Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

---

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsOctober 2024 Backlog DriveMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport

Proposal

Today I would like to bring to the attention of the community an article that just today failed GAN, Bikini, and why this article's experience at GAN leads me to believe that the following element of the GA review criteria:

Note that the standard holding time is seven days; however, reviewers can shorten/extend the time limit if they wish.

Needs to be modified.

This article failed its first GA nomination in January of 2014 under the authorship of Azx2 for important structural reasons that were never addressed during the review; nonetheless despite minimal activity on the page I think it is important to point out that long-time reviewer TonyTheTiger started the review on 16 December 2013 and did not finally fail the article until 11 January 2014, a period of just under a month. This is an advisable level of discretion that I have also attempted to practice in my own reviews and have indeed come to expect from my reviewers as well.

For instance, when I reviewed Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles also in January 2014 nominator EnigmaMcmxc stated that "I am currently suffering from the flu. Is it possible for the deadline to be extended by about a week, until I am feeling better and able to work on the recommendations and the article?". My immediate reply was to assure him that "Take what time you need, I've always seen "two weeks" as more a suggestion than a rule." Later on the situation reversed itself; I was unavailable to finish the review and it was Enigma's turn to wait the week that was necessary for me to unbury myself. End result: the article passed GA. Everyone wins.

As you all know, GAN has an enormous and almost consistently-growing backlog of articles to review and as a result a lot of the article that are put up for GA review have been listed for months or more. In the intervening time a lot of things can happen IRL that take an editor's attention away from Wikipedia. Another example: in 2010 Casliber, another superlatively experienced editor, began reviewing my nomination at the time, Davidson Seamount. The original review came down on the 6th of February; my response did not come until the 17th—I had simply not logged into Wikipedia in the intervening time and quite frankly forgotten I had a nomination listed at all! When I "rediscovered" this fact I very nearly did a flip—I felt so lucky to have gotten a reviewer who knew the virtues of patience! The rest of the procedure was short and sweet. End result: article passed GA; everyone wins.

Aditya Kabir had been working to slowly but consistently bring the Bikini article up in quality from shortly after it failed its first GA nomination. In June of 2014 he listed his article for peer review; I reviewed it. All of my points were handled and we've maintained a cordial relationship since then; though I wasn't willing to handle the GA nomination (and didn't think that, having already been involved in a PR, that was advisable) I watched with interest and encouragement (something so rarely seen on here nowadays—but I digress). He finally felt confident enough to nominate the article in November. Between the time that he put it up for review to the time that it was reviewed and placed on hold, exactly three months passed (27 November to 27 February). SNUGGUMS was the reviewer, and an initial comment on the review page was "I don't think there's too many problems".

Then the following exchange occurred, which I strongly believe is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong:

1. this has made progress - S
2. I hope I can address all issues - Kabir
3. So do I. You've got 25 hours - S
4. Can you please extent the deadline a little bit? - Kabir (edit summary: please)
5. While this is being failed for now, but your efforts are commendable and you did well. [sic] - S (edit summary: failing)
6. GA Fail

My fellow Wikipedians. This is unacceptable. When an editor who is actively working on a nomination asks for an extension to allow them to continue the work they are doing on the article in question, you don't fail the GAN whilst doling out pity in your failing statement; you ought to have no right to do so; you ought to consider the activity of the editor in question and, gauging the situation, offer whichever length of an extension you deem necessary for the writer to do what they're there to do—improve the encyclopedia. This ought to be the way we operate, and it ought to be what the guidelines say. I don't know how quickly GA reviews were once handled in the past, when this particular element of the nominations procedure was created—perhaps S even felt generous, he had granted twice the allotted time after all—but if an editor has to wait three months for their article to finally be reviewed, the reviewer can wait more than one week for the necessary work to be finished.

I propose that the guidelines on review length be rewritten to better fit what I believe the situation has always been anyway and always ought to be:

Note that there is no standard holding time; reviewers can shorten/extend their time limit as they wish, taking into consideration the level of activity the nomination has generated and whether or not the nominator has asked for an extension given their off-wiki circumstances. The ultimate goal of a good article nomination is a good article—the reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen.

It's furthermore unfair to Kabir that he must wait another expected three months for his article to be reviewed again, and I petition that this review be reopened and the editor given a time extension.

Thank you. ResMar 01:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I quite clearly set a deadline of seven days when giving the review. Seven days is standard. I felt seven days would be enough when first reviewing, and in the end didn't feel enough progress had been made. However, if you feel I failed too soon, you may seek a WP:GAR. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Enforcing a deadline in this way is silly. It is being a dick to a fellow editor and it does nothing to help the common project which is about improving the encyclopedia. This is the place where IAR comes into effect for a sensible reviewer. What you did was simply arrogant powertripping·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re: standard time. Law over sensibility does an enormous amount of damage to the project every day—your actions are the BITE equivalent of crocodile threshing.

Re: not enough progress. This directly contradicts a statement you made on opening the review. I see plenty of progress. Besides, the amount of progress isn't the point—the amount of potential progress is what matters.

Re: "I felt seven days would be enough when first reviewing". You ought to change your expectations. ResMar 02:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I support your rewording in practice and agree that sort of counting-down-the-hours type thing is no good, but it seems like common sense to me. Your proposal makes it out to be an endemic kind of thing, when in my experience I've always been patient with other nominators and them the same toward me. If you could condense it to sound less urgent, I'd give a !support. Support per below. (00:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)) 23W 02:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it is personal; this is the one thing out here that raises my blood pressure. Apologies. ResMar 02:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I support this idea. we have quickfail for poorly-prepared noms. pedia is more and more rigorous, so would rather a thorough review than a quick one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support, by all means. I've seen this happen to people who had waited six months for a review, and it really is upsetting. It also happened to me, briefly, but the reviewer quickly understood his error and reopened the review. There needs to be a give and take, room for flexibility. This proposal does that. RGloucester — ☎ 03:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what the proposed change is. I've always taken the 7 day guideline as a rule of thumb and advise nominators I'm happy to leave it for as long as necessary, provided I can see work converging towards a GA. I have closed down reviews when there's been a complete lack of response despite pings, but that's not what's being discussed here. We need to work together on these things, not whack each other over the heads with petty rules. To me, that's what IAR is all about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The current rule allow reviewers to extend time if they wish and not laying the specific rationale for how this should be done has failed Kabir in this instance, and so the rules need to change to prevent this from occurring again elsewhere in the future. Although as I have enumerated the broad consensus is extension whenever possible some reviewers evidently still take it as word of law, and are seemingly allowed to do so because the phrasing of the guideline entirely implies the discretion of the reviewer. I want to take away this privilege from people that treat the timeline as word of law and/or have extraordinary definitions of what constitutes sufficient progress.ResMar 13:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. Striking my comment and adding support. 23W 00:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - sounds like common sense to me. We don't need to censure the reviewer in the example you mention, because they were following the guidelines, but anything we can do to make the process less onerous for people is of benefit.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - if an article is being actively worked on, you're much better offf waiting a day or 2 before closing it, than failing it simply because the improvements weren't fast enough. The point of GAN is to improve the quality of articles and recognize this improvenemt, not to set deadlines for fixing problems. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support with requirement to notify nominator - I support the changed wording, but given the problems discussed above, I suggest that there should be a requirement to notify the nominator on their talk page (if the nominator isn't active on WP, then a talk page message, with default preferences, will send the user an email whereas a ping won't). AHeneen (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• It takes several months to get a reviewer but asking that reviews be open-ended seem like it would make the backlog worse. Is that the trade-off we are willing to make? maclean (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The key is tht this proposal refers to cases where the article is actively being worked on. I would say at least 48 hours after the last edit in that direction without a request, or a up to a week if requested, as long as thew user doesn't appear to be trying to wikilawyer his way into an indefinite extension. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. I understand the motivation here, and I'd support a rewording phrased differently, but I cannot get behind a timeframe statement that includes this: "The ultimate goal of a good article nomination is a good article—the reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen." That may be the goal of a nomination, but not all nominations (even excluding the quick-fails) will meet that goal, and it is inappropriate to imply an expectation to the contrary. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resident Mario:, in response to your question below: no, it does not. I am not unsympathetic to the reason this proposal was opened. However, I think the approach that is being suggested here is the wrong solution. Currently, it is possible (albeit extremely rare), for a reviewer to "slam the door", as it were, after 7 days on hold. That's not good, because it's not collegiate editing behavior. Equally intransigent editors, under the proposed policy or something similar, would be encouraged to submit clearly deficient articles to GAC (knowing the backlog gives them a long buffer), then hold their reviewer hostage by making incremental improvements and demanding continual extensions. It will, after all, be GA-ready someday. Or, more succinctly: quickfails should not be the only fails. If the community really feels that the current guideline is insufficient in the light of a few instances of misuse, the solution is to be more explicit rather than merely change who has the power to control the process. Personally, I think what we have is fine, but in the interests of collaborative editing, a counter-proposal, below. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The standard holding time is seven days. The reviewer can and should extend this holding time, generally in seven-day increments, if there has been meaningful and substantive progress toward satisfying the Good Article Criteria. In recognition of the project's volunteer nature, nominators' reasonable requests for additional time should also be honored. However, held nominations should be closed as passing or failing within four weeks barring exceptional circumstances.

• Support A month with caveats for good sense extensions would be more reasonable. CorporateM (Talk) 22:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as written: like Squeamish Ossifrage, I'm leery of the "ultimate goal" statement. Not all nominations are in the sort of shape that will lead to a Good Article even with a significant amount of work. If the article is reasonably close to being a Good Article, and if the nominator is making progress on the improvements noted in the review, then there's no reason not to extend the hold beyond seven days, and even do more than one extension; if the nominator is not making progress and is unresponsive, then the nomination should not be held open. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Squeamish Ossifrage: If only specifically the statement that "The ultimate goal of a good article nomination is a good article" were to be removed would that be enough to sway you? ResMar 21:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

To me, the rest of that sentence wouldn't make much sense on its own once the first quoted part is removed: The reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen. The word "this" has lost its referent, and if what remains would take a month or two to fix, I don't think the reviewer should have to allow so long a time, since the article would have to be in very rough shape to require so much work. I think I'd drop the entire final sentence, not just the first half, but you might want to add another criterion in the sentence that remains (noted by italics): "... taking into consideration the level of activity the nomination has generated, the issues still to be addressed, and whether or not the nominator has asked for an extension given their off-wiki circumstances." BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dropping the final sentence entirely would neuter it so that it will be barely better than the policy that is currently in place in that it would fail to provide any protection to nominators whose reviewers define extraordinary terms in reviewing. Quickfails are quickfails, but if the nominator thinks that it is possible that the editor, given their track record and demonstrated commitment, can over some indefinite time bring the article to GA standard, then above the minimum threshold of a quick-fail for too much work being needed or not enough of it being done I believe that the editor should be given as much time as they need, within reason, so long as they continue to work consistently. Again, this isn't some novel revelation, this is how we've always—mostly, unfortunately—functioned. ResMar 02:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Then I am still opposed. The remainder of that sentence doesn't allow for the "within reason" you believe in, and its "this" still has no referent. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, this mindless deadline enforcement has been bothering me for awhile. A couple of weeks ago another editor even drive-by closed an ongoing but protracted review that I was conducting and which that editor had no involvement in whatsoever. Previously I have been forced by other editors to fail articles undergoing active but protracted reviews, both as a reviewer and a nominator - inspite of both reviewer and nominator being OK with the slow pace. There is no deadline. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of someone being forced to fail an article before against of their own reasonable opinion. That is extraordinary! If someone attempted to do that with a review I am in the process of making I would rollback their edits to the end of the Earth, as I consider that sort of behavior to be totally and completely out of bounds. ResMar 02:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - obviously. The quoted exchangeis absurd. I've left GANs open for as long as it took the nominator to improve the articles on many occasions. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - It should be done this way because you can't just have the nominators to instantly address the issues, especially when you review it at that specific time where the nominator is not free. As said, there is no limit in time for an article to be reviewed and some issues are difficult to address when there are no easy and reliable sources available. I also reviewed an article before and editing an article, especially a long one is not that easy.Vincent60030 (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support, with thanks to Resident Mario for bringing this issue to attention. Aditya Kabir: I would be happy to conduct a third GA review of Bikini, starting right now. Just let me know if you are ok with that. I see no need to re-list it at WP:GAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Shaygan Kheradpir

The review for this page has been accepted by @Kai Tak:, however the article is not GA or stable, due to an SPA and likely covert COI @Intchar*: that keeps adding information that mis-represents or isn't actually supported by the sources, or just adds original research. I brought this up at COIN and the discussion was archived without a response from Intchar or anyone else. I've pinged both @Drmies: and @Crisco 1492:, but the editor just restores poor edits after they leave and keeps repeating the same arguments to omit sourced content and add unsourced content in a manner that suggests a COI. Because I myself have a disclosed COI and have been complying with WP:COI, I've been unable to resolve the issue without bold editing for two months now.

I realize GA reviewers don't deal with any of this. So should the review just be rejected? I won't break from WP:COI by doing bold editing and the page is unlikely to meet GA without it, so I don't see it going anywhere. CorporateM (Talk) 22:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to @CorporateM:’s claim, I (Intchar*) am not a “SPA," nor a "covert COI.” And although CorporateM has nominally declared COI, he has unabashedly lobbied others to remove material that is both verifiable and neutral. See the Talk page to see what I mean.

Now a couple of specifics:

First, I take strong issue with CorporateM’s statement that I’ve added information that “mis-represents or isn't actually supported by the sources.” Quite the contrary. For example, my latest edit says that Kheradpir “played a major role in initiatives such as FiOS at Verizon,” but for some reason, CorporateM has worked to remove/diminish information about Kheradpir’s role on FiOS. In this case, the references provided are pretty indisputable: [1] Verizon’s executive bio of Kheradpir says he “led technology development and innovation for key Verizon initiatives, including developing and implementing the systems supporting the rollout of Verizon’s all-fiber network and the FiOS broadband voice and TV services provided over that network”; [2] an IT World article from 2013 says Kheradpir is “credited with leading the team that brought Verizon’s FiOS Internet/voice/cable network to the public”; and [3] a CNET article from 2008 says that Kheradpir himself hosted journalists for a sneak preview of the latest enhancements to Verizon’s FiOS TV service. It's clearly not a misrepresentation to say that Kheradpir played a major role in FiOS, and this is strongly supported by the references. FiOS was a $20 billion program, and this guy was at the center of it. So why shouldn’t that be in the article?

Second, CorporateM says I have argued "to omit sourced content.” This is, in fact, true. Per WP:VER “verifiability does not guarantee inclusion,” and I have tried to identify and remove content that, although sourced somewhere, is not significant in his biography (especially in an article of this length). I believe CorporateM is referring to my deletion of references to two products that were recently added to the lead section (iobi and Verizon One). Although these were interesting products, they are orders of magnitude less important than FiOS, as evidenced by their absence in Verizon’s own bio of Kheradpir (which discusses FiOS, but none of the many other products he worked on). If every product Kheradpir touched were included in the article, it would be a long article indeed. Or CorporateM might be referring to my deletion of the sentence: “Kheradpir also reduced the company's technology spending about 30 percent by negotiating with vendors, outsourcing to India, and improving utilization of IT assets.” For starters, this sentence provided neither a reference, nor a timeframe (though I think it is WSJ, William Bulkeley, 2003). But the main reason for taking it out is that it describes a specific IT budgeting fact, from a specific period, 2000-03(?). Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and this kind of factoid simply doesn’t belong in the lead section of a biographical article covering a more than 25 year career.

I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia, but I take the integrity of my work very seriously. I welcome Wikipedia editors to carefully review and constructively add to this article. Thanks. Intchar* (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:A Christmas Carol/GA2

This review had surprisingly little initial commentary for such a long article, and was written on the reviewer's most recent day editing, now over two months old. The few issues have apparently been addressed by the nominator, but I think that either someone should take on the review and do a thorough check, or that the review be ended as effectively abandoned and the nomination put back into the reviewing pool with its seniority intact. Does anyone want to take it on? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have just removed an inappropriately added GA icon placed on the article by the nominator last week, and note that a "huh" template was added to the article a few hours after my post above, along with some fairly significant edits. One way or another, it seems that more reviewing needs to be done, given what the original reviewer clearly missed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

May I try to take over it? It sounds pretty bad not to get reviewed properly. :pVincent60030 (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Vincent60030, thanks for offering, but I really think we should have a more experienced GA reviewer take over. You're still a new reviewer, and there were issues with a review of yours last month that ended up on this page. In a case where a review had a problematic first round, it's better to get someone experienced to shepherd it the rest of the way, and fairest to the nominator as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of Good article II

Further to my comments at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 20#Misuse of Good article, I've just fixed this which had been there for over 8 weeks. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass nominations

User:Luvcookies made 14 GA nominations about 14 hours ago, in addition to 4 nominations made on March 23. The same user has made Wikipedia edits on only two days before the 23rd and 25th: on October 17, 2014, and on February 11, 2015. This is clearly insufficient experience to shepherd a single GA through the process, much less 18 of them.

Luvcookies has also been adding multiple FACs without contacting the article's editors, to the point where Dank has said on the Luvcookies talk page, if you keep doing this, I'm sorry, but I'll have to block your account.

One of the 18 nominations is under review; I think we should revert the other 17 nominations, and request that Luvcookies stop making GA nominations until significantly more Wikipedia experience has been gained. Unless someone objects, I plan to do so in the next few hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I will undo what I did on some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvcookies (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Luvcookies, it's clear to me that you don't understand the GAN process, or even what criteria Good Articles are supposed to meet. (See WP:WIAGA, which gives the criteria, and links to what the various criteria mean.) You reversed 13 of the 18 nominations, but left 5 intact. Your recent FAC for Imelda Marcos was opposed by Brianboulton for a number of reasons, and he specifically mentions issues such as neutrality and clunky prose. Neutrality and "clear and concise" prose are both GAN requirements, and both issues should have been addressed before any further nomination. Instead, you went ahead and nominated it anyway, and it's one of the five that you left up. Four of the five clearly don't meet the criteria of WP:LEAD in terms of having sufficient information, and one is far too short (guidelines for an article of that length indicate three to four paragraphs, not a single short paragraph).

I'll leave the Talk:Lapu-Lapu/GA1 nomination review up, since Calvin999 has already opened it. I imagine he's going to point out a number of issues with it, including the WP:LEAD problems noted above, but it will be good experience for you working on a nomination, assuming the article's issues aren't so severe that he fails it out of hand. Given that you clearly want to participate in the Good Article process, it behooves you to familiarize yourself with the level of quality expected for such articles, and in the work required to get articles to that quality. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How to withdraw a review?

I'm trying to withdraw as a reviewer of Talk:Norodom Ranariddh/GA1. I don't see in the instructions how to do it. Can someone help? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, because the review never really began and you're the only one who has edited it, you can simply tag the Talk:Norodom Ranariddh/GA1 page with a speedy delete request (see WP:G7 for instructions), and once the page has been deleted, edit the article talk page to remove "onreview" from the status parameter in the GA nominee template, and also the transclusion of the review page. (If you like, I can take care of the article talk page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It will be my pleasure. Mr Tan (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Nominations requesting second opinions?

Is it normal for a nominator to dispute a fail by reverting the fail to request a second opinion? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not allowed, pure and simple, and I have reverted the reversion, restoring your fail. The two options the nominator has are to come here to discuss perceived issues, or to open a Good Article Reassessment; while GARs are more frequently used to look over existing Good Articles that seem not to meet the criteria, this is also the process when a nominator or anyone else believes that a completed review did not arrive at the correct result. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Argument accepted. But to set the record straight I was very shocked at the type of comments that User:Curly Turkey made in the GA review. I was just trying to make a proposal the reviewer to commit more time to the review but in the end I received the first of such comment:

"Holy Christ—look, I'm simply not going to waste my time reading through another wall of text like this. If you have a point to make, find a better way to make it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)"

I see that Curly Turkey has done a lot of good work to improving articles but I was taken aback that the reviewer appeared to take my comments in bad faith. I had posted a lengthy argument preceding this comment, but I merely provided my own viewpoints and suggestions. The reviewer could have just given a principled or measured response such as declining or explaining a little further, but frankly from what I see the tone of the comment appears to be an emotional one. Furthermore, it must be noted that he failed the article only within a few hours time from the posting of this comment above. Everybody are welcome to review the page at Talk:Norodom_Chakrapong/GA1 and the edit history of the GAN1. I'm not going to dwell who is right or wrong, but I deeply regret that a review exercise has become such an ugly incident. I will decide whether to submit a Reassessment or 2nd GAN at a later date.

PS: Apologies to User:BlueMoonset for my oversight on seeking a 2nd opinion review, since this edit is only permitted for reviewers. Mr Tan (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)