Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Esool eht no ladnav (talk | contribs) at 22:03, 18 April 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport
Good article nominations
Good article nominations
Shortcut

This is the discussion page of the good article nominations (GAN). To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the New section link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click to show the frequently asked questions below or search the archives below.

Federico Gatti

This article is being reviewed by someone who's not very active and I do not agree with his opinions. Can anyone else take his place? Dr Salvus 15:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer (ArsenalGhanaPartey) planned to review the article almost one month ago, but has barley done so. Should this review be closed, and another one be opened? What's the correct course of action here? Nehme1499 10:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask for a second reviewer by setting the status to second opinion and leaving a note. (t · c) buidhe 17:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe oh look. Its reviewer has been back today but has decided that it would've been a failure. He's said there are grammatical errors (I can't be the one who says he's wrong) but he hasn't said where that are snd nor has he put the nomination on hold (the prose is its only problem) Dr Salvus 17:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into the review or in depth at the article at all, so I have no opinion on whether it was correct to fail, but I've fixed a few easy errors in this edit. Another glaring one is "due to his poor of use on the pitch", which makes absolutely no sense to me; what is it meant to mean? Finally, if I were reviewing this article I would be concerned about neutrality, especially in the section on "style of play". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is wrong in his style of play? Where are the mistakes? I'm not saying you're wrong but if you don't show my errors I will never be able to resolve. With "poor use" I mean that he wasn't often used. Dr Salvus 18:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, the "style of play" sections seems to have a bit to much praise for Gatti. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which sentences are a "praise" for him? These are his qualities which are sourced. Dr Salvus 14:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Took the tiniest look, but Gatti is a right-footed centre-back who is strong in the air at 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in) tall[2][22] and who is also strong physically[9] and who has an eye for the goal. Has all sorts of [according to whom?] for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski, if you say the way the sentence is written is wrong, I guess you have a solution to make it how it should be. Dr Salvus 15:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I literally looked at one sentence, and I'm not familiar with the people in the citations, but:

Gatti is a right-footed centre-back who stands at 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in) tall.[1][2] According to Mirco Vecchi, writing for I am calcio, he is a physically strong player with good technique, thanks to his previous play as a midfielder.[3] or similar. Otherwise, you are just stringing together citations that say something about this person, and picking out vague information without attribution. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski, I've done so but now the prose looks more monotonous. Dr Salvus 17:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody has corrected my errors as a fool and I've made the prose more neutral. Can't we change our idea that the article isn't a GA. For me, it's not wonderfull to see a good article shut down for a bad gramamar (I cannot make anything else as I am not a native) or a non-neutrality. Dr Salvus 22:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into the whole article as I say, but if the article does have grammatical errors and isn't neutral, it doesn't meet the criteria for GA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski yesterday somebody corrected my donkey mistakes and the article was made more neutral. Couldn't this be reexamined? Dr Salvus 18:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a user is unwilling/unable to complete/further review a nomination, they should close the review and be renomimated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski, I've renominated this. It's a shame that such high quality article doesn't get promoted for the bad grammar and could be reviewed after two months after after waiting the same period of time... Dr Salvus 19:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Riggio, Salvatore (31 January 2022). "Gioca come Gatti" [Plays as Gatti]. Corriere della Sera (in Italian). Retrieved 31 January 2022.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference :6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Newby reviewer

User:Eluike, with zero prior contributions, has begun Talk:Heilbronn triangle problem/GA1 and Talk:Möbius strip/GA2. Already they have made some mistakes, trying (in different ways) to mark both of them as having passed before providing any actual review. Perhaps, assuming good faith, someone more experienced would like to help guide them through this process? As the nominator of both articles it is difficult for me to take that role, although I did at least undo their passage of HTP and leave a comment on both review pages pointing to the relevant guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Special:Diff/1081667589, they claim to be Ewdqwdq, who has started similarly malformed reviews on two other nominations (Talk:Binary search tree/GA2, Talk:Computer program/GA2) and a GAR (Talk:Los Angeles Lakers/GA3). Pinging Timhowardriley who inquired about them possibly being a sock. Very strange. eviolite (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is an admission that User:Ewdqwdq is a sockpuppet: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Binary_search_tree/GA2&diff=prev&oldid=1081667589 . I'm reporting User:Ewdqwdq and User:Eluike to be blocked. This user agreed to review GA requests, so an administrator needs to undo the damage. Timhowardriley (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly someone who does not understand what the GA review process is supposed to be, and has so little experience at Wikipedia that they are not able to do a proper review. I would like to suggest that they refrain from any further GA reviews until they have some months of experience editing articles, and delete the reviews they've opened under both usernames. Eluike's insistence at Talk:Heilbronn triangle problem that they have done the review without showing any work at all is particularly troubling, especially when they keep reverting to pass the nomination despite the nominator's clear and valid concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My alt falls under fair use because that alt was hacked Eluike (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both accounts have been blocked per the ANI. I have tagged the Talk:Heilbronn triangle problem/GA1, Talk:Möbius strip/GA2, Talk:Computer program/GA2 and Talk:Los Angeles Lakers/GA3 for deletion. I wasn't sure what to do with Talk:Binary search tree/GA2, since there are comments there from Timhowardriley and the nominator, so it didn't seem right to delete them entirely. Timhowardriley, might you want to take on the review? It seems that your initial issues are pretty fundamental; could they be addressed with a reasonable Hold time, or is the article too far? Note that there was an earlier review (Talk:Binary search tree/GA1) that had been lost from the talk page; I've just restored the information regarding it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Despite having left brief comments at two of these I have no objection to their deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "I wasn't sure what to do with Talk:Binary search tree/GA2, since there are comments there from Timhowardriley and the nominator, so it didn't seem right to delete them entirely.": My comments and the response were moved to the regular talk page, so Talk:Binary search tree/GA2 can be deleted. Timhowardriley (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Timhowardriley, might you want to take on the review?": My vision of a good Binary search tree article would take longer than a week. Timhowardriley (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now, another user, whom I came across while checking recent changes, has made similar actions. User:Ladnav no esool created multiple GA review pages, all of which were nominated by Epicgenius. They then made several disruptive edits. Kpddg (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eluike isn't my account. I can delete the pages, but I am doing a real review, or plan to soon, on all of those pages Ladnav no esool (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your edits have mostly consisted of overt vandalism, forgive us if we are rather skeptical of your GA reviewing capabilities. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it funny how none of you learned to recognize words spelled backwards Ladnav no esool (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kpddg, I noticed that as well. Ladnav no esool picked up 18 of my nominations at the same time, as well as Talk:Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art/GA1 (which is not by me). I was surprised to find out that the reviewer had no edits prior to starting these reviews. I should also note that their very first edit was to create Talk:Hayes Theater/GA1, which was already deleted once because an IP user tried to review it. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I doubt that they actually intend to review Talk:Neil Simon Theatre/GA1, Talk:30 Rockefeller Plaza/GA1, Talk:Broadhurst Theatre/GA1, Talk:Vivian Beaumont Theater/GA1, Talk:Hayes Theater/GA1, Talk:1585 Broadway/GA1, Talk:One Astor Plaza/GA1, Talk:Beacon Theatre (New York City)/GA1, Talk:Paramount Hotel/GA1, Talk:1540 Broadway/GA1, Talk:750 Seventh Avenue/GA1, Talk:Minskoff Theatre/GA1, Talk:Booth Theatre/GA1, Talk:Shubert Theatre (Broadway)/GA1, Talk:Walter Kerr Theatre/GA1, Talk:August Wilson Theatre/GA1, Talk:Lyric Theatre (New York City, 1998)/GA1, Talk:229 West 43rd Street/GA1, Talk:Crowne Plaza Times Square Manhattan/GA1, given their not-so-veiled admission of being a vandal above. Can an admin delete all of these nominations? – Epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and they have also made disruptive edits. Should this issue be taken to ANI, under the already-existing thread? Kpddg (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a good idea. Never mind they have already been indeffed. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the review pages? Should they be tagged for deletion? Kpddg (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I will do that right now. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now appropriately tagged all of these nominations. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Maybe the admin who blocked the "Ladnav no esool" (loose-on vandal) account can delete the 22 GA review pages just opened, including Talk:Binary search tree/GA3. Pinging Ad Orientem to see whether they're willing to delete them as part of the needed cleanup. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sora Amamiya

Hello! Is it okay if I ask for a second reviewer to take a look at the GAN for this article? The original reviewer, Bluesunnyfox, hasn't edited in almost a week and noted that the GAN for the article was her first review. Would it be okay for another editor to either help her with the review, or take over if she doesn't return? Thanks! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know you weren't asking me, but I'm alright with a reviewer helping me or taking over. Thank you. I'll try and find time to work on this. blueskies (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm not in a place to talk considering I've been having issues keeping up with my own reviews, but something similar has happened on Robin Lehner. — GhostRiver 21:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co- Reviewer

I know I haven't been on Wikipedia long enough to do a review. But, I was wondering if there is a way for me to be a Co-reviewer? Thank YouFinnish Idea (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Best to just start writing and gaining experience throughout the encyclopedia. There's the technical restriction as well (no way to give credit to two reviewers). Dawnseeker2000 00:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And he still continue to review especially complex article like Talk:Binary search tree/GA3. Facepalm 2001:4455:699:AB00:55AF:EAE6:6BC5:DF72 (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am very knowledgeable in computer science so that article will not be the hard to review Finnish Idea (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finnish Idea, you have only been on Wikipedia for a few days, so while you may be well up on computer science, you have little experience in Wikipedia, the Wikipedia five pillars, and how to apply the GA criteria. Indeed, your review has already run into trouble. You state, This is well written and passes Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Grammar/Spelling is correct. This is not accurate. The History section is unclear, largely due to the placement of "in 1960", and that date (echoed in the infobox) is clearly problematic: one of the sourced publications is dated 1 January 1960, which means that Windley, at least, had to make his discovery prior to that date in order to write his paper, have it accepted and peer reviewed, and then published as of the first day of 1960. Indeed, one of the other History sources itself references a number of sources to support the list of discoverers, one of which has a date of 1959. You also haven't addressed MOS:LEADLENGTH. It is clear that you aren't anywhere near ready to be reviewing this article, and should find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. It is doubly unfortunate that you should pick this one article out of hundreds to review, since it has been subject to several problematic review attempts by sockpuppet accounts over the past week. In an abundance of caution, since your account was created less than 30 hours after the sockpuppet accounts were blocked, I will be requesting a check to be sure you are not yet another username of the same editor who's been trying to review this article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will delete the review, calm down. That was just my first quick comments not my final comments. There is no need for a check user considering I have done no vandalism Finnish Idea (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also If I not allowed to review it, I will delete. But, I don't know how to. Can you please tell me Finnish Idea (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking the page, as you had done, doesn't actually stop a review, so I have WP:G6 deleted this for you. BlueMoonset has suggested that you were abusing multiple accounts, not that you were vandalising. I don't think you have the experience necessary to review articles regardless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is no ground for a checkUser because this is not vandalism, Disruption or bad faith editing. Finnish Idea (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no evidence that I have been abusing multiple accounts Finnish Idea (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finnish Idea, if you aren't the same person, there's nothing to worry about. If you are, then that's disruption regardless. I did go ahead and post the sockpuppet investigation request, which is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eliuke. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to those who may be interested: Finnish Idea was indeed not a sock of Eluike and wasn't blocked. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Penang and George Town, Penang was promoted to GA via deceptive sockpuppetry

Hi, I'd like to bring up the article Penang, which was rated as a good article back in 2018. However, it has been discovered that the GA Review was helmed by Semi-auto, a confirmed sockpuppet of Vnonymous, who was the user who had made major contributions to the article and had placed the nomination themselves. BonjourPinang and ParfaitMauban are also other confirmed sockpuppets of theirs that has made contributions to the article. Furthermore, the article swiftly went from nomination > review > passed in less than a day, which should had definitely caused great suspicion at the time, not to mention that it was also passed by their own sockpuppet account. These actions are clearly inappropriate uses of alternative accounts (WP:BADSOCK).

This person was literally reviewing their own content and pretending to be distinct personas. There is a whole lot of boosterism throughout this article added by this user that should be addressed. It's also hard to confirm how much of these sources correlate to the text, and with this sockmaster already known to engage in deception, it leads me to think that they may very well be engaging in the same thing when they were making major edits to the article, especially if one is not a native or knowledgeable to the city/region.

I initially brought this up to WP:ANI and was advised to bring it up here to see what the next steps should be. Some have responded to just merely remove the GA tag and disregard the bogus GA Review as actions of socks should be considered meaningless, while others think it should be left as is or reassessed. In my view, I suppose doing nothing may incentivize others to also attempt similar things, and that it may seem like it wouldn't matter at all for them even if they eventually get blocked for sockpuppetry, as long as they have already succeeded in promoting an article. Paul K. Sutton (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Added George Town, Penang as well. Same situation. While it has been reassessed, it was done without the foreknowledge that there were deceptive sockpuppetry involved that may had influenced their judgement. Tagging SounderBruce to let them know about it. Paul K. Sutton (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would just revert the GA promotion because sockpuppetry renders it 100% invalid. (t · c) buidhe 19:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does one go about doing that? Is it just as simple as removing the review? As I don't wish to accidentally mess things up, I'd just leave the reverting to a much more experienced editor (if possible) just in case. Paul K. Sutton (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that these articles should have a mandatory GAR. While the sockpuppetry is certainly a smudge on things, the articles have had 4 years of editing in between, and may or may not still be up to WP:WIAGA standards, and shouldn't simply be delisted because of the actions of a ne'er-do-well. They do, however, need a proper review from an independent third party. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the actions of a ne'er-do-well are literally the only reason they were listed in the first place. WP:GAR is described as "a process used to determine whether a good article (GA) still meets the good article criteria", but in this case we have no reason to believe it ever met the GACR. If these are to get GA status, they need to be reviewed from scratch. Colin M (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with buidhe and Colin M: the promotion was straight-up invalid, and the best course of action is just to revert it. There's no reason to let it sit around with a status it didn't earn, waiting for someone to put in the time to do a reassessment. A new review, started from scratch, would take a comparable amount of effort, and in the interim, the list of GAs would be more honest. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this, a GAR creates work for others. Delisting doesn't mean it can't be brought to GAN again, and if it is brought to GAN that means there's an editor putting time into it so a review would not go to waste. CMD (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems best to just remove the GA tag. That doesn't mean the article doesn't meet the GA criteria, it just means it hasn't had an actual review yet (reviewing your own article obviously doesn't count). It should be as if the GAN process for the article never happened, rather than considering it a 'delisting' per se. Can always be renominated for an actual review by any good-standing editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted the GA status for Penang: nominators are not allowed to review their own nominated articles, which is what happened here, so the review was illegitimate and should not stand. My inclination would be to do the same thing with George Town, Penang, especially since the reassessment was withdrawn rather than completed, but as I posted to the reassessment (though I didn't know that it was an improper initial review), perhaps someone else should do the honors on this one (though I'm fine with doing so if others think I should). We'll probably want to add a "reassessment" as the reason for delisting it now, and post a note to the article talk page explaining the reason for the delisting. I think I'll go back and do that on Talk:Penang. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be inclined to leave George Town as a GA. While the reassessment was withdrawn the last comment from the withdrawer (an experienced GA writer) was it now meets the minimum standard in the GA criteria. Ignoring the deception and other issues with socking, the main issue re GA's is that someone independent assesses the article. That has been done in this case, although I will concede that if the socking had been known the reassessment might have been more in depth. Aircorn (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BlueMoonset: I wonder if it would be best to delete Talk:Penang/GA1 to keep things clean. That way if a new review is started it would be easier to implement the article history. Aircorn (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aircorn, my feeling is that there are a lot of things that can make the article history difficult to manage, and we skip over reviews all the time in such article histories that don't conclude or are abandoned but were nevertheless worthwhile for what was accomplished, but ultimately had no effect. So I would be opposed to deleting Talk:Penang/GA1. Sometimes things aren't clean, which happens and should be noted. The same goes with the other article's reviews.
    That said, I disagree with your conclusion on George Town, Penang. Your quote was incomplete: after listing continuing issues with the article, it reads Otherwise, it now meets... Looking back at how things stood, we have a sockmaster trying to save a sockpuppet's GA passage, showing just how inadequate their original self-review was. The article should never have been given GA status to begin with, the reassessment was withdrawn in part because of Vnonymous's continuing deception, and I agree with Paul K. Sutton, Colin M, buidhe, CMD, and ProcrastinatingReader that the status should be pulled. I'll be interested in hearing SounderBruce|'s thoughts four years on. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The image concern is not a really GA requirement. Anyway I am not going to push the issue if we really do have consensus (note that the second article was added after many pinged above had already commented). Also we delete poor and socked GA reviews quite often. Can we at least keep it in the article history. As someone who has spent a bit of time trying to sort out and decipher missplaced, incorrect or incomplete GA reviews/reassessment it would make life much easier (especially if we remove the listing from George Town as it will have two previous review pages). Aircorn (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up for GA review of Janie Fricke: admin requested

I came across something I hadn't seen except in historical circumstance: the GA review of Janie Fricke was conducted entirely on the article's talk page rather than on its own review page.

What I have done is copied the review to its own page, Talk:Janie Fricke/GA1 (adding the proper boilerplate to the top of the review), and updated the GA template to point to that separate review page. What I was hoping is that an admin could move or copy the history of the review (starting March 31 and ending April 17, posts by reviewer User:TenPoundHammer and nominator User:ChrisTofu11961) to the new GA review page.

TenPoundHammer, thanks for taking on the review. The instructions page explains how to open a review so it creates its own page next time you review. Have you recently done any reviews on the article talk pages rather than on their own pages? I'm happy to make adjustments if so. (Not counting the pre-2010 reviews you did, when things worked differently.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I reviewed any. I thought something was wrong. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&oldid=1083451703"