Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

This is the list of Frequently asked questions about nominating and reviewing Good articles. If you cannot find the answer to your question here, you might want to ask for assistance at the GA nominations discussion page.

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 616 nominations listed and 511 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

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32

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

Dated archives

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

Shortcut

WT:GAN

Feedback requested for Talk:Geodesics on an ellipsoid/GA1

Would appreciate feedback from experienced GA reviewers about my review at Talk:Geodesics on an ellipsoid/GA1. Its a complicated maths article exclusively developed by an "expert" (1 or 2 peer reviewed 3rd party publications) who also extensively self references his publications (including several unreviewed ones). I would like feedback on whether I overextended myself while conducting this review.Turnitinpro (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have already been resolved. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the nominator for this article and while I'm happy with the final outcome (wait a year and renominate), I was troubled by the reviewing process. You can see my comments under "Here's a counter-proposal..." at Talk:Geodesics on an ellipsoid/GA1#Interim proposal. The whole process left rather a bad taste in my mouth and would probably discourage other editors who are experts in their fields. cffk (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing reassessment

Can some of the participants close the reassessment about the Eminem album. It's been opened for a month and I don't think it will receive additional comments. Regards.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why "Erica and I are hangging out" is written at the top of the FAQ?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Eminem reassessment, could you link to it? As for the Erica graffiti, that was just odd vandalism; I reverted. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I have a new user I guess you could say reviewing an article I nominated, Sacrifice (2005). He only has two edits on the book and they are on the above article GA review page and another GA review. I'm not exactly sure what I should do. I'm not exactly sure he/she is the best person for the job but I may be wrong. Is there any suggestions?--WillC 14:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say do a speedy delete. His only edit is that page so it is suspicious. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I might as well. It is probably for the best.--WillC 05:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a new reviewer...

The reviewer on Talk:Daniel S. Schanck Observatory/GA1 hasn't come back to the review for 12 days now after I disagreed with several suggestions, I reached out to him several times to conclude it and the indifferent reply that has me thinking the failure to return and finish is intentional. I'd like to get this done and move on to other projects. I'd appreciate another reviewer to pop in so that the review can be concluded.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer was away from Wikipedia for ten days—no edits at all—and posted on December 27 (first edit back) that it would be a few days more before he or she had time to look over your changes. At this time of year, WP:AGF would seem to default to the assumption that other things have intervened, not that the reviewer is deliberately acting to delay the review in a display of bad faith. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I can understand the urge to assume good faith during the holidays, travelling, family, and post-meal insulin-fatigue, but I generally don't...especially in those 10 days when I had the time for almost 800-900 edits, including wrapping up an FAC, starting another FAC, doing a GA review, commenting on TFA/R and a few other projects. I don't start a review and disappear for a fortnight.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2014

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2014 WikiCup will begin in January. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, 106 users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quid pro quo reviews

Are these kind of reviews allowed for GA/FA? Like "you review mine I'll review yours" stuff? I have seen two users doing that in the song articles hence asking. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, if I open a FAC and just sit and wait for reviews, nobody will make any review, and the FAC will be eventually closed as failed because of "no consensus". This system seems a good way to encourage people to review a FAC they wouldn't review on their own. As for GAN, as they stay nominated for an indefinite time until someone makes a review, it is possible to do just that and wait. Cambalachero (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely want to avoid any appearance of a "you support me and I'll support you" deal. When someone specially requests that I review one of their GANs or FACs, I take extra care to be thorough and demanding, just to avoid the perception of favoritism. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is related to the WikiCup, could you let me know, please? I'd hate for the WikiCup to be implicated in any kind of sub-standard reviewing. J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to come clean, I asked to do this with another user, but there isn't any favoritism, our reviews are too, thorough and demanding. I don't see why this shouldn't be allowed, since there isn't any kind of bias whatsoever... prism △ 15:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the reviews are fair and thorough, I don't personally have any objection to it. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was out to get anyone! J Milburn (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February GAN Backlog Drive

@Chris troutman, Diannaa, DragonZero, Edge3, and J Milburn: See below (could only ping 5 people at once)--Dom497 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khanate General, Lemonade51, Moswento, MusikAnimal, and Quadell: See below--Dom497 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Royroydeb, Ruby2010, Sturmvogel 66, Taylor Trescott, and TonyTheTiger: See below--Dom497 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilhelmina Will: See below--Dom497 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With what I think was a successful Backlog Drive, do you think we could hold another one in February or should we take a longer break (March?). Also, any feedback on what could be improved in the next drive would be extremely helpful!--Dom497 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we should wait a bit longer to avoid reviewer fatigue, but this is just one person's opinion. Thank you for helping out with the last one! Ruby 2010/2013 14:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March would work better for me. (Thanks, all, for a successful drive!) – Quadell ^(talk) 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 :If this is related to the WikiCup, could you let me know, please? I'd hate for the WikiCup to be implicated in any kind of sub-standard reviewing. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 15:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 ::I'm just going to come clean, I asked to do this with another user, but there isn't any favoritism, our reviews are too, thorough and demanding. I don't see why this shouldn't be allowed, since there isn't any kind of bias whatsoever... <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Helvetica Neue;font-size: 10pt">[[User:Prism|<span style="color:orange">'''prism'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Prism|<span style="color:orange">'''△'''</span>]] 15:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
+:::As long as the reviews are fair and thorough, I don't personally have any objection to it. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was out to get anyone! [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 15:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 == February GAN Backlog Drive ==