Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:54, 23 March 2011

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 638 nominations listed and 512 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.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcut

WT:GAN

Review needs deleting

Talk:Love Story (Taylor Swift song)/GA1 was created by an unregistered user, who is not allowed to do a GA review. An admin declined speedy, but is there way to get it deleted quicker than through WP:MFD? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A registered user took over as reviewer. harej 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up on 11 GA reviews to be requested in the beginning of April, 2011

Students in a course I teach on Communication in Groups and Organizations have been working on 11 articles relevant to this topic, with the goal of getting them to GA status by the beginning of April. The list of articles is here. I wanted to alert potential reviewers that the students will be making requests to have their articles review starting on April 4th. I was hoping to reserve some time from reviewers during April to handle this load. Thanks. Robertekraut (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet: There is currently a backlog elimination drive going on throughout March, so you may find that reviews slow down considerably after that as some reviewers may be burnt out. In don't want to rain on your parade, but that is a likely reaction to a drive. also april is not such a good time as it is Easter vacaction. I am also puzzled by how article can be got to GA status by the beinning of April if request are going to be made from 4th April. Did you mean "beginning of May"? Thanks for letting us know anyway. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Sorry if I wasn't clear. Students will have reworked the articles and are hoping to post their nomination by the beginning of April to get a determination by the beginning of May. I certainly understand that reviewers may be burnt out or off duty because of vacation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertekraut (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, reviewers might get to those articles earlier than usual because the backlog is smaller now than it was before the drive began. Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye out for the noms. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by nom

Someone has nominated this Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. Now Ok. Fine whatever you may say. The problem is the article is ok but could be a lot better. And I bet that whoever reviews this will have to do a load of work to it. Please someone chuck it out, so that it can be improved at the right people get credit. Cheers. KnowIGhas (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The right people get credit? That's not the point. Either the article does (or will shortly) meet the criteria, in which case all's well that ends well, or it doesn't (or won't, before the reviewer loses patience), in which case it will fail. It doesn't have to reach its maximum potential, and it doesn't have to be nommed by the person who wrote most of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships is the work of a few registered editors and at least 2 IPs. Neither the nominator nor KnowIG has contributed. In this case, if the review results in a "Pass" WP's a little better off. However, if it fails, there may be no-one to may the improvements suggested in the review, and the reviewer's time could be wasted - and the backlog is causing concern again. In the circumstances, as a would-be reviewer I could avoid the article, and look to review articles that have more commitment behind them.

I also disagree with "The right people get credit? That's not the point." In the long term, WP will benefit from editors who enjoy credit and are motivated to do more, rather than any who pinch the credit but do little of the work. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed but it got reverted I think. But it was months ago. KnowIG (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does one "pinch the credit"? What "credit" are you talking about? Wikipedia doesn't keep special records that list who gets "credit" for working on, nominating, or reviewing a GA. We list solely the article at WP:GA, not the authors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, it seems KnowIG and I both value getting credit for our work. I keep a of GAs I've nominated and on which I'm done the majority of the work (and I note other editors who've contributed to the push to GA). As I said above, I think WP will benefit from editors who enjoy credit and are motivated to do more. --Philcha (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents/GA1

Can someone delete this page. It was a premature GAN nomination, which I quick failed. The nominator had started the review page. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the nomination template has been deleted from the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikki. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Famine in India/GA3

~~Can this be deleted? As the page history shows, this review was accidentally started. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thanks HJM. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case of confusion, I have now completed a review, hence the blue link. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3

There is something that warrants close scrutiny occuring in the netball articles. User:LauraHale is from Illinois and understands American English. She nominated both Netball and Netball in the Cook Islands for GA. Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA1 was reviewed by Canadian Paul who failed it on March 11 because "the overall structure of the article needs to be redone and that extends beyond the reach of a seven day hold." Five hours later, she renominated it and I reviewed it in Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA2. Although we are both from Illinois, LauraHale claimed that she did not understand what I was saying. She insisted that when I said "women's basketball" that I meant "netball" because in a few countries up until 1970, some people called netball women's basketball even though my meaning was clear from my statements. She repeatedly assured me that she understood that an "Olympic sport" was one that was played in the Olympic games, and then repeatedly revised the article to state that netball was an "Olympic sport", when in fact it was only recognized by the International Olympic Committee as a "sport" and was not a part of the Olympic Games schedule. After giving her one last opportunity to address important concerns, I failed the article on March 20 stating that it needed a careful rewrite to eliminate POV. A few hours later, without the rewrite, she nominated it a third time and Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3 is being reviewed by User:Hawkeye7. I am seeking clarification because Hawkeye7 made substantial contributions to both this article (diff and diff) and the main Netball article as well. So I am wondering if he would be allowed to review the article under the rule, "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review."

In the meantime, LauraHale also nominated Netball on March 5 and User:Bill william compton started Talk:Netball/GA1. Although Bill made good efforts to communicate with LauraHale, he ran into similar WP:HEAR problems, and he put out the call for a second opinion. I volunteered to take over that review on March 13. We are still working through the concerns with that article.

What is the proper procedure to handle a reviewer who made recent substantial edits? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now raised the concern on the reviewer's talk page, and left specific examples of problems in Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3, and we will see what happens. Racepacket (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution (pre-Mubarak's resignation)

Is this article eligible to be a GA or not? -- 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't see how nominating it would be a problem since the section of time you are talking about has stop evolving since he has resigned, and you have a separate article for this period. KnowIG (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive reviewer: Netball

I figured I would put this here for the record. I with my nomination for Good Article status for netball. The most recent reviewer insisted on putting in factually incorrect information (about the history of netball and about the Olympics) and a whole set of other issues. The most appalling of which for me included making unsubstantiated allegations of plagiarism and insisting that the burden of proof was on me to prove that I didn't: He wanted me to scan book sources I had used and e-mail the pages from those sources to him. Given this appalling, factually incorrect allegation that the reviewer could not support, given that we'd bent over backwards to try to meet his demands and we weren't making any headway (and the article was actually degrading), I decided it was time to retract it. When we put this article back up for good review later, I would really appreciate any support to insure that he does not review the article again. --LauraHale (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 Is this article eligible to be a GA or not? -- 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 :Don't see how nominating it would be a problem since the section of time you are talking about has stop evolving since he has resigned, and you have a separate article for this period. [[User:KnowIG|KnowIG]] ([[User talk:KnowIG|talk]]) 08:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
+== Disruptive reviewer: Netball ==
+I figured I would put this here for the record.  I with my nomination for Good Article status for netball.  The most recent reviewer insisted on putting in factually incorrect information (about the history of netball and about the Olympics)  and a whole set of other issues.  The most appalling of which for me included making unsubstantiated allegations of plagiarism and insisting that the burden of proof was on me to prove that I didn't: He wanted me to scan book sources I had used and e-mail the pages from those sources to him.  Given this appalling, factually incorrect allegation that the reviewer could not support, given that we'd bent over backwards to try to meet his demands and we weren't making any headway (and the article was actually degrading), I decided it was time to retract it.  When we put this article back up for good review later, I would really appreciate any support to insure that he does not review the article again. --[[User:LauraHale|LauraHale]] ([[User talk:LauraHale|talk]]) 08:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)