is placed the article appears instead in the Holds over 7 days old subsection under the original review start date and not in Old reviews subsection. I have three reviews which are more than a week old: one has been On Hold for 11 days, but is shown as being On Hold for 14 days (I don't object too strongly on this one the nominator appears to be inactive, but has been emailed); one it has only been On Hold for three days, but it is shown being On Hold for 10 days; the other has been On Hold for three days, but is shown as being On Hold for 9 days. I have no objection to them appearing in the Old reviews subsection (they don't appear) but I do object to them appearing in the Holds over 7 days old subsection under false dates. Pyrotec (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any possibility of getting these bots to add the good article symbol on the page after it has passed, or is that excessively difficult? Would save us reviewers a lot of hassle (and I sometimes forget to add it). Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should actually be very easy, now that I am looking at my own code. There's already a set of code for what happens when the bot detects an article that has passed review, so it's a matter of adding to that. harej 02:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added it. It is designed so that if you add it yourself, the bot won't add another one. If it works, we'll know, and if it doesn't work, then we'll really know! harej 02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bam! Bam! harej 21:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty impressed, I think - it's one of the smoother pieces of automation I've seen, and it copes gracefully with the occasions when people try to do things themselves. For future features, perhaps it could automatically notify nominators when a review's begun? Shimgray | talk | 23:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is going well. Some of the complementary bots are having problems with the new system and layout of the WP:GA. At Wikipedia:Good articles/recent‎, {{u|LivingBot} sometimes goes down and does not know how to play catchup with the GAbot. Also, I think there is another bot that sometimes follows behind and updates T:AH, but it does not seem to always do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think they would have had a fix queued, given that the bot was in trial for a year. harej 02:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?!?! It wasn't the automation per se that broke LivingBot, it was the splitting of WP:GA into subsections, which I didn't even realise was in the implementation until someone pointed out LivingBot hadn't been working for two weeks... And I think we're mostly sorted now, are we not? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 17:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: I think the automation has been a big improvement, so thanks for the code and the maintenance. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very good, kudos to User:harej. Most of the recent problems that I have seen have been when nominators try to do things themselves rather than following the instructions, also when the review is written above the substituted Reviewer: <signature and time stamp> tag. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you help me understand what type of bot activities can be anticipated for this recent promotion [1].--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bot seems to have placed United Nations Headquarters at the top of the list for 'Politics and government' Is this something to do with the lack of a signature? Cavie78 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have fixed that now. The bot should pick it up within the next ten minutes or so. Sigh! if only people would read the instructions! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unequivocally clear that there is approval for ongoing automation of the GAN page. Indeed, this discussion has resulted in another task (adding the good article icon) being automated, saving reviewer time. Concerns and requests can be raised on this page at any time. Perhaps we can also review again the entire set-up of GAN in 6 months time (late April or early May 2011). Geometry guy 23:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot just added Wonder Boy in Monster Land, a video game GAN I just nominated, to the "Sports & recreation" list. –MuZemike 23:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems tro have sorted itself out now.[2] You nominated it as Sports and recreation[3] and User:PresN sorted it.[4] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the WP:Good article nominations/Report showing the nomination of The Mask of Zorro as malformed. I checked the timestamp two days ago and reformatted as per other timestamps, but the report still shows it as malformed? Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; dates need to be in dmy format for the bot (it said October 26 instead). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! - missed that! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Reviews

I would like to review articles, but I lack the time, experience, and depth of knowledge of the system to do so. I would be willing to do joint reviews with someone with more experience. Perhaps this would let that person be able to do more reviews because he would have help with these ones. Also, many complaints with GAR is that it is subjective to one person. This would certainly help that problem.--Iankap99 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a training system would be a good idea, if there were enough people willing to train new reviewers. DC T•C 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, have you read the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and whatever pages it links as requirements? If so, and if you have a bit of commonsense, then you know enough. Give it a try. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just dive on in. There isn't a quota, if you can only do 1 or 2 a week and it takes you 3 days to find the spare time to review an article, fine. No one will complain as long as you dont leave an article hanging. I would probably start on articles that look reasonably easy and maybe not necessarily something you are an expert in but at least within your sphere of knowledge. First check it against the "quick-fail" criteria in WP:RGA. WP:WGN is another article that helped me a lot. Some new reviewers tend to be too strict and hold articles up to a higher standard than the GA standard calls for, that article basically explains what you are looking for. You may also want to look at articles on hold just to get a feel for what other reviewers are looking for. If you have to fail an article (not fixed after hold, or too far gone to even bother with a hold), be polite and tell them specifically what needs to be fixed. If you are rude and/or vague the editors will be unhappy. Overall you just need to dive in, start slow, and just get experience. Aaron north (T/C) 05:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln GA

This isn't totally kosher, but since it's a WP:VITAL article, I'd like to make a request. Could someone take this GA with an eye towards FA, and do it over the next two weeks (instead of just one). Our (my co-nom and I) ultimate goal is to get this to FA, and I happen to have time to make improvements starting tonight and for the next 13 days. I know I should take whatever review I'm lucky enough to get, whenever I get it, but the article is so fracking long and important, it's not like most of the GAs I've done. My review to nom ratio is about 1/1 (I think I'm +1 reviews but not sure), but if someone wants to make a deal, I would be willing to do a review or two in return (Lincoln is more than twice as long as most articles, after all). Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it covered. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space Jam

I nominated the article for GA status. I read it over, and I made a few edits to make sure that the article wasn't vandalized. Railer-man (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been listed by the bot. It will be reviewed in due course. Have you checked whether it meets all of the good article criteria?Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books page links

WT:CITE#Linking to Google Books pages. RfC on whether WP:CITE should say Google Books page links are not required but are allowed in footnotes, and that editors should not go around removing them. All input welcome. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Would anyone want to help me out with writing a GA review guide for the Signpost? I figure that's a possible way to increase our review numbers, because they're at very low levels again (under the 80-10-10 unrev/rev/hold mark we need to average). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever writes it should emphasize how the process requires fewer steps than it used to. harej 04:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<smiles>harej is right - it should mention that: for people who found the old system cumbersome, it might help entice them back. Wizardman, why not start putting something together in a sandbox page and let us know the address? I would be happy to check it out and comment / make contributions, as might others. Would that be feasible? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a cunning plan. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get a draft working tonight and post it here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to GAN instructions = all nominators must review

Proposed change to GAN instructions = all nominators must review at least one GAN candidate, for every one article they nominate. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bad faith assumptions by Rd232, not about the issue

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note: this proposal arises from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Proposal_5, where I had proposed that nominators at DYK who have a number of DYKs to their name (eg 5) must review one DYK per nomination. Since Cirt has opposed that there on the basis that GA doesn't do this, his bringing the proposal here in a form I would expect to fail is good exercise for my AGF muscle... Rd232 ^talk 13:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am slightly sceptical about that because my experience is that many nominators are not fully aware of what quality level is expected of a GA. I would fear that the quality level of GA's would plummet as nominators would rush reviews to be able to nominate their own articles, or simply apply lower quality thresholds because they would then expect the same threshold to be applied to their articles. Maybe it should only be a requirement from nominators who have already succesfully nominated several articles (maybe three?) - that would make sure that they are aware of the expected quality. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good in theory, but how will this rule be enforced? María (habla conmigo) 13:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas? -- Cirt (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not too hard: as part of the GA nomination, those with more than 5 GAs point to a GA they've recently reviewed. We'd expect people to honour the system, particularly as people would notice sooner or later if editors aren't doing it. Rd232 ^talk 14:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my DYK proposal was aimed at experienced DYK participants, and reviewing DYKs is easier than reviewing GAs. So I'm less sure that this approach is a good idea for GA than it is for DYK. We could for instance work harder to bring in WikiProjects (since depth of knowledge matters more at GA than DYK). It's also a similar problem to lack of comments on RFCs; and I've suggested in the past some kind of lottery system (from a population of editors willing to be selected) to try and bring people in, and not just wait for people to wander by. But nonetheless, a requirement that people with 5 successful GA nominations at least contribute to reviewing one GA per future nomination, even if not taking sole responsibility for a review, could work. If the requirement is relatively "soft" in this way, rather than demanding the entire shepherding of a GA through the review process qua primary reviewer, it's not so onerous, and more of a nudge in the direction of what's needed. Rd232 ^talk 13:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had 13 DYKs, yet I know for a fact that I don't want to review DYK noms; I'm not too interested in the process and there seem to be a group of "regulars" who know what they're doing. However, I review at least one GAC for every nomination I make, because I feel more strongly about the process; same with FAC. I suspect there are other editors who don't review GAs/FAs simply because they don't want to, or don't know how to. Therefore, I can see how this proposed rule wouldn't work. Reviewers may be hard to come by, but rather than creating a faster turn-around time, this proposed rule may only force people away. Personally, I could see it being recommended that nominators review an article or two while theirs waits in the queue, but to force them to prove they're reviewing articles creates a sense of burden. Burden does not equal fun for a lot of editors who find writing articles more enjoyable than reviewing them. Perhaps if they are somehow forced to review articles, they simply wouldn't nominate at GAC. María (habla conmigo) 14:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I've had several DYKs and contributed only a little reviewing; but that's how the problem there comes about, especially when you have a DYK daily quota. On reviewing GAs - I don't think requiring experienced GA nominators to contribute a little to reviewing need be that much of a disincentive, if it's explicitly phrased so that they contribute as much or as little as they want to any given review. Getting someone with 5 GAs to pick a GA they find vaguely interesting and read it and say something constructive should not be that onerous. We could also ease in the requirement very very gently and see how it goes; say one (large or small) review contribution per 5 successful GA nominations... which concretely requires hardly anything, but gets people thinking and looking for articles they might be interested in reviewing in order to get one done. Rd232 ^talk 14:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting and actually ties into an idea I had a while ago on setting up a GA "karma" tracking system. Right now we have a bot that updates WP:GAN based on reading the {{GAN}} template on article talk pages. Could we set up the bot to record on a page when an editor:

transcludes {{GAN}} (thus becoming the GA nominator), and
creates the GA review subpage (thus becoming the GA reviewer)?

It can then be visible to everyone the difference between the number of GA nominations and GA reviews an individual editor has done. I think if this is put in place it won't be necessary to explicitly mandate that a user must review a GAN for every article nominated; the visibility will encourage editors to do reviews to keep their "GA karma" in balance or on the side of reviews. –Grondemar 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's much merit to this idea of "GA karma", and agree with all you've written above. Another bonus is that it requires no change to the current reviewing system. Just have the bot keep track of names on a separate page, and those who submit excessive articles without doing reviews will quickly find their articles are ignored in the queue. Count me as a supporter. Sasata (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But would they really? I certainly don't choose which articles to review based on how many the nominator has reviewed; I base my choices on whether the topic is interesting or not. If someone writes several articles relating to aviation (a topic in which I am interested), but does not review any other articles, I will still review their article because I find other articles less interesting, and therefore I do not wish to spend the time going through them with a fine tooth comb. Put simply, I cannot see many people deciding which articles to review based on how many articles the nominator has reviewed. wacky wace 17:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not (unless there are equally interesting articles with different karma scores prominently displayed, which may not happen too often), but a low "karma" score would, especially if there's a backlog, give a certain moral pressure to look harder for some vaguely interesting articles to review. It may not be enough on its own, but it would be a helpful complement to any requirement, and certainly a good start on its own. Rd232 ^talk 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might not check the karma list before picking an article to review, but I would, and others would as well. I think this would introduce a subtle (beneficial) shift in the reviewing equilibrium without requiring any drastic measures. Sasata (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm only one person, I have been recently reviewing articles of editors that have been doing reviews. That is why I did Grondemar's "2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl", FencesandWindow's "The Story of Marie and Julien", and CrowRZA's "Me Against the World". --maclean (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that flat out requiring every nominator to review another nomination is a bad idea. Firstly, not all nominators are confident about reviewing, and it can take a while to get your head around the criteria. I didn't feel confident about reviewing until I'd had a few articles go through the process, and followed a number of reviews done by experienced reviewers. I've also seen a few reviews by less-experienced reviewers that either aren't thorough enough, or are focusing on things not strictly covered by the criteria. It's certainly been a learning curve for me, but I dread to think what kind of reviewer I'd be if I'd been forced to review nominations back when I made my first nomination. Secondly, everyone here is a volunteer. Presumably most of us come here because we enjoy it. Some people don't enjoy reviewing, and forcing them to do so will just make them stop taking apart in the process altogether. That would help the backlog, but not the project as a whole.

However, we do need more reviewers. I think it would be a good idea to encourage experienced nominators to take part in reviewing. Also, perhaps we should make the step into reviewing a bit easier. I've heard quite a few people say that they just don't feel confident enough to do it. Perhaps we could encourage more mentoring or joint reviews, where a new reviewer does a review and has a more experienced reviewer take a look and make suggestions as necessary. I understand the impracticalities of having reviews checked by a second reviewer en masse, but perhaps having some more experienced reviewers volunteering to help mentor 1st-timers would help encourage more people to take part. Basically, taking "You may also ask for the advice of a mentor" and making it a more prominent part of the process.--Beloved Freak 17:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal should be understood as on the general idea, not "from the first nomination", which is fairly obviously silly. Hence my suggestion to start from 5 successful nominations, and also to not expect people to do sole reviews, but contribute something. That helps ease people in, since it implies some collaboration with other, probably more experienced, reviewers. Rd232 ^talk 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree. I was responding to people's comments in general, but also to Cirt's initial proposal, which made it sound like "from the first nomination". --Beloved Freak 18:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly this proposal appears to come from someone who does not do WP:GAN reviews, or at least does not appear to have done any in October or November 2010. A crackpot idea. Pyrotec (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "crackpot"... lovely. Anyway, do you mean the general idea, or the form in which Cirt put it, implying from the first nomination (see my comments above). Rd232 ^talk 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the benefits of the "crackpot" idea (I think it's a "crackin'" idea myself) is that you may choose to completely ignore its existence, no harm no foul. Sasata (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, enforcement of the rule is another issue. Would breaking it result in delisting, or just deprioritising of nominations? Rd232 ^talk 17:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No enforcement required. Those who believe in the concept and want to reduce the free rider problem will use it help them select articles to review, those who don't, won't. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to get involved in a dispute with any particular editor(s). I would suggest that if individuals are concerned about a backlog in WP:GAN then they accept personal responsibility and do some reviews. This proposal and some of the comments above appear to put the "blame" for the backlog on the nominators and therefore seeks to force nominators to fix the problem, i.e. you can't nominate any more until you review some. The use of emotive words such as free rider is not helpful; and I fail to see how producing an article to getting it through GA is "free riding". Pyrotec (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (EC) How is a term "free rider" more emotive than "crackpot idea"? Contrary to what you've written above, the idea doesn't "force" anyone to do anything, no "blame" is being ascribed. Again, if you don't like the idea, fine, but why deny others the chance to implement it if they feel it will help reduce the GA backlog? Sasata (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against this proposal. First, how can we prevent 'tit for tat' from occurring? The last thing I want to see is editor A promotes a sub-par article written by editor B, and at the same time editor B promotes a sub-par article written by editor A. You know, it happened before (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide question #15). Second, some people are good writers but not good reviewers. If we enforce this rule, then we're inviting poorly written articles into the system as approved by those reviewers. Third, I don't want to see noms being ignored simply because that person nominates an "X" amount of articles but doesn't review as much. In fact, ignoring is the worst approach because this person won't come back to nominate more even if there are indeed articles out there which meets the criteria. While it's a net-positive to the GA system, it's a net-negative to the entire project. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On your last sentence: that situation is only a net positive to the GA project if you think that the project's goal is to have a short list of articles waiting for reviewers, rather than an accurate identification of all GA-meeting articles out there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Projects don't nominate articles. Editors nominate articles; and in my experience the nominator usually (but not always) fixes any problems that arise. I've almost never seen a project fix problems. Pyrotec (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose requiring anyone to review GAs. The very furthest down that road that I'm willing to go is a friendly, non-coercive message to frequent nominators that invites them to voluntarily review nominations (on the grounds that they are clearly so familiar with the criteria, not because they owe the process anything).
I would be happy to have some statistics that show who is nomming/reviewing. Perhaps seeing that a significant number of people do both, and that there are some reviewers who never or rarely nom articles, and that most articles are not nominated by someone with five successful GAs, would put this "free rider" notion to rest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also oppose requiring anyone to review GAs. The karma system, in effect, serves as the "gentle reminder" you suggest. Sasata (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I've done over 320 GAN reviews and I seldom nominate. Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good for you, that's some great karma :) Sasata (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps this thread needs some re-factoring; I don't think Pyrotec, OhanaUnited and WhatamIdoing are responding to Grondemar's proposal. I like the idea because there is no enforcement and no extra rule or extra work. It is simply a list or monobook feature that illustrates a user's 'GA karma' kept up-to-date by bot. Preventing 'tit for tat' is a much larger issue. How does the current system prevent 'tit for tat'? -maclean (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The top of this section states: "Proposed change to GAN instructions = all nominators must review at least one GAN candidate, for every one article they nominate [after they reach an agreed level of experience, eg 5 successful GA nominations". It did not orginate from Grondemar, it seems to have been proposed by Rd232 at DYK and appears to a proposal being forced on GAN. I will continue to strong protest against it. Pyrotec (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better idea guys. Perhaps we can just note somewhere that doing reviews makes it more likely that your articles will be reviewed in a timely manner. No more, no less. I can speak from experience, my articles are generally reviewed pretty fast, as are Sasata's, to use another example. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~!Votes~~ Subhead struck. WP:NOTAVOTE isn't negated by cutely putting ! in front of "vote". Rd232 ^talk 21:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While I have reviewed five or six good articles and nominated around the same number, I think that actually forcing people to review nominations is unfeasible. I support the idea of a "karma" scale, which can be viewed by everyone, as I think this would undoubtedly increase willingness to review articles, since I know I wouldn't want everyone knowing that I was spending time writing and not reviewing. I oppose forcing people to review articles, since we have some excellent content contributors who would be spending their time much more wisely by doing something they are good at, and thus increasing the quality of the encyclopedia. To actually force them to review articles would be wasting their time, but encouraging editors to do so is an excellent idea and, in addition to a "karma" meter, what we should be discussing here is how to effectively encourage people to review articles, rather than force them. wacky wace 18:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose for the reasons given by OhanaUnited. I'm against this proposal. i.e. First, how can we prevent 'tit for tat' from occurring? The last thing I want to see is editor A promotes a sub-par article written by editor B, and at the same time editor B promotes a sub-par article written by editor A. You know, it happened before (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide question #15). Second, some people are good writers but not good reviewers. If we enforce this rule, then we're inviting poorly written articles into the system as approved by those reviewers. Third, I don't want to see noms being ignored simply because that person nominates an "X" amount of articles but doesn't review as much. In fact, ignoring is the worst approach because this person won't come back to nominate more even if there are indeed articles out there which meets the criteria. While it's a net-positive to the GA system, it's a net-negative to the entire project. Pyrotec (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "forcing" or "requiring" GA reviews for reasons given above, strongly support "encouraging" reviews with gentle, friendly social pressure. Sasata (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karma system. I will try to implement it. Expect no perfection or ability to account for the past. harej 18:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: GAN is a deliberately lightweight process, the seemingly continually proposals by some to require nominators to review, etc. is all rather pointless. If editors think that there is a problem, they can resolve it themselves by going out and reviewing some nominations rather than wasting everyone's time with yet more bureaucratic proposals. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think 'forcing' people to review articles will lead to all sorts of problems. Cavie78 (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per above Aaroncrick ^TALK 22:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and the karma system doesn't work YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I respectfully defer to the above consensus expressed by the community. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot

HALT Do NOT pass Go, do not collect $200, do not read the first few words of this thread and then !vote accordingly. Please read my comment.

Comment. If User:Cirt did intend to torpedo this idea by presenting in a form unlikely to succeed [I'm assuming he didn't intend that Rd232 ^talk 11:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)], that would seem to have been a success. Because as soon as a badly put proposal reaches the WP:TLDR stage people stop reading the discussion, where the idea may be refined, and vote (sorry !vote) on the initial presentation alone. Here, for instance, I, who actually thought it was a good idea for DYK and possibly helpful for GA, have tried very specifically to argue that the requirement should not involve lead responsibility for reviewing; input to any review should be acceptable, however minimal, as at least making an effort and a step in the right direction. As I said above, this would encourage collaborative reviewing for those new to it, those not good at it who never will be can make small contributions and others will gradually get their feet wet and later graduate to being primary reviewer. And of course, to emphasise, this would only apply after an agreed experience level; I've suggested 5 successful GA nominations. Now, I think that sounds a lot more appealing than Cirt's presentation, but at this point the well is somewhat poisoned. Anyone got chlorine tablets? Rd232 ^talk 21:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per the reboot, and doing my best to agree with both rd232 and pyrotec: at the moment, [[WP:GAN] page section "How to nominate an article" has only this text, embedded in a para near the end of the instructions: "If you are a registered user, you are encouraged to help by reviewing other articles." I notice harej has made a comment about implementing karma system. Not sure what s/he means, but harej's has a good record on implementing improvements, so would like to see what they have in mind. I wonder if tweaking the top box might be a start:

Good article nominations

Wikipedia:Good articles is a list of articles that meet a core set of editorial standards but are not featured article quality. This page provides a list of articles which have been nominated for consideration for good article status, as well as instructions for nominators and reviewers. Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article. There are currently 660 nominations listed and 542 waiting to be reviewed. Please consider reviewing an article against the good article criteria now.

Beyond karma-encouraging changes, I don't think there's a lot we should do. We have versions of this discussion pretty regularly, and it tends to always come back to the facts that not all reviewers are writers or vice versa; that the whole project is voluntary, so such injunctions can have negative effects as well as positive ones; and that it isn't always clear that there is a problem anyway. I can see issues looming at DYK, and I feel for the editors trying to work things through there, but I don't think introducing this kind of standard across the two platforms is the way to go. The backlog here at GAN appears basically in a long-run equilibrium, and the last exercise we went through to clear it was a huge success (kudos once again to the lead actors, particularly Jezhotwells, Pyrotec, SMasters, Wizardman and Canadian Paul), showing we have the capacity to address spikes and accumulated noms. The issues at DYK are different and, i have to say, much more challenging. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with many others, I am opposed to requiring nominators to review. It would lead to distortions in the system and conflicts of interest.

However, asking/encouraging nominators to comment on open reviews would have several benefits. First, nominators would learn about reviewing and hence be more likely to become reviewers and/or better nominators. Second, it would encourage a greater feeling that while GAN reviews are decided by one editor, all contributions to the review process are welcome to help that editor make a good decision. Geometry guy 23:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those thoughtful comments. I'm quite happy to use a "nudge" approach (prominently encouraging) rather than any formal requirement. Done right it might be very effective in getting the advantages we want without the disadvantages. Rd232 ^talk 00:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main thing in terms of how to nudge is to make clearer the expectation (or at least hope) that experienced GA contributors do contribute something to reviewing. It would probably help to say something explicitly about easing into reviewing through collaboration rather than as primary reviewer. Rd232 ^talk 11:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about some comments, not about the issue

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note on above bad faith comments by User: Rd232

I did indeed post the above suggested proposal here for discussion after Rd232 (talk · contribs) addressed a comment to me at WT:DYK which stated: "If you're suddenly keen on improving GA, go propose something there, and drop a link here. Thanks." Then, after I followed the advice of Rd232 (talk · contribs), the user seemingly flip-flopped or somehow forgot that it was he himself that suggested this to me, and commented that my posting here was somehow, "good exercise for my AGF muscle". Let me emphasize this: I think this was a very good discussion and a proposal that at the very least, did indeed merit this discussion. And let me also emphasize that I personally for myself - do indeed try to review at least one GA candidate for every one that I self-nominate. I do not expect or demand this behavior of others - but I do try to maintain this review practice, for myself. So to say the least, I am extremely disappointed by the bad faith and hypocritical comments above by Rd232 (talk · contribs). I did indeed post here after a suggestion by Rd232 (talk · contribs) that I do so, but I also strongly felt that it was a discussion worth having, and a proposal to be considered and discussed on its merits. The community clearly has expressed a consensus viewpoint about it, and I of course respectfully defer to that consensus of the community. -- Cirt (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AAGF. I said it was good exercise for my AGF muscle, not that I'd sprained it. Rd232 ^talk 11:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully request you to please strikeout those inappropriate comments above, especially in light of the fact that it was you yourself that suggested that I post here to this talk page in the first place. -- Cirt (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equally respectfully, I don't think it's necessary to strike, it is not an accusation. To be somewhat clearer, the reason it was good exercise is because the concept at DYK, as I'd suggested it there, clearly involved experienced DYK contributors (by some agreed measure). It is obvious that experience is more important in GA reviewing than DYK reviewing, yet your GA version of the DYK idea omitted this. My remarks were intended to declare that I was accepting that as good faith error, but that it took some effort to do so because it's a glaring error and you had opposed the idea at DYK. Rd232 ^talk 11:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal was just that, a proposal to start a discussion. It was not in any way a formalized proposal structure. I have actually changed my mind at DYK - I agree with most of your proposals there. Your tone and bad faith nature, combined with your flip-flopping and hypocrisy throughout this entire process - even while I have simultaneously reversed my positions to agree with you, and followed your own suggestions to post to this talk page - is most inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you pay attention to what I've actually said, there is no flipflopping or hypocrisy. There is also no distinction between a formal and an informal proposal; the way things work around here with new ideas (as you ought to know) you basically have to present things pretty well initially; collectively people tend to oppose ideas that sound bad and leave it at that rather than run with it and explore the associated problems and possible solutions (it takes some motivated individuals to break that collective tendency - we had some of that here, but it's always a battle). Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My initial post was a request for a discussion to take place. -- Cirt (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, cool down. I think we all get a general gist of what occurred and how feathers may have been ruffled but from my reading it probably wasn't done in bad faith—more likely a poor choice of words on one side that the other party felt had to be responded to—so let's nip this in the bud before the mud really starts flying shall we? Lambanog (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thank you, Lambanog (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karma system

This comment [5] by Grondemar (talk · contribs), followed by this one [6] from harej (talk · contribs), do indeed sound promising. Perhaps we should have a more focused discussion, on how this could be implemented? -- Cirt (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 Proposed change to GAN instructions = all nominators must review at least one GAN candidate, for every one article they nominate. Thoughts? -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 13:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
+{{hat|bad faith assumptions by Rd232, not about the issue}}
 :'''Note''': this proposal arises from discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Proposal_5]], where I had proposed that nominators at DYK who have a number of DYKs to their name (eg 5) must review one DYK per nomination. Since Cirt has opposed that there on the basis that GA doesn't do this, his bringing the proposal here in a form I would expect to fail is good exercise for my AGF muscle... [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 13:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
+{{hab}}
 ::I am slightly sceptical about that because my experience is that many nominators are not fully aware of what quality level is expected of a GA. I would fear that the quality level of GA's would plummet as nominators would rush reviews to be able to nominate their own articles, or simply apply lower quality thresholds because they would then expect the same threshold to be applied to their articles. Maybe it should only be a requirement from nominators who have already succesfully nominated several articles (maybe three?) - that would make sure that they are aware of the expected quality. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·<span class="Unicode">ƛ</span>·]] 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 :Sounds good in theory, but how will this rule be enforced?  <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:Yllosubmarine|María]] </span><small>([[User talk:Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">habla</span>]] con[[Special:Contributions/Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">migo</span>]])</small> 13:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)