Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:27, 18 August 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 620 nominations listed and 515 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

WikiCup GANs

In order for the WikiCup to be fair, the WikiCup points for GAs need to be attainable, meaning that GANs from WikiCup members need to be reviewed within a reasonable amount of time. If they're not reviewed within a reasonable amount of time, the bottleneck creates an unfair advantage to the people that are not getting their points from GAs. Since no one wants that, I urge reviewers to tackle the following GAs:

Adabow has one pending, ~~Always Be Here.~~
Hurricanehink has three pending, Tropical Storm Danielle (1986), 1865 Atlantic hurricane season, ~~Hurricane Bridget (1971)~~
Resolute has one pending, 2010–11 Calgary Flames season
Miyagawa has two pending, Meat dress of Lady Gaga, HMS Tabard (P342)
Wizardman has three pending, Rex Ryan, ~~Aruba at the 2008 Summer Olympics,~~ Jeriome Robertson
PresN has one pending, Music of Nier
Piotrus has three pending, Władysław IV Vasa, Ewelina Hańska, and Battle of Bautzen (1945)
Another Believer has one pending, Live at Benaroya Hall with the Seattle Symphony
Sp33dyphil has five pending, ~~Sukhoi Su-33,~~ Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche, Sukhoi Su-35, Sukhoi Su-37, ~~McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II~~

I will be giving barnstars out to anyone that helps clear these out. The barnstar is being done for the review, and will be given irregardless of the final outcome, however insta-passing or insta-failing, (i.e. screwing these people over for a star), won't fly. Please send me a talk page message linking the review once it's completed to claim your star. Since I'm not counting and didn't list the GANs that were already in the process of review as of this posting, I count 20 barnstars for the taking here. Please note that this round of the Wikicup ends on August 29, so this offer is only good until then. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem in their own best interest for competitors to review each others nominations, that would leave those not involved in the cup to continue with the remaining outstanding reviews. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually asked one of them about exactly that, even suggesting that he review people in the other group so that there would be less of a conflict. I don't remember exactly what he said, but the gist of it is that he would feel weird doing so because they would be his rivals for the next round. Thinking about it, I have to agree that there is a COI concern. The illusion of impropriety, even if no impropriety took place, would still have the potential to cause disturbance or even taint the competition. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granted then it would seem fair for competitors to review another article submitted by someone not in the cup. Of course this cannot be enforced only a suggestion, it may even make other editors respond in a quid pro quo arrangement. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should WikiCup nominations be given preference, and why one barnstar per review? Another solution would be for one editor (Sven Manguard?) to review all the WP:CUP nominations. Twenty reviews in one month and three days is acheivable, several people have done that number of reviews (including myself) (and in some cases very many more) in one month. Now that would be worth a barnstar. Pyrotec (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec, you make a very good point (and a point that I was about to make myself) - there is no reason that WikiCup nominations should be given preference by reviewers. Sven, it is not the reviewers' job to make sure that the cup is "fair", and I would even venture to say that the majority of the reviewers here really couldn't care less about people getting points. I know there are even a few (maybe more than a few?) reviewers that specifically avoid WikiCup noms of any sort because of the points/winning mentality they believe the cup creates. It's nice of you to give out barnstars, but to ask unpaid volunteers to give preference to one group of articles over another just so that other editors can get pretty baubles is a bit OTT. Dana boomer (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of you have to do anything if you don't want to. Since my request isn't harming anything I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to dump on it, as oppose to, say, just ignoring the thread. That aside though, the reason I asked others to do this rather than do this myself is that I'm rather awful at recognizing good prose from bad prose. I tried to do a GAN before, and it went miserably. I figured I'd ask the people that do it on a regular basis, since they'd be able to do it correctly. Since I've got nothing but flak for this though, I think I'll just unwatchlist this discussion so that I don't have to suffer though the next round of responses. Have fun making people feel bad for trying to be nice. Real good work you're doing with that. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to do some GAN reviews today if I get time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Sven Manguard. No one (well I'm not) is giving you flack. As you say, it is our choice whether we individually give preference to reviewing Wikicup nominations, and in return you will award barnstars. I ask why preference should be given to wikiCup nominations (and why one barnstar per review) and another editor makes the same point in another way. If you are not prepared to answer the question, that is fine by me. I did review 58 GAN articles in one month in the April 2010 backlog elimination drive (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/April 2010), which was hard work; and the next time round in March 2011 I only managed 15 (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011). Your request is not harming me, but I will not be giving preference to WikiCup GANs, and I don't regard "fairness" of WikiCup points awards as being my responsibility: it belongs to the WikiCup organisers. WikiCup organisers make the arrangements for contestants to get awards but then expect another project to review those nominations: without any consulation. This is not a new topic, it has been raised before on these pages and elsewhere, by contestants not by the organisers, at the last WikiCup and the one before. Your offer of barnstars for reviewing is kind hearted, and has never been made before. I only accept responsibly for reviewing fairly those GAN nominations that I choose to accept to review (at present that's 401 GAN reviews completed and four more ready to start). Other editors may well be prepared to take up your offer, and one has already stated that above. Pyrotec (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly won't be giving special attention to WikiCup nominations. I shall carry on as usual. If the WikiCup organisers need reviewers then they can recruit them. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've just looked at WP:Wikicup and see that, in reviewing, there are only points for points for GAR. I suggest there should be points for GAN, FAR, and FAC - and heavy penalties for careless reviews. --Philcha (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With 30 points for a Good Article and only 2 for a GA review. I would suggest the Wikicup needs to have more respect for the GA process and reviewers. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, but those points are only available to Wikicup contestants. As a GA reviewer I'm not too inclined to sign up for Wikicup in order to get (2) points for reviewing their nominations; I'd probably get eliminated in the first round, and that removes the "incentive" to do any more of their reviews. But more importantly I don't see why wikicup article nominations should gain priority over other nominees, there are also several sets of educational assignements and supprise supprise once these article have sat in the queue for several months panic sets in (to be fair to Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, advance warning is given of his educational needs but its still hard to get sufficient reviewers: other educational coordinators just don't give warnings) and priority is also requested for these GA nominations. Pyrotec (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sven, I appreciate the intent of this message, but I've got to agree with Pyrotech that we should not be giving WikiCup nominations any kind of priority- opening this thread with "[i]n order for the WikiCup to be fair" really only sells it to those who support the WikiCup, rather than GA reviewers generally. I agree that it would be great to get everything nominated reviewed, and I am frequently encouraging participants to get reviewing (especially towards the end of rounds- IE, in a month's time) but there should be no kind of "hey, you reviewers, get on with WikiCup stuff". As for the other issue of two points for a GA review, two points were always meant to be a token amount, a "thank you for doing your bit". Last year, we encouraged participation in review processes, but didn't really reward it- this year, it may well tip the balance, as well as potentially showing competitors who are not "pulling their weight". What we did not want were people "farming" GA reviews for points; this would be potentially very damaging, even more so than, for instance, "farming" did you knows. There were a number of reasons we decided not to award points for other kinds of reviews, but it can essentially be boiled down to two key ones. Firstly, the community at FAC was strongly opposed to the idea, and, secondly, reviews elsewhere are not so quantifiable. A GA review is meant to be one person dealing with the entire review- a review at FAC could be anything from a few words to a long list and considerable work on the article. Of course, different GA reviews take different amounts of work and time (as a reviewer, I understand that) and some reviewers spend more time than others. We did introduce a bare minimum review ("Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will not be awarded points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews." This is not to say that shorter reviews are never decent reviews, it is just to say that they will not be awarded points.) However, we are of course open to suggestions for how reviewing points will work next year. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not having been involved in the Wikicup, I can not speak from experience, but a requirement of submit one review one, would seem better. If only 5 points were awarded for a nomination and 30 points for a nomination and a review, it would give Wikicup competitors more incentive to take part in reviews. Not to say that they do not already take part.Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Submit one, review one is a HORRIBLE idea. In case the size of that text dosen't stress how bad of an idea it is, let me point you no further than DYK. It cleans out a backlog, but in the process the quality plummets because people that don't know how to do reviews or know that they can't do reviews right are placed in the position of having to review submissions. You all already have enough trouble with new reviewers promoting articles that really should never have gotten promoted, this will make it 10 times worse. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already reviewed three out within the last 30-45 days, but I've taken another two Polish-related ones to review. I can't pick up a third because I was tangentially involved with the article. Would be nice if more people stepped up to be reviewers. Would be nice if people NOT in the WikiCup were able to get our nominations reviewed too. Ajh1492 (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've completed 401 reviews in almost three years and I'm not in wikicup. I have reviewed and do review articles from many parts of the world: British, Irish, Norwegian, Spanish-American, Latin-American, Australian, New Zealand, Arab, Indian, Isreali, French, Bulgarian and (I think) some Polish. To be brutally honest, some classifications of articles allways have a long waiting list: they tend to include sports, TV programes, pop stars, etc, and I seldom review many of these, and it seems that the people who write those article seldom review them either. Military articles also have a backlog, probably because there are more military articles being written than reviewed. So, if you want articles reviewed, write articles that editors are prepared to review (I'm sorry if that upsets miltary-article editors: I have no interest in sports, pop stars, etc). Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In biology and medicine (where I both submit and review articles), for instance, reviews are often very quick. I've reviewed pop music articles in the past, but I've found that, often, the editors are not very responsive/receptive to criticism- fairly on unfairly, this has put me off reviewing them as much as I did. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I view the backlog as part of the competition... If I wanted to compete strategically, I'd focus on underrepresented areas. As it is, I knew going in that a sports article = 2 month wait. Reso lute 02:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time for another backlog elimination drive?

The GAN backlog is steadily creeping back up to 300 articles. The last one took place in March so perhaps it's time to tackle the backlog (again)? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears most of the backlog is TV Shows, Sports and Songs. Military history has a smaller backlog. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicup is still running. If we have a drive now it will either encourage more wikicup nominations, which will increase the backlog at GAN, or it will remove the incentives for wikicup contestants to gain two cup points for each review that they do. I had assumed that it would be six months before the next backlog, or even 12 months. Pyrotec (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, most of the backlog is composed of poorly written boiler-plate TV episodes, pop songs and sports articles - many repeatedly renominated when editors don't like being told that the articles are sub-standard. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with doing a drive in October, though at this point I've become exhausted just keeping up with the ever-increasing number of episode and song articles. One can only read so many of them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tend to avoid them for those reasons. Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think many of us do, they're heavy going. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Often badly written too. Time to tighten up the notability guidelines, I think. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easier just to ignore them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the problem is that semi-literate children review them and pass them despite obvious failings. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why reviews done during backlog drives are much more thorough than the days without the drives, because each review will be further examined before awards/barnstars are handed out. The reviewers know that their reviews will be re-examined and if it could impact whether they can an award, they'll do a more detailed job. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well who reviews them, and what evidence is there. Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinator(s) of the backlog elimination drive conduct spot-checks after the drive is over and before awards are handed out. Review progress. by the coordinator(s) are observed through the checkmarks as they progress through the reviews. (See 1, 2, 3, 4.) Being a good coordinator is more than just creating a page, recruiting reviewers, and handing out awards at the end. Those are easy stuff. The most important duty is to ensure that the reviews are done properly. With that said, if you would still like to see a precise evidence showing problematic reviews that're caught by coordinator(s), I'll be happy to show you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I participated in the 2008 drive, (your ref 3), it does not appear to show that any reviews were checked. I participated in the 2009 drive (your ref 4): I did 20 reviews, so 4th highest number of reviews, none of mine were checked but some were. I did 58 reviews the 2nd highest number in the April 2010 drive (See 5), no reviews at all seemed to have checked. I also participated in the April 2011 drive (See 6) and from memory one participant was removed fom the list and some of those reviews were so bad they went to GAR - I reviewed at least one at GAR from that editor. Perhaps you can see where I am comming from? Pyrotec (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. You raised a very good and valid point there. It seems like the recent drives' coordinators did minimal (if any) post-drive checks. I was one of the three coordinators for the July-August 2007 drive (ref 1). We did spot checks at a rate of 1 every 5 to 10 per person and if something catches our eyes we'll examine each review conducted by that individual. Do you think we should resume this practice at our next drive? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of two big reasons I don't review many articles. The first is, I'm not willing to review things I know nothing about. I suppose one could look at the references and see that they are reputable publications and do back up what is being claimed, but I don't feel comfortable doing that. The other is that I some things are just too narrow to need an article, and thus no article on such a narrow topic can be good. The prime example is individual episodes of TV shows. Sure, the episode of the Ed Sullivan show featuring the first American appearance of the Beatles deserves an article, but normally, no. I don't think it would go over too well if I started failing individual episodes left and right, so I just let the sit there. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also avoid pop culture articles, for the same reasons. I believe that most of these episodes fail WP:Notability for only receiving WP:Run-of-the-mill coverage in independent sources and therefore should be merged into season-length lists.

The number of nominations waiting for a reviewer is currently about 20% higher than last year's average, and it looks like pop culture is what's driving this. I don't know if that's really high enough to justify a formal drive. It's probably enough for each of us to think about picking up another article to review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that "each of us" include you? Malleus Fatuorum 18:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually reviewed any articles? Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a joint review, or reviews? LOL. Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It gets my goat when someone who's never been in the trenches starts offering advice to those who have. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I suggest that WhatamIdoing starts reviewing before offering spurious advice. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the last three weeks, I have participated in three GA reviews, including one as a specifically requested second opinion. The last one that I reviewed on my own was Talk:KC (patient)/GA1, started in response to a request on this page and closed (not listed) a month ago. If you'd wanted to know more about my involvement, then Special:Contributions isn't very hard to find.

And, yes, I have been trying to decide which one I'd like to review next. I am most interested in reviewing medicine-related articles, but the fact is that there are currently zero such articles in need of a reviewer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't look back as far as June. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with GANs

A wikipedian has retied and has retired and he had some articals for GAN. What do we do with thease articals. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leave them in the queue. When they get reviewed, if the reviewers determine that the articles meet the GA criteria, they'll be listed. If they don't meet the criteria, the reviewers can decide to not list them, or to hold them. If no one steps up to make improvements during any hold period, they can be not listed after the reviewer ends the hold period. Imzadi 1979 → 03:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may add a note in the template, as in {{GA nominee|...|note=The nominator of this article has left wikipedia}}. I guess that this means the article should be either approved (it may be a good article as it is) or failed, without the option to put it on hold. Cambalachero (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that if the articles are not passed, the relevant WPs should be informed so that other editors are aware of the situation. Someone may step in and make the necessary improvements. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to warn wikiprojects before the review, when we know that an editor is no longer available, to see if someone offers to watch the nomination and adress potencial concerns (as the nominator would). Otherwise, putting the article on hold, waiting several days, and then closing, would be a waste of unneeded procedures; this should be done if we know that there's someone out there who will adress the problems. The fail closing would detail the problems with the article anyway, in case someone in the future wants to do something about them. Cambalachero (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British European Airways Flight 548

I'm minded to review the British European Airways Flight 548 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) GAN, but I've had some previous input to the article. Therefore I'm asking whether or not my input is significant enough to disqualify my as a reviewer. As it would be my first GAR, I would seek the assistance of a more experienced reviewer in any case. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the question is "what is considered 'significant contributions'?", per reviewer criteria. Everyone seems to have a different opinion on what constitutes as "significant contributions". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's edit history shows my contributions. I feel that they are minor, but would welcome an outsite opinion. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Portia labiata/GA1 again

At Talk:Portia labiata/GA1 Binksternet says, "What must be taken out (of the lead): specifics on size, and specifics on color, markings and hairs. ... I believe it is not, that it is immediately overly-specific and thus dulls the reader's interest. If you wish this GAN to go forward with positive results then fix it." Please comment at the bottom of Talk:Portia labiata/GA1#Lead. I think the short description in the lead helps readers to identify this Portia species.--Philcha (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article passed by AJona1992's sock

Techno Cumbia was listed as a good article on 13 August. The review, such as it was, was performed by the nominator. Checkuser has confirmed it and the SPI is waiting administration/closure. In the meantime, should this article go through WP:GAR or simply be removed from the GA list? --Beloved Freak 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diatribe

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

I replied. You have no proof I was socking, how can I if I life in Hartford, CT and not in Florida and Stamford, CT you stupid bitch? True talk, you cry about this shit all the time get a fucking life. AJona1992 (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While adding your charming diatribe to the SPI, you may have missed the part where the checkuser confirmed that the two accounts are the same person.--Beloved Freak 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it at all, how are they the same? I don't live in Florida nor do I live in Stamford, Connecticut. I live in Hartford point blank. If you guys are going to block me for a proposed "sock" then go fuck yourselves. I have been expanding articles and had two GA articles, helped fight vandalism, helped removed two IPs who had gave threats to two other users, I've been helping Wikipedia. So now you want to cry and bitch about how you "believe" that I am socking. Bitch get a fucking life, AJona1992 (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 139: / Line 139: @@
 [[Techno Cumbia]] was listed as a good article on 13 August. The review, such as it was, was performed by the nominator. Checkuser has confirmed it and [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AJona1992|the SPI]] is waiting administration/closure. In the meantime, should this article go through [[WP:GAR]] or simply be removed from the GA list? --[[User:Belovedfreak|<span style="font-family: trebuchet">Beloved</span>]][[User talk:Belovedfreak|<span style="font-family: trebuchet">Freak</span>]] 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
+{{hat|Diatribe}}
 :I replied. You have no proof I was socking, how can I if I life in Hartford, CT and not in Florida and Stamford, CT you stupid bitch? True talk, you cry about this shit all the time get a fucking life. [[User:AJona1992|AJona1992]] ([[User talk:AJona1992|talk]]) 16:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 ::While adding your charming diatribe to the SPI, you may have missed the part where the checkuser confirmed that the two accounts are the same person.--[[User:Belovedfreak|<span style="font-family: trebuchet">Beloved</span>]][[User talk:Belovedfreak|<span style="font-family: trebuchet">Freak</span>]] 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 :::I don't get it at all, how are they the same? I don't live in Florida nor do I live in Stamford, Connecticut. I live in Hartford point blank. If you guys are going to block me for a proposed "sock" then go fuck yourselves. I have been expanding articles and had two GA articles, helped fight vandalism, helped removed two IPs who had gave threats to two other users, I've been helping Wikipedia. So now you want to cry and bitch about how you "believe" that I am socking. Bitch get a fucking life, [[User:AJona1992|AJona1992]] ([[User talk:AJona1992|talk]]) 16:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
+{{hab}}