Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

This is the list of Frequently asked questions about nominating and reviewing Good articles. If you cannot find the answer to your question here, you might want to ask for assistance at the GA nominations discussion page.

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 588 nominations listed and 489 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

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Dated archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcut

WT:GAN

My nomination isn't showing up

I tried to nominate 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team the other night, but the nomination hasn't appeared on GAN yet. After checking and re-checking the article's talk page, I can't see what I did wrong. I am an infrequent nominator at GAN, so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a step somewhere. Any attempts to clean up my mess would be appreciated. Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried removing and re-adding the template, with the time stap intact so you don't lose any place in the listings. If that doesn't work, maybe it could be manually added to the page (though there's then the chance Legobot removes it during its updates). GRAPPLE ^X 15:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that worked, though a diff shows no difference in the two GA nominee templates. Bots move in mysterious ways... BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the solution was to turn it off and on again. GRAPPLE ^X 16:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did everything right the first time. Not sure why that would happen, but bots can miss things every now and then as you say. Thanks for getting the nom to appear for me. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock notice

Hello! Recently we have a bunch of socks who have been nominating various subpar articles for FA/FL/GA status without majorly working on them. All socks are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TekkenJinKazama. The socks seem to be infecting entertainment related page majorly. Hence requesting all reviewers to do a basic background check of the nominator, their edit histories related to the nomination page, etc. before starting the review and wasting your time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion at Talk:Electromagnetic articulography

Hi, a second opinion has been requested at Talk:Electromagnetic articulography. Would anyone be willing to take a look at it? Wugapodes (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate GA Review at Talk:Bicycle kick

The article bicycle kick has been on the list for GA review for a few months. It is the fourth article that I have submitted for GA nomination. Recently, the user Alpinu began to edit the article inappropriately and also began to raise questions of non-neutrality in the article's talk page—the questions have been addressed, albeit apparently not to Alpinu's satisfaction. There was also strange behavior through IP edits, which have been reported to administrators (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alpinu). The user has now initiated a GA review of the article, despite never having shown experience with the process in the English Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, the "review" he has presented is not really a review (see Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1), but again the same POV-pushing from the talk page. This goes against WP:GAMING. I kindly request that this GA review by Alpinu be removed and that the article be examined by an editor that does not have an ax to grind on this subject. Thanks.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly doesn't read like a complete review, and the comments made in it would be more suitable as suggestions on the talk page. I suppose that it is possible that Alpinu plans to complete the review later? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If MarshalN20 disagrees with my review (not complete yet) or if he thinks it is inappropriate, he can ask for a new reviewer. On the other hand, I just wonder why my edits are inappropriate since they are based on what the reference states ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Taking into account material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, I think it is better to fix this material as quickly as possible. Regarding the "strange behavior through IP edits", I agree that this should be reported to administrators. Best wishes!--Alpinu (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for your review is not to help evaluate or improve the article based on the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, but rather to discuss the neutrality of the article. You've made this very clear from the start. This article has been patiently waiting for months for a good review. You're disrupting the process, gaming the system. As Larry points out, your concerns "would be more suitable as suggestions on the talk page."

I again request that this review by Alpinu be removed and this article to continue awaiting the review of someone who is actually going to review it based on the GA criteria.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, socking through IP addresses is not a matter to be taken lightly.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, WP:VER and WP:NPOV are part of the GA criteria. Best wishes!--Alpinu (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to be using the GA criteria headings to structure your review, though, Alpinu. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alpinu, you're being very dishonest with the GA process. If you had concerns with certain aspects of the article, these points could (and should) have been raised as comments in the talk page. The GA process requires a reviewer who is committed to examining the article based on all the GA criteria, providing thoughtful suggestions based on experience (in terms of both English writing, as in the prose, and sourcing; not just one or the other).

Moreover, as Karel suggested ([5]), it would have also been helpful to have a reviewer with a neutral viewpoint providing their thoughts on the neutrality of the article. At this point, all you're doing is sabotaging the article because it does not match your truthiness.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Review, No Improvement

In my talk page, the GA Review bot wrote that the process would take "up to 7 days." The GA Instructions page points out that the review can be completed in about 7 days. It has been well over seven days, and the Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1 continues being anything but a review that addresses the GA criteria standards. It is clear that the "reviewer," the user Alpinu, created the GA page solely to sabotage the article's chances of achieving GA status. This article has been waiting for a dedicated reviewer for various months, and it would be unfair for it to be dismissed at this point. Therefore, I kindly request that the bicycle kick review be taken up by a different user or that the current review be deleted (or archived) and that the article get placed in its prior spot in the GA waiting line. Thank you very much.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you withdraw your current nomination and immediately renominate, I'd be willing to do a review this weekend. Wugapodes (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested on two Australian images

Joan Lindsay/GA1 I'm a little uncertain of whether or not to let the two images of Joan Lindsay pass. I'm unfamiliar with copyright law in Australia. Would someone please give their input on the template? — Maile (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(IANAL, TINLA) Australia's copyright term is life of the photographer plus seventy years, so for for these pictures taken in 1914 and 1925, they may have entered the public domain at any point since 1984 and 1995, depending on the age of the photographer at the time the pictures were taken, but no sooner. Without knowing the the date of death for the specific photographer for these two photos, determining specific copyright expiry dates is impossible. However, the source (the State Library of Victoria) gives the copyright status as expired for both these pictures, and since there is no obvious flaw in their claim we may simply accept it as valid on the presumption that they know the death date of the photographer.

I am, however, slightly more dubious about the US copyright status of the 1925 image. Granted there are exceptions for works published in the US without a copyright notice, but the exception applies to works published in the US without a copyright notice, and I see no reason to assume these images were ever published in the US.

All in all the copyright situation would appear to be complicated enough that wider input may be necessary to determine what to do. I would suggest Commons:Village pump/Copyright as the place to ask. --Xover (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Per your advice, I am now taking this questions to Commons VP Copyright. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-directing citations back to Wikipedia

I think this is the first time I've posted here. I'm bringing this as a general issue as I have seen this recently on two GAs for articles on TV episodes nominated at "Did You Know". I'm going to use an example here but its not against any particular editor/ article but I do want to just discuss/mention/propose/remind best practice and maybe this point will improve.

What is happening here is that a reference, in an article, is given to someone else's work correctly. The user is directed to look at say...(Reference. x: Rob Thomas's DVD commentary Veronica Mars: The Complete Third Season) but then the url is not assigned correctly but directed to another wiki article (try it?). This is interfering with what the reader wants. They click to find the source and to see the work done by Rob Thomas but they are redirected back to Wikipedia (annoying on other sites and here). If we have no url then we should just leave it blank. This has been fixed on the article in question, but I thought I'd raise it here as it I have seen it twice on new GAs recently. Thanks for listening to this. Victuallers (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion requested

Talk:Porcupine (Cheyenne)/GA1 2nd opinion requested. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 ===Inappropriate Review, No Improvement===
 In my talk page, the GA Review bot wrote that the process would take "up to 7 days." The GA Instructions page points out that the review can be completed in about 7 days. It has been well over seven days, and the [[Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1]] continues being anything but a review that addresses the GA criteria standards. It is clear that the "reviewer," the user Alpinu, created the GA page solely to sabotage the article's chances of achieving GA status. This article has been waiting for a dedicated reviewer for various months, and it would be unfair for it to be dismissed at this point. Therefore, I kindly request that the [[bicycle kick]] review be taken up by a different user or that the current review be deleted (or archived) and that the article get placed in its prior spot in the GA waiting line. Thank you very much.--[[User:MarshalN20|<span style="color:olive">'''MarshalN20'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MarshalN20|<sup><font color="maroon">'''T'''</font><font color="Silver">'''al'''</font><font color="maroon">'''k'''</font></sup>]] 15:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
+:If you withdraw your current nomination and immediately renominate, I'd be willing to do a review this weekend. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] ([[User talk:Wugapodes|talk]]) 16:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 == Input requested on two Australian images ==