Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport

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.

Combined citations?

In Talk:Guillermo Torrez/GA1#General comments, I objected to the way multiple sources were lumped together in a single citation, but I'm not sure my objection is justified. Could somebody who knows better please comment directly on the review page please? RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Those are not prohibited. In fact they're often encouraged to reduce visual clutter. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Additionally see footnote 3 of WP:GACR: For references, consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not a practice I love -- it's often used as a way to bundle together a ton of sources for a particular controversial statement, and source analysis on those doesn't always turn up shining examples of verifiability -- but it's allowed and in this context, with a couple of cites bundled at once for uncontentious things, not something worth fighting over. The next point about Greek letters for footnotes is one I'll differ on more -- it makes footnotes markedly more visually prominent, which they should be (I expect readers completely gloss over efn footnotes). I really prefer {{NoteTag}}, but the Greek letters are probably second best. Vaticidalprophet 01:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If it were not allowed, the existence of Template:Sfnm would be odd. See WP:CITEBUNDLE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing your friend's GAN?

I saw History of transgender people in Brazil was nominated for GA. I've been looking to learn GAN reviewing, and thought that could be a good one to do, as I got my first GA on a similar article. However, it's written by a WikiFriend of mine. Is it considered bad form to review nominations from friends? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No, as long as the review is appropriately thorough and in line with the GACR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, also, feel free to post back here if you have any questions or if you'd like an experienced reviewer to double-check your work. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

As a cautionary tale, see WP:DCGAR though. Just make sure the review can be conducted objectively and don't skip out on any portion of the review based on familiarity/reputation of nominator. Hog Farm _Talk 00:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course! And yeah, I'm planning on asking feedback to make sure I did it right. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We're almost done, now at Talk:Transgender history in Brazil/GA1 (just waiting for one minor licence issue to be resolved). Could someone with more experience have a look to make sure I didn't overlook any part of the process? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Maddy from Celeste, at a quick read through of the review page, the GAN looks quite thorough, with clear allusions or explicit mention of each GACR and clearly laid out spotchecks. If you think the criteria is met, then I think you would be fine to promote it. CMD (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Notifying nominator

How do I notify the nominator that I have begun reviewing their article, or is it done automatically? —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 20:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have started the review through the correct page, it should be automatic. CMD (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Bug in short description?

For Raymond Flynn and Mario Choque (and maybe some others?) the short description is duplicated: "American politician (born 1939)American politician (born 1939)" and "Bolivian politician (born 1954)Bolivian politician (born 1954)" respectively. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

G6?

If I WP:G6 a review under WP:GAN/I#N4a, I assume I should leave the page= attribute of the {{GA nominee}} template unincremented, yes? RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that seems correct, since there is no longer a standing review at the first page. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Potential issue with check-the-boxes review

See Talk:Arithmetic/GA1 (recent checkbox review by User:ThatChemist25), discussion on User talk:ThatChemist25#GA review of Arithmetic by nominator User:Phlsph7, and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Arithmetic/1 (initiated by User:DannyMusicEditor). I'm not sure an immediate GAR is the right process for handling checkbox reviews; shouldn't we just void the review and return the article to the nomination queue? (Potential COI: I am the nominator of another article that ThatChemist25 has promised to review but has not yet reviewed, Talk:Erdős–Anning theorem/GA1. I know a checkbox review is not what I want to get out of this process and I expect Phlsph7 feels similarly.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree: if no real review has happened then having a reassessment to replace the review is not a good idea. But ideally, this would be something that the GA instructions themselves deal with. As I understand it, checkbox reviews are not prohibited. Another question in relation to this case would be whether very new editors should be allowed to do their first review by themselves (rather than with the help of a mentor). I haven't followed all the discussions here so I'm not sure about previous discussions on these issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out. I thought I was doing the right thing, but if in fact I was not, by all means let's take the better route. dannymusiceditor ^oops 22:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit: I made this hastily and thought this was on my talk page 😅 dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7, see the GA instructions: "An in-depth review must be performed in all other cases. This must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers, and that no copyrighted material has been added to the article from the source." This has clearly not happened. I will close the open GAR and revert the close of the review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I have adapted the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4a. The article is now back in its original position in the GA queue; ThatChemist25 is allowed to pick it up and review it again should they wish, but they are requested to follow the reviewing instructions this time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Relatedly, I reverted a drive-by nomination (zero article contributions) by ThatChemist25 of Indiana Pacers. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

invalid review. Must provide info, no check-the-boxes review ThatChemist25 (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That's good to hear that this problem is already addressed by the current instructions. Would it make sense to replace An in-depth review must be performed in all other cases with An in-depth review must be provided in all other cases? This would close the backdoor to reviewers who retroactively claim that they indeed performed an in-depth review but just didn't write it down. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd support this in the spirit of clearer instructions, rather than closing down backdoors. CMD (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Update: Situation now resolved. Reviewer has been blocked as a sockpuppet and the bad reviews speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Both articles should be back on the queue where they belong. I restored the review-number count of the arithmetic nomination back to 1 to avoid the issue of eventually having a review 2 with no review 1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Review for Walter Tull

I am unable to disclose this review of Talk:Walter Tull/GA1, is there anyone available or would like to take over and review it? JC Kotisow (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Given no review has been completed, would you be amenable to simply having that GAN page deleted so the article is returned to the queue? CMD (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Yes that would be helpful. Sorry for the inconvenience. JC Kotisow (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

While looking to reset the talkpage I found that AirshipJungleman29 had already incremented the review number in August, so the article has apparently already been back in the queue for a few months. CMD (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't catch that when I pinged JC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Me either! I think it's a minor difference whether the GAN is deleted and de-incremented, or just left as is. CMD (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Please help understand the reviewer's concerns

Can you please help me understand the concerns of the reviewer User:BeingObjective on two of my failed GA nominations:

• Talk:Ketotifen/GA1
• Talk:Modafinil/GA1

The reviewer mentioned that articles did not meet certain GA criteria without any particular hint on how the articles could be improved so they for sure pass GA on renomination.

I asked the reviewer for help in understanding on how can I improve the articles.

The reviewer provided a reply at Talk:Ketotifen/GA1 that I could not understand. Can you please help and give me guidance? The reviewer also indicated that the articles fail but did not formally conclude the review, so the status of those reviews are still in progress.

Please help me understand the reviewer's concerns. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

They are saying that the prose in the article is too technical and thus WP:MTAU is breached, although the language they have used is, let's be honest, about as unclear as anything in the article. For me, the prose is not as big a problem as the layout—there is considerable MOS:OVERSECTION; the lead of Ketotifen violates the relevant guideline by not summarizing the article, etc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Do you think that I should resolve the MOS:OVERSECTION and rewrite the lead and resubmit for a GA review, also trying where possible to address WP:MTAU where possible? In this case, the reviwer should finalize the review first before I could resubmit? --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You should ask them if they intend to close the review or not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The reviewer asked to invalidate the reviews due to lack of time to complete the reviews. @AirshipJungleman29 can you please handle that invalidation? See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABeingObjective&diff=1187825144&oldid=1187824658 Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Iztwoz, @D6194c-1cc, can you please help? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to note that the reviewer has just passed an article with no comments on an article needing work and has not actually followed this through. Seems as though the responding editor AirshipJungleman has a better knowledge of the subjects than myself but I shall have a look and offer help--Iztwoz (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC) if I can.

The reviwer asked to invalidate the reviews due to lack of time to complete the reviews. I asked @AirshipJungleman29 to perform this process, but I also do not have good knowledge on exceptions from the process. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The process has been performed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Maxim Masiutin, as the editor seems not to have read the instructions, if they do not commit to completing them adequately, the "reviews" will be considered invalid and the nominations returned to the process. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Wadea al-Fayoume

How to find out if there is copyvio in an article. Is there a bot or tool that does that? Also, how can I check if an image used is appropriately licensed and/or has a fair use rationale.

I need this information for my first review: Killing of Wadea al-Fayoume. Since that is my first review, can I request a more experienced reviewer to chip in with their thoughts on the review page?

—M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 17:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)