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 204.185.15.100 (talk) at 17:26, 30 September 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

CLOWNSASDASDKJAHSKJL

}}

Shortcut

Talk:Naveen Jain/GA1 and reviewer LavaBaron's competence issues

LavaBaron's declaration that he intends to list this article if the issues he raised are fixed, disagreeing with all of the problems I noted last week—some factual, violations of WP:LEAD, unclear prose, and so on—is a clear indication that he is currently unfit to review at GAN. There have been issues since his first reviews here that reflect a failure to fundamentally understand the GA criteria.

LavaBaron and I have not seen eye to eye—he's currently banned me from his talk page—but on my side it has always been concern that he doesn't adequately understand the GA process or what the criteria ask for. He's amply demonstrated my concerns are valid. His current GA nominations are further evidence of this: Leschi (fireboat), Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances, and Coast Guard City are none of them ready, with some fundamental criteria unmet. A quick check shows that both Leschi and Washington Doctrine have very short leads that do not summarize the article and neither meets the MOS layout requirements, Coast Guard City again has lead issues, is quite short overall, and fails to meet the broadness criteria (indeed, this is practically a list, and might not be eligible for GA at all). His Trevor Kincaid might fare better, but one out of four is not an adequate showing.

His lack of understanding also extends to Featured Articles and A-class reviews: Coast Guard City was simultaneously nominated for GAN and an A-class review with the statement I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the A-Class criteria (it was far from doing so), and he changed his GAN for First interracial kiss on television to make it a Featured Article Candidate instead, saying on the page there that it was a short but comprehensive and exhaustively sourced article (it was described there as "little more than a stub" and "fails most of the FA criteria").

With regret, I ask that LavaBaron either be restricted to reviewing GAs only under the guidance of a mentor whose agreement must be obtained before the review is either passed or failed, or be asked to refrain from reviewing until he can demonstrate competence by nominating articles that are actually GA-ready. And that both of his current GANs (the other is Talk:Bozh/GA1) not be closed until a decision is made here. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose (again / *sigh*) - Regrettably, BlueMoonset, who is otherwise an outstanding editor with a sterling record of contributions, has embarked on an obsessive crusade to have me TBAN'ed from GA reviews, repeatedly declaring "there have been problems" with my GA reviews, phrased as if to indicate this is a widely observed phenomenon despite his being repeatedly warned by multiple other editors no such problems exist. This originated with a disagreement some time ago and his apparent umbrage at having been overruled by consensus, to wit:
He objected to my decision to GA-promote a contentious article by a COI editor and, when multiple editors disagreed with his objections (SilkTork said of my review that "[as for] problems [noted by BM] with the first review - it seems fine" while others said I was "quite qualified" etc.), began a bizarre campaign of hounding me from review to review and interjecting into them ridiculous insults about my intelligence and mental capacity, including the use of charged phrases like "competence issues" which he has again invoked here. His façon de parler became so utterly distasteful that I had to request he stop posting on my Talk page as a de-escalation tactic, the only time in my WP career that extraordinary step has been necessary.
Though every review by uninvolved editors has disagreed with his assessment of my "mental capacity" (Prhartcom even gave me a barnstar for having to put up with last month's BlueMoonset savaging [1]) and though I fail more GA reviews than I choose to pass (in fact failing my most recent closed review and holding my current review for a second opinion), BM massages a picture of me as a carefree moron who rubber stamps GAs and stumbles around WP, blithely oblivious to the havoc I'm creating through my sheer stupidity.
I won't do a bulleted reply to BM's accusations as it would rapidly degenerate since most are based on, what appears to be, straightforward falsification of facts (notably absent diffs) designed to support this vendetta. For example: he said I should be GA TBANed because an article to which I contributed "is practically a list" [sic], though fails to note the edits that resulted in that characteristic were made by another editor entirely ([2]). These type of fundamental errors are present throughout his accusation, and I can only assume are intentional. (If unintentional, I would kindly advise him to please be more detail-attentive in the future when he declaims the "competence" of other editors.) There is a serious backlog at GA right now. Quite frankly, this type of behavior is only making it worse by deterring editors who do not want to navigate a crucible or be dragged into another editor's engineered drama.
Respectfully - LavaBaron (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is it with you two? Why do we have to take up space on this page to watch you two duke it out? I suppose you are waiting for my response, although I don't want to: I have better things to do.
I love and respect both of you. You are both more-than-competent editors. BlueMoonset, your intelligence, your capabilities, and your love for the GA process are off the chart. Your own record of GA accomplishments speaks for itself; it dwarfs almost everyone I know. I never want you to leave the GA Help Desk. Your knowledge of the GA Criteria, your commitment to it, and your ability to resolve issues here are so valuable even your opponent acknowledges it. LavaBaron, your rebuttal left me laughing out loud ("a picture of me as a carefree moron ...") Your wit, your eloquence, and your confidence should rightly carry you far. You are inexperienced, true, but you know that and you are making up for lost time at an impressive pace. If any of your opponent's objections are valid, the issues they may have observed are far from unsolvable. This time next year you will be light years ahead of your peers.
I would appreciate a truce between the two of you. This can only happen through mutual respect. LavaBaron, you already respect BlueMoonset with the respect a pupil has for their teacher, so that is done. Please never lose that respect, because as you know, BlueMoonset truly knows what they are doing. BlueMoonset, you are above LavaBaron in experience like a teacher is above their pupil, but please treat LavaBaron with the respect a pupil deserves. I know, you are vocal because of your love for the GA Criteria as you should be; you know it more than most people (myself included) and you don't appreciate seeing the process sullied. Point taken. Yes, please continue to guard it as you have been doing. And when you perceive it being abused, if you were to become the reviewer of these articles, please continue to take action and please continue to react with the restraint I see you executing. (If only people knew how much restraint you are showing, right?) So believe it or not, I am asking you to do even more: To show so much restraint that you actually respect the accomplishments of editors who fail to perform. You know as well as I do that LavaBaron is succeeding in as many areas as you perceive they are failing. Take comfort in the knowledge that I agree with you about their failings. I investigated every point you made above, and I side with you on all of them. The lead is too short, the broadness criteria falls short, the article is practically a list. (LavaBaron, I hope you are listening: You have done well but you need to do more.) But BlueMoonset, look how willing LavaBaron is to dive in and learn. A little too fast maybe, but impressive accomplishments even if they are far from perfect and eggs are broken along the way. I am asking you to take them by the hand as a master does a pupil and find the areas where LavaBaron is succeeding. If you were the reviewer of these articles (as many as you have time for), you could praise the areas where LavaBaron has succeed: Impressive research, beautiful formatting, neutral and well-written prose. For those areas that fall short of the GA criteria, stand firm and insist that the article won't pass until those issues are resolved, but because you have expressed admiration for the areas that succeeded, LavaBaron will trust you like a pupil trusts their teacher. They will have felt the sincere respect you have for them for the level they have attained—pretty far, considering—and they will want to please you and will want to resolve the issues that you tell them about because they trust you and respect you. You see what I mean about the importance of mutual respect. The issues you raise here won't be resolved without it.
LavaBaron, I have given you sincere praise because I saw in you a glimmer of future expertise. And I was not wrong about that: I see in you an editor with such skill, you will be a teacher of other editors. But don't get ahead of yourself. You have much to learn. Take, for example, the times I had to come to you with patient explanation of the way to do something. Something that BlueMoonset also patiently tried to tell you. The blocking of BlueMoonset was a misunderstanding; go back and re-read what they were trying to tell you; you will see you misunderstood them: it was the same thing I was trying to tell you. You got ahead of yourself. That's okay; take your knocks, learn from them, and move on; taking comfort that others believe you will do great things. Read some of the articles that BlueMoonset has brought to GA and you will see what I mean: This is where you need to be and where I believe you will be. I want you to know one of the earliest things I liked about you was your confidence and your sharp wit. Keep those skills close and don't lose ground with them. (One way to lose ground with confidence is to repeatedly restate praise aloud that someone once gave you; you aren't convincing anyone with that; instead draw confidence from within yourself like I first saw you doing and keep honing that razor sharp wit while you're at it.) Get out and meet and learn from others on Wikipedia besides the three of us; many of my colleagues I could only dream of achieving their level of skill but I am still trying to do so. You see what I mean about not getting ahead of oneself in estimation of one's abilities. The issues you know exist here won't be resolved without it.
That's it; I wish the two of you the very best. Prhartcom (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great points, Prhartcom. You're right, BM and I need to learn to get along better together. I agree to your proposal of closing this thread with no further action. LavaBaron (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winner 42

This user appears to have left the site, leaving five GA reviews open in various states:

Hopefully someone can continue the reviews that are open, and maybe the two that haven't even been started can be reverted? Harrias talk 08:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Winner 42 has set up an indefinite enforced break, I've just closed the first two reviews as unsuccessful: in both cases, there were significant issues, the (different) nominators have not edited on Wikipedia since late June, and the articles themselves haven't been touched since then. For the next two, since the reviews were opened but not started, I'm going to ask for them to be speedy deleted, so we can put the nominations back into the reviewing pool. This just leaves the John Hagee nomination for someone to continue; I'm going to ping the nominator, who hasn't responded to the review yet after two weeks, to make sure that the issues raised are going to be addressed soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CookieMonster755, the nominator of the Hagee article, has replied to my talk-page ping to say that the nomination will not be pursued now that Winner 42 has withdrawn. So I am closing that review as well, which takes care of all of Winner 42's unfinished reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fizeau experiment/GA1 opened by mistake; now over a month old

YohanN7 opened this review by mistake, merely hoping to comment on an existing review. When I queried his talk page, he said, Best is if someone else can take over, since I will not be here much in the near future. Can someone please take over the review?

GA Cup folks (3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo), since no review has been done as yet, would this count as a new review for the purposes of the GA Cup? That might help attract a reviewer more quickly. It was originally nominated on August 9. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would count the original date of August 9 as the date of nomination, since nothing came of the review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the review nomination date as August 9th. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it would be considered a new review even if the reviewer took over the GA1 page, or would we have to reset so a GA2 would be started? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GA1 should work fine, in my opinion. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, I noticed that you've taken on some science-related articles for the GA Cup; might you be willing to try this one, taking over the existing review page? Thanks for considering it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's really not a topic I'm familiar with- I've an amateur interest in biology, but no real knowledge of physics/optics. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So people are aware: I've just deleted the review page, so someone else will be able to take it on as a "new" review anyway. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unprofessional review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Though I am glad someone took the time to begin a review of one of my articles, however Azealia911 quick failed my GA nomination. In it, the user says that the article qualify's for a quick fail based on immediate failures because of "some really large referencing issues towards the end of the article"; what referencing issues might those be? The user fails to answer this in their review of the article but does state that there's not even one source for the filmography section (which can easily been retrieved since the content was taken from IMDB) but earlier said it would take more than a week to address that and "other" issues. In the user's contributions, it takes him several minutes to write a review for a Mariah Carey article shortly after commenting on a FAC article, but takes him five hours to write a one short paragraph for a lengthy article. If I had five hours to do a review I would have wrote down my thoughts on the article, not simply quick fail based on referencing and not specifically go into detail about what those might be. I don't mind criticism (that's what GAN is for), but I expect a detail review on an article I spent some time expanding and researching on. Best, jona(talk) 19:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was rash to immediately come here, as opposed to my talk page, or even the GA review page, where I would have been more than happy to civilly discuss any issues you had with my review of your nomination. I'm currently rather busy and don't really have the time or patience to get into a debate / debacle about a GA nomination's poorly referenced section which subsequently lead to its failure. So I'll just put my hands up and take the hit, perhaps you could have brought it up to standard in the seven-day on-hold period. Perhaps it was rash to quickfail. Feel free to relist. Best, Azealia911 talk 19:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No debate, just wanted to understand what referencing issues you were referring to. On my computer, everything looks fine and I see no CS1 errors or anything. I really don't want to relist and wait another six months before it gets a review, is there anyone out there wiling to pick up the review? I will be available to fix any and all issues if any are found. Best, jona(talk) 20:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) It's a really poor review. If the reviewer wants the one section that doesn't have references to be referenced, I'm sure that's a five minute job. Most of the filmography section is covered by WP:PRIMARY in any case. The review should be re-opened, and not re-listed, it's completely unfair on AJona1992 for this to go back to the end of the queue. Picking a GA with over 200 references and then claiming it was under-referenced to the point that it was worse than a stub is insulting. I suggest that Azealia911 refrains from further GA reviews until he/she is actually commensurate with how GAN works. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to pick up the review, The Rambling Man. Azealia911 talk 20:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you should be advised not to make reviews of this nature again. Reviewers need to demonstrate competence. Please place the article back "onreview" as soon as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually done nothing wrong, thankyou very much. Point one of the immediate failures is "It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid or needs new cleanup banners." Are you telling me a {{Unreferenced section}} didn't need to be added to the Filmography section? Azealia911 talk 20:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And it could be easily fixed within seven days. Seven minutes probably if you insisted on inline citations for each one. Your review was appalling and you should be encouraged to not review another GAN until you understand that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus christ, I fucked up one GA review and held my hands up, there's no need to be such a massive dick, spouting off about competence. Azealia911 talk 20:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish. You pick an article with over 200 references and then quick fail it for having one section you deem to be unreferenced? Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment on the review or the reviewer (as enough has already been said about it), but will add that it is important for all potential GA reviewers (as well as the users submitting their work for review) to have enough time available to discuss improvements in the article. It's important to keep in mind WP:TIND in these type of cases (even if there is a backlog); i.e., maintain quality over quantity.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically Azealia911 is right; the article does meet the quick fail criteria. However, in this case WP:IAR applies. Just because it can be quickfailed does not mean it should be quickfailed. sstflyer 01:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. If it's an issue that can be resolved within a seven-day period or less, then it should not quick-failed. As TRM stated, the one issue Azealia911 listed on the review is something that most editors who have enough experience can fix with little to no problem. Quick fail should only if it is beyond a doubt that the whole article could be fixed within a seven-day period. Erick (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, quick-fail can be used even if it can be resolved within 7 days. The criteria for quick-fail does not specify this. One example of this is if the article contains copyright infringement. Even though the infringed content can be removed quickly in under a day, it is a candidate for quick-fail. Is this review a best practice scenario? No. Can it be handled better in the future? Absolutely (and a good example of invoking IAR). Is this case merits barring someone from reviewing? No, because the interpretation of a rule is only as good as how precise the rule is written. I also want to note that AJona1992 did not engage in discussing with Azealia911 prior to bringing the debate over here. Any reasonable person would be expected to communicate with the reviewer and then proceed here if unsatisfied with the outcome of that discussion. I know this is going to draw flak from all sides, but I find fault on all sides (the rule itself and both parties). OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't need to discuss how poorly and unprofessional Azealia911's review was on his talk page. When he opened the review to this article, he should have prepared to dedicate his time in reviewing an article based on the GA standards. His review was poorly done and it needed attention, especially since he regularly reviews articles here. Who knows what other reviews he has done that were similar to this, his review of this article needed attention from those who were more experienced; and it did. He has since been asked to stop and reexamine what a good GA reviewer is, which he agreed he should do. If the problem was minor, I would have responded on the GA review itself. Best, jona(talk) 22:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out other reviews done by Azealia911 that were considered poor? Calling someone "Who knows what other reviews he has done that were similar to this" without providing evidence is considered to be casting aspersion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd rather this just go away, have the article re-assessed by someone, and we all move on with our lives, I'm not going to be repeatedly ridiculed and called out for doing something perfectly in my rights. "It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid or needs new cleanup banners" is grounds for immediate failure, which means "An article can be failed without further review". At the time I reviewed the article, it needed an {{Unreferenced section}} template in the Filmography section, and actually still needs one. Could you have addressed the issue in seven days? Quite possibly, but the decision to fail the article lies with the reviewer, not the nominator. You may have not liked my review, but calling it poor, incompetent, incomplete and unprofessional is completely uncalled for when I did nothing more than review the article against criteria page. Also, "since been asked to stop and reexamine what a good GA reviewer is, which he agreed he should do." is false, I never agreed to do anything. Azealia911 talk 18:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have done. A cursory glance could have led to you just requesting whether the nominator could address just a single section you deemed necessary of referencing, rather than quick-failing a GAN that had been waiting for five months. All you achieved was to send it straight to the back of the queue with your particular interpretation of the GAN criteria. I'm really glad to see that it's been picked up by a more considerate reviewer. Take a moment to understand how it would feel to see one of your GANs wait for five months just to be quick-failed for something that would take an experienced editor (e.g. the nominator) a matter of minutes to fix. You should think twice before doing such a thing again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting ridiculous. A user made a faulty review due to lack of experience, the user is notified that it was faulty and tries to do it differently henceforward, problem solved, life goes on. We need more reviewers, not less, so let's not try to drive a potential future reviewer away just for the sake of drama. We do not punish people endlessly for mistakes here, unless they continue to repeat the mistakes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to AJona1992 for improving and nominating this article; keep up the good work! Thanks to Azealia911 for the professional review; please continue to review articles here at Wikipedia. And thanks also to Freikorp for picking up the review. The Quick fail section of the GA Criteria page needs to be slightly improved. It was used to justify this kind of issue, so I have made an improvement that now clarifies when to quick fail. By touching on the roles of both the nominator and the reviewer, the section now brings a little more accountability to both roles. Hopefully, we will keep this kind of issue from happening again in the near future. Since all of us would have preferred to have seen this issue turn out differently, I do not believe anyone is to blame. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2nd opinion request

Talk:Messers Run/GA1 was just reviewed by someone who made a series of bizarrely inaccurate, irrelevant to GA, and unaddressable comments. I initially used the 2nd opinion template, but it seems that that's for reviewers, not nominators. So can someone who knows what they're doing please step in and review? Thanks. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the review seems a mess; I'll try to review it today for you. If the reviewer fails it in the interim, renominate and ping me. GRAPPLE X 12:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pope Francis/GA2 - by the same reviewer, who seems to have very limited edits of their own. I would suggest this review be taken over by someone else. — Maile (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Japanese Committee on Trade and Information/GA1 - Here's another one by the same reviewer. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have left the reviewer a message on their Talk page. — Maile (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&oldid=683496108"