I reviewed my first article today (you can find my review [[Talk:6th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia/GA1|here]]). The writer thought I interpreted the guidelines a bit harshly. Is he correct? Or am I in the right? Please answer honest and direct please :) --[[User:Ruling party|Ruling party]] ([[User talk:Ruling party|talk]]) 23:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I reviewed my first article today (you can find my review [[Talk:6th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia/GA1|here]]). The writer thought I interpreted the guidelines a bit harshly. Is he correct? Or am I in the right? Please answer honest and direct please :) --[[User:Ruling party|Ruling party]] ([[User talk:Ruling party|talk]]) 23:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
== Gelato isn't ready to be a Good Article ==
==Gelato==
Do you want [[Fidel Castro]] to come to the [[United States]] and ban [[cannabis]] in ALL 50 STATES? Of course, not. The [[gelato (cannabis)]] article was just approved but it is ONLY A STUB. Please make it good article or Fidel may come knocking.
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.
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 589 nominations listed and 492 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.
If no one else is willing, I will do this for all the ones save Arbor Hill since that was my own nom. But I'd really prefer someone else stepping in. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Daniel Case and Epicgenius: AussieCoinCollector has been blocked as a long-term abuse sock. I think under the circumstances all the reviews need to be undone/deleted, and the nominations restored to await regular reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the other two; it seems someone else took care of the rest. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted a GA nomination
An editor who registered an account on 14 January and who has had most edits reverted, nomination Holiday World & Splashin' Safari for GA after one minor edit to this currently C-class article. I reverted the nomination. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opened their own review
Ewf9h-bg is both the nominator and reviewer of Talk:Ancient furniture/GA1. It looks like they might not have realized that they have to wait for an uninvolved editor to open the review. (t · c) buidhe 04:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the review. I guess the bot should notice that soon and clean up? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed once I started the review someone else would come an review it Ewf9h-bg (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ewf9h-bg, No, you have to wait for an uninvolved editor to open the review. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on a GAN (IAR?)
G'day all, I am currently reviewing a GAN on a controversial subject, and consider that one aspect of the article does not meet criteria #4 (neutrality). I would prefer to not fail it on my opinion alone, the rest of the article is fine, but am at an impasse with the nominator. Usually, use of a RfC to get a community consensus isn't necessary or even desirable at GAN (in fact WP:RFCNOT says not to), and in nearly 350 GAN reviews, I have never had this arise, but the article seems important enough to me to ask for a community view on neutrality before I fail it on my opinion alone. Is it reasonable to IAR here? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one option is to listen to the other two editors who supported FDW7777's version and consider that the consensus may be against you on this point. Failing that, I can see no other objection to an RfC to decide the content of the article (as opposed to the outcome of the GAN). (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but given the topic, I am thinking that a wider consensus on the neutrality of the Sectarianism section would be better. Of course, the decision about passing or failing the GAN itself lies with me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything that needs done when a GA is redirected at AFD?
And several more redirected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetItRight. I know notability isn't hardcoded into the GA criteria, but when we do the GA sweeps, it might be worth taking a glance at the notability of some of these. Hog FarmTalk 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
need to back out of a review I started
I had signed up for Talk:Crusader states/GA2 during the October backlog drive. It took me weeks to gather the source material and I subsequently lost the time needed to continue. Unbeknownst to me, the same article had already been submitted for MILHIST A-class review. All of the changes due to the A-class review have overwhelmed my already-limited ability to keep up. I cannot pass the article as-is because verification problems keep creeping up and Norfolkbigfish (who submitted the GA nom) deserves a complete and correct review which is now months overdue. How shall I proceed? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could one of the reviewers for the A Class take it over? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Help with review please!
I reviewed my first article today (you can find my review here). The writer thought I interpreted the guidelines a bit harshly. Is he correct? Or am I in the right? Please answer honest and direct please :) --Ruling party (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gelato isn't ready to be a Good Article
Gelato
Do you want Fidel Castro to come to the United States and ban cannabis in ALL 50 STATES? Of course, not. The gelato (cannabis) article was just approved but it is ONLY A STUB. Please make it good article or Fidel may come knocking.
