Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsOctober 2024 Backlog DriveMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport

Good article nominations

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 Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

Does a Commons violation introduced during GA review invalidate the GA assessment?

Legal trouble may have been introduced during a GA review of an article I had worked on. The reviewer suggested the addition of a compatibly-licensed image from Flickr, which I then imported to Commons, but now there is a deletion request pending for that image since it might be infringing copyright regardless of the license attached to it. If the file does get deleted, since it was introduced per a suggestion on the GA review, will this invalidate the GA assessment and cause the article to be stripped of GA status? Additionally, does this require getting an admin involved to redact the revisions that link to the image (including the revision that had been GA-approved)? This is my first time getting involved in the GA process and I am unsure how to proceed, as well as how to ensure this does not jeopardize my ability to contribute to Wikipedia or Commons in the future. huntertur (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

huntertur, thanks for asking. It's no big deal. You can just remove the image if it's not allowed on the Commons. The presence of media is not required for the GA criteria. Also, GAs are not voided like that but reassessed if they have issues. If your GA was reassessed, someone would just remove that single image and it would be fine. Take care, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsure as to how I should proceed wrt to partial GA review

Hi y'all! Recently @Maury Markowitz opened a GA review for DOM clobbering. They mentioned that they were not doing a full review and raised some issues which I subsequently fixed. However, based on comments on Discord and my own understanding of recently reading the GA guidelines, there doesn't seem to be a scope/established procedure for a partial review. Given that, I'm unsure how to proceed with the nom going forward ? Sohom (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

No one should really open up a GA review, if they have no plans to actually fully review the article. Comments can just go on the talk page of the effected article. I would just move the comments to the talk and either start a new GA page, or ask for the one that exists to be deleted. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the comments to the article talk page and deleted the GA review, given the user who opened had no intention of completing such a review. I forget if I have to do anything else to nudge the bot? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Sohom appears to have handled the template fix, if the bot has a problem it'll let us know. CMD (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The edits to the talk page have removed the status= parameter from the GA nominee template. I can't look at the bot's code at the moment, so it might cope with the correctly, but if there's a problem, adding "|status=" should fix it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added the required status parameter, moved the page parameter earlier where it's usually placed, and moved the GA nominee template to the top of the page per WP:GANI. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Backlog Drives page location

Hi, Is there any reason why Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives is located on the old WikiProject area, and not at Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives? Other than that's where a pair of shortcuts point to. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Probably should be moved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Relic of the time. CMD (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I was tempted to be WP:BOLD and just move it myself, but just noticed it has a lot of sub-pages plus their associated talk pages, so wasn't sure what to do about those. Move them all? Obviously leaving redirects in place. Feels like something for 2024. :) Template:WikiProjectGATasks (as there aren't really GA task forces anymore), Wikipedia:GAD, and Wikipedia:GABD would ideally need tweaking too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Backlog drive soon?

Just to ask, should there be another GAN backlog drive soon? Because there's over 500 articles awaiting review. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There definitely should be. Right now, there are nominations waiting for review dating as far back as May 2023. Setting one for January 2024 might be too short-notice, but maybe setting one for February 2024 would be a good idea? Honestly, I think there should be more regularly scheduled backlog drives, even if it's just once or twice a year. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree there should be one. I'd also agree not January, as it's far too soon and clashes with Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January_2024. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I've been working my way through the oldest submissions. What I've noticed is a lot of reviews that got started and then got stalled. In one case, it was a single reviewer who started a whole bunch of reviews then walked away. Hopefully we can find some process improvement to prevent that from happening again. Maybe if somebody has completed N reviews, only allow them to have N in process at any one time (with the obvious exception of always allowing somebody with zero completed to start one). RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Eddie Gossage/GA1

The "review" at Talk:Eddie Gossage/GA1 does not appear proper. Perhaps someone who knows how to "unstart" a review could handle that one, so that it no longer shows up as under review in the list? Ljleppan (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the non-review per WP:G6 and reset the {{GA nominee}} state on the talk page. I've also handled the request to remove some material from the article under WP:BIODELETE. RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Need suggestions for list -> prose conversion

I recently failed Fyappiy for a number of reasons, one of which was over-use of lists as opposed to prose. The nom has asked me for help on this, and while I do feel an obligation to give them assistance, I'm afraid I'm coming up short on concrete suggestions for how to rewrite this in a WP:GACR compliant way. Any assistance folks could provide would be appreciated. RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think MOS:EMBED adherence is that much of a problem, relatively speaking; the Demographics section could fairly easily be converted to prose, but that's not that big of an issue. I'm finding the Composition section most notable, in a bad way: note i says "The information in the table is based on several archive documents..." which immediately raises the question of whether there is original research or if the information contained is WP:DUE. The prose is also substandard so a trip to WP:GOCE might help. I personally wouldn't have failed it immediately—the nominator seems to be doing a fairly good job removing MOS:OVERSECTION etc.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @AirshipJungleman29! I used censuses as my source for the table, is that an issue? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123 Censuses are primary sources. If "The information in the table is based on..." means that you have interpreted these primary sources in any way, that is forbidden by policy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Many articles about cities, districts etc. use censuses as primary sources. Furthermore, there's literally shortage of sources on the Ingush topic—I could barely find sources on the history of Fyappiy which is why the section is so short. You should try finding yourself a secondary source about a census conducted in Fyappin society—that's like asking someone to imagine a new color. Also, how would the secondary source differ in any way? At the end of the day, the number of population is same. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You should try finding yourself a secondary source about a census conducted in Fyappin society—that's like asking someone to imagine a new color. Precisely. That is original research about due weighting. At the end of the day, the number of population is same. I am not talking about the demographics section, I am talking about the Composition section. See my first comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I used the censuses as my source to add Fyappin villages to the table. Is that also not allowed? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If none of the secondary sources think the composition of the villages and surnames necessary to mention, then yes, they should be removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I could use a helping hand

Is there anybody willing enough to assist me with the backlog at Biology and medicine? Of the 28 articles nominated, only 5 are under review. I wish GA nominaters were more willing to review articles and help with the backlog. 20 upper (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That is generally what happens at GA. I do not think there is any evidence that the order rearrangement, meant to encourage reviewing, has worked. Nominators are perfectly content to nominate hundreds of articles without reciprocation and sit at the bottom of each list for probably less time than the ones in the middle. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi 20 upper. Yes, certainly it's a bummer, and it's reasonable to expect those of us who write Biology and medicine articles to do most of the heavy lifting on this front. I'll try to work in a review per week in the new year so we can start chipping away at the backlog. It's great to see new-to-the-GA-process users like yourself and the other new nominators getting involved in the process. Ajpolino (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it is evident that change is necessary. I believe I'll do my best to review more than 100 articles by 2024. In the meanwhile, I'll start working on the brown rat article, which is about the most hated animal in the world. Well, Ajpolino, I'm not exactly new; my account was born in 2022—roughly 13 months ago. Thank you for having me, and maybe I can nominate up to 100 articles the following year. I'll play my part, and ideally other editors from GA will follow suit. 20 upper (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the assumption. Fixed, above. Ajpolino (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This is indeed a long-standing issue, and a good example of the tragedy of the commons. We have a finite number of reviewers with a finite amount of time, and those who choose to consume reviewer time without replenishing that resource by reviewing themselves degrade the process for everyone else. If everyone refused to review, no nominations would ever succeed. I have made a personal choice to embargo nominations by anyone who has more than a few GAs and refuses to do reviews themselves, and personally maintain a 1:1 review to nomination ratio. The only way we can fix the issue for good is by creating a culture where reviewing is expected of frequent nominators. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:Midsizediv

Potential issue with review of Arithmetic (again)

The article Arithmetic was just promoted to GA status after a checkbox review without any review text. After I prompted the reviewer (History6042), they added a few minimal comments. I was wondering whether this fulfills the GA instruction of providing an in-depth review (see WP:GAN/I#R3).

There was a similar issue about one month ago, see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_30#Potential_issue_with_check-the-boxes_review and Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Arithmetic/1. In that case, the review was considered to be invalid. I'll ping the editors that commented back then: @David Eppstein, DannyMusicEditor, AirshipJungleman29, Chipmunkdavis, Jacobolus, and Sergecross73:.

Phlsph7 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, there isn't a source spotcheck, so yes, the review is invalid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Normally, I'd expect it to be a sock, considering the parallels between these two cases. But it looks like this person has had their account for almost a year. Though the original reviewer was eventually found to be a prolific socker. Would you like to look into it again, Yamla? Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 and Phlsph7:, I believe there is no need for that. From History6042's two subsequent posts at The wub's talk, it is clear that they were attempting to fulfil this Reward Board task, presumably not understanding that the reward goes to the nominator of the article, not the reviewer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. Well, either way, it should be overturned and/or redone. It's too important of an article for such a brief review. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the normal procedure is to G6 delete the review page, but since in this case the review wasn't actively malicious, I think just incrementing the counter will work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The similarity with the previous case was also my first thought. I notified Yamla but they found no relation in technical data.

Do we have some kind of standard procedure for dealing with (regular) invalid reviews? Incrementing the counter would work. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)