Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:22, 18 April 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 642 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

One GA submission, one GA review

I think the backlog of GA requests-currently 183 pending or underway-and the resulting time delay may discourage people from submitting articles for GA review. It appears that the requirement that any one who submits an item to DYK also review an item is very successful. It seems perfectly reasonable that anyone who can get an article to GA status is qualified to review another article to see if it passes. I suggest we consider such a policy for GA articles. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That works in DYK because the rules are basically mechanic: size, date of expansion, no obvious problems... anyone can make a decent review, both a regular DYK reviewer and a random user nominating an article for the first time. GA requirements are a little higher, and if we do this, we would have many users promoting articles "on the fly", without checking, just to allow their own nomination MBelgrano (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking personally it's very successful at discouraging any further DYK nominations. Not that I nominated all that many before the recent rule change, so no great loss admittedly. Forcing editors to do GA reviews (or FA reviews, the problem is just as acute there) isn't the solution. Thought needs to be given as to how reviewers might be encouraged to come forwards, not press-ganged. Why is reviewing such a thankless job, for instance? How might it be made more rewarding. And please, I don't want to hear anything about barn stars. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "anyone who can get an article to GA status is qualified to review another article". Remember, not every article that gets nominated at GAN is any where near to meeting the guidelines. Also, some editors (including myself) don't feel confident enough to review until they've been through the process themselves a few times. And some people just don't like reviewing, which is fair enough. Why penalise them when they've just spent their own time improving an article? I agree with Malleus that it can be a thankless task, I'm not really sure how to address that. One area to perhaps improve is encouraging those who would like to help out but lack confidence. I've heard a few people say that they would review, but they don't want to mess it up. I've helped a couple of new reviewers, and I know others have. I think that can work quite well, but maybe we need to make it more obvious that that can happen. I know it says "You may also wish to consult a mentor" at the end of "How to review an article", but there's so much information on that page, it's easy for people to miss bits. --Beloved Freak 08:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I don't think that GA creators necessarily make good reviewers and vice versa. No quota system will work either, it will just slow the whole process down even more. Currently the oldest unreviewed nominations are about 30 days old, which is not bad. I think that a slightly more formal system of mentoring may be the only way forward. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just started reviewing, but probably would have jumped in sooner had there been an accessible mentoring process. I said as much toWAID after I asked her to check on my first review. It doesn't need to be at the level of providing second opinions on articles, but enough to make sure the criteria is interpreted correctly and if things get a little heated there is someone experienced that can help calm things down. AIRcorn (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me: The page on GA mentors is at WP:GAN/M, for anyone who is interested in looking at it. (I hope that your discussion about improvements to Stade Roland Garros is still going well.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty quite at the moment, will have to ping the editor again soon. Thanks for the link. AIRcorn (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started reviewing after getting (?) 4 articles promoted to GA. Then I realised that, if everyone did this, the load on GAN would be unsustainable - so I reviewed on a 1-for-1 basis. It's just analysing the criteria, using commonsense and being ready to discuss, and hard work - especially checking refs, as many articles say a few things that actually not what the sources say. As a result, I've got a few Barnstars for reviewing. A few editors have GAs by the bucket loads but (also) never review, and I avoid their nominations. --Philcha (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started reviewing after getting 4 articles promoted as well. I would propose that like DYK, you get 5 GAs approved for free. But before you submit your sixth GA, you take a simple online examination. The exam asks you a set of 10 questions selected at random from a panel of 25 possible questions about the GA criteria. This would force reviewers to take the time to actually read the criteria. Once you pass the test, you get to display a fancy "certified GA reviewer" ribbon on your user page, and you go ahead and review away. We would probably need to establish a "problem/help desk" to handle any complaints about mis-calibrated GA reviewers. I believe there are about 1 million articles on English Wikipedia that already meet the GA criteria, but that we are lacking the reviewers needed to evaluate them. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask who is going to administer all of this, set the "simple examination", mark the answers, deal with appeals form those who fail, etc.? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: How about we create a special subpage for whingeing about the backlog? We could put up two notes at the top, that provide basic information:

People have been talking about the supposedly huge backlog literally since weeks after GA was created.
The average backlog in 2010 was 330 articles. At the moment, for comparison, it's currently 164 (yes, half that. Last month's backlog reduction drive was quite effective).

We could even have a bot fully protect the page whenever {{GAN counter|Wait}} is less than the previous year's average.

Seriously, I appreciate the fact that people are cognizant of the need for reviewers, but we actually don't have a big problem right now. If you're concerned, then step up and review one extra article. That's really all it will take—a handful of people doing slightly more than they are now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Jezhotwells, there is a lot of "distance learning" software that can take a panel of questions, select a random sample from the preloaded questions, present the sample to the user and automatically grade them. The policy question becomes whether you want to create a new bit in the signon record to reflect the people who have passed the exam, or just put a category on their user page. I am proposing a system that would involve no administrative tasks other than writing the 25 questions and developing the interface to send the test results back to the record of the users. My motive is that it is clear to me that many reviewers either have never read the GA criteria or have forgotten them. In the United States, people must take an automated test to demonstrate knowledge of driving laws, every six years, no matter how long they have held a license. If GAN exists six years from now, I would not object to demand people to be retested to show that they have not forgot the criteria.

There are two big benefits to the reviewer/testing requirements. First, people who review get a valuable perspective that helps them do a better job of preparing articles for GA nomination. Second, because anyone who nominates more than 5 articles would have to take the test to become a "certified GA reviewer", it guarantees that the nominators also have read and understood the GA criteria, also resulting in better prepared nominations. Racepacket (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pretty brutal case of instruction creep there. I'm with Malleus on this one. Forcing a quid pro quo system will certainly reduce the number of articles awaiting reviews, but mostly because it will reduce the number of nominatons. Reso lute 23:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your criticism has merit, Reso. It still leaves open the question of how to get more reviews performed and how to get the reviewers to read and understand the GA criteria. Could you ask each WikiProject to designate at least one reviewer? Could you advertise more at various community pages? I believe that if the waiting time for a reviewer were one week or less, the number of nominations who increase dramatically. Racepacket (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment: Your claims about the US requirements for drivers' licenses deserves a {{failed verification}} tag. I've never even heard of a state that has such a requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for second opinion on blotchy swell shark

I and my reviewer, User:Philcha, disagree regarding the structure of Blotchy swell shark#Description; the comments relevant to the dispute are here. Please leave your comments on the review page. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded, and as always would be happy if someone else did as well. It's just a matter of reading the linked section of the article, and deciding whether the facts are presented in an acceptable, non-confusing order. You don't need to be an expert on marine biology to have an opinion on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too have left an opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review: Legacy of Leonid Brezhnev

The reviewer who was going to review my GA has been block indefinitly, can some other take over his reviewer duties on this article? If so thanks! :) --TIAYN (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has now been passed, but the review, the second by Wikipedian2, is to say the least somewhat superficial. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Loren

Somneone has nominated the article Nick Loren for GA under theatre and film. The images are obviously suspect.. the fansite refs and the layout.Rain the 1 ^BAM 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just quickfailed it. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gery Chico/GA2

I would appreciate a second opinion. The article has been nominated by and editor who has disclosed that they worked on Chico's campaign to become Mayor of Chicago. This appears to be a major conflict of interest, but it looks as if most self serving material has been removed. Nevertheless, I am somewhat uncomfortable with this situation. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. If the editor/nominator has nominated, though has not contributed to the article, there should be no problem. If the nominator also wrote the article, but remained impartial, then I simply see an editor with an "inside" view and firsthand knowledge of the topic. It is up to the reviewer to judge if the editor has been impartial, if the references are reliable secondary sources, or if the editor has inserted his own opinions (which would then be "original research"). If these points can be satisfactorily resolved, then I would consider the nominator an "expert in the field", which is exactly who should be writing articles. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's there to disagree with? Jezhotwells asking for a second opinion? If you look at the nominator's history, they seem to be a single-purpose account, only having ever worked on this particular article -- to which they have previously admitted to having a vested interest. As the reviewer, Jezhotwells is asking for someone to help look into a potential WP:COI matter. IMO, this is a productive use of the second opinion feature. If I knew anything about the subject matter, I would volunteer to help. María (habla conmigo) 21:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I disagree with the statement: "This appears to be a major conflict of interest". Boneyard90 (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Maria, I could do with someone with knowledge of the political scene in Chicago. I shall ask at the Chicago project. In response to Boneyard, the WP:COI policy suggests that people with close affiliations to an article's subject should refrain from editing that article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the editor openly declared his position and the tone of the article is pretty neutral. I would say there would be a COI if the mayoral campaign was underway, that is, before the election. But since the election is over, it would seem the contributor has nothing to promote. I understand the issue is moot at this point, but thought I would throw out my opinion anyway. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boneyard90. I am waiting to see if there is any response from the Chicago project. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now at GAR. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gery Chico/1 Geread (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews for Tony Blair and C. W. A. Scott

My computer is on the blink and I don't have much time on my hands atm. Would anyone else be willing to try and tie up my open reviews for Tony Blair and C. W. A. Scott? Thanks, and sorry to burden whoever takes them on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have picked up C. W. A. Scott. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for 2nd opinion about Nemertea - still open

Looie496 and I have such different approaches that I would appreciate a 2nd opinion. Please comment at Talk:Nemertea/GA1#Philcha_asking_for_a_2nd_opinion. --Philcha (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome a 2nd opinion (or third, or fourth). I was already considering asking for one myself. Looie496 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original was archived, so I've repeated it. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 :::::Well, the editor openly declared his position and the tone of the article is pretty neutral. I would say there would be a COI if the mayoral campaign was underway, that is, ''before the election''. But since the election is over, it would seem the contributor has nothing to promote. I understand the issue is moot at this point, but thought I would throw out my opinion anyway. [[User:Boneyard90|Boneyard90]] ([[User talk:Boneyard90|talk]]) 19:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 ::::::Thanks, [[User:Boneyard90|Boneyard90]]. I am waiting to see if there is any response from the Chicago project. [[User:Jezhotwells|Jezhotwells]] ([[User talk:Jezhotwells|talk]]) 22:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
+This article is now at GAR. See [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gery Chico/1]] [[User:Geread|Geread]] ([[User talk:Geread|talk]]) 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 == Reviews for Tony Blair and C. W. A. Scott ==