Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:GAN)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk

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. Questions may also be asked at the GA Help desk. To check and see if your question may already be answered, click to show the frequently asked questions below or search the archives below.

Suspicious GA reviews by Reviewer65[edit]

Reviewer 65 promoted three Good Articles in a single day: (1) Shinagawa no Tsuki, Yoshiwara no Hana, and Fukagawa no Yuki, (2) Ughill Hall shootings, and (3) Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento without providing a thorough review and doing them very quickly. All within an hour of each other.

Pinging nominators Curly Turkey, DrStrauss and MagicatthemovieS respectively.

Any advice on how to proceed? These articles need to be properly reviewed again, IMO. I'm open to do it, but I'm currently working in another review and it might take me several days to get through all these. MX () 19:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Standard procedure here is to simply undo the reviews, get an admin (*waves*) to delete them (per G6 I think) and put them back on the queue without prejudice. In the case of Gerald Ford, since Lynette Fromme is still alive, BLP comes into play and so the article needs close scrutiny. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Ugh that's a bugger - first good article :/ . Yeah, I'm fine with a re-review per what Ritchie says. DrStrauss talk 19:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't even get a notice of the review—didn't even realize it ahd happened. I'm much more interested in having someone read the article than in adding another green button to my list—please have it reverted. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: Done. You can delete the pages now. Thank you! MX () 23:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it should be noted that Reviewer 65 posted the following on their User page: Had a clean start after realizing people off-wiki knew my online identity. Intend to focus on good article reviews. If they truly intend to continue in this focus, it could become an issue, given what happened with the first three reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to MX—I'm restoring the original nomination templates for the three articles so they don't lose their seniority. They will temporarily have the increased page numbers until Ritchie333 deletes the review pages, at which point I'll be changing the page numbers back to their original values. This also means that you will be eligible to review these once the page numbers are back to 1 since they will retain their original nominators; if your name remained on the nominations, you wouldn't be able to review them since nominator and reviewer cannot be the same person. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset: Got it, thank you for the clarification. I apologize for the inconveniences I caused. MX () 03:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, reviews are deleted, so they should appear back at the top of the queue as "awaiting" so a more experienced reviewer can pick them up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if it makes too much of a difference, but the "start review" pages still point to GA2, despite the aforementioned deletions of the GA1 pages. This subsequently meant that one of those that MX has taken on, has assumed the page 2 article space. It may not matter too much, though I suspect GA1 should always be the first review. Bungle (talkcontribs) 15:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed this so the Ughill hall shootings review page is now GA1, and the other two have been adjusted on their talk pages so they'll start at GA1. When the bot runs in about five minutes, the GAN page will reflect all the necessary changes. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad the mess is cleaned up. I delivered the message to their talk page to address this issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Ughill Hall shootings is still listed as a Good Article. I thought this was going to be re-reviewed. No less than 48 newspaper sources used for it were cited without the accompanying author being mentioned. The reviewer told the nominator "since they are offline, I'll have to accept good faith on this one." Faith in that nominator should now be seen as ill-advised, according to this discussion pointed out above. The reviewer went on to ask the nominator "Do you have the print versions of these sources?" to which the nominator replied "I've got copies scanned on microfilm." I believe what the nominator meant to say was microfiche, and odd slip of the tongue to make for anyone knowing their way around rare storage materials like microfiche. And if they were in possession of it, unless he has a machine in his garage, those reels are useless. In any event, if he has access to them then the authors should have been easily placed in the article, and yet they weren't. I can see leaving out the author's name if the reference was easily linked. In that case, the name would not urgently be needed, because one click of the mouse would bring up the author's name. But in this instance, these are 48 non-linked and therefore not-easily located references. For anyone trying to verify the information, having all the info at their disposal is most helpful in locating and confirming a source, making the addition of the author more urgent in this type of scenario. With so many missing, I can't help but feel that when it comes to that article, somethings rotten in the state of Denmark.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  22:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@Spintendo: I think you're right. After the incident involving the nominator, we should probably require him/her to provide us with the offline sources. I recently requested that in another review where another editor and I believed there was some conflict of interest. How do you advice we should proceed? The editor is long-gone... I'm fine with having the GA status removed. This is a unique circumstance. MX () 10:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, the Times references at least are genuine. I've filled them out, and will try to take a look around the rest later. I suspect that "I've got copies scanned on microfilm." probably referred to library copies, rather than personal copies, but who knows. Harrias talk 10:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here is a sampling of these problematic reference entries:

This has no author and specifies only The Times.

  • "Foreign News Briefs". United Press International. 29 September 1986. 
This one has no author, there is no article title and there is no database URL. There is only a date and an agency, UPI.

  • "Solicitor 'agreed suicide pact'". The Independent. 22 July 1987. 
Many of the references are like this one. There is no database URL and there is no author. The title here, like almost all the references, is truncated, in a similar fashion to how titles are truncated in a batch of search results. That would explain the reference titles which were presumably taken from a database search. And we can see that the URL is provided in some of those cases. What that doesn't explain is why references like the one above are truncated, especially considering that it wasn't taken from a database (there is no URL accompanying it). If the nominator had hardcopy access to the above article (and thus, its full title and the author's name) then why is the title truncated and the author missing?

These two examples are perhaps the strangest of them all. As you can see, both entries appear to make reference to two different articles appearing in The Times, ostensibly published 10 days apart from each other. And yet if you look closely, you will notice that the database URL links are identical — with both links referring to the exact same Cengage/Gale document number, #IF503090231.


I see three possible explanations for these last two references:

  1. They came about as the result of an innocent copy/paste error made during editing
  2. Cengage/Gale assigned two different newspaper articles the exact same document number
  3. The nominator fabricated the references

I believe that what happened here is that the nominator looked at his list of references and thought it might look better to have more of them. He either a) saw articles on a database that he wanted to use but did not have access to — in which case he "borrowed" the reference titles, posting just the bare minimum of info, and then added to the article whatever information he felt "looked good enough" to go with the reference; OR, b) many of the references were invented by him wholesale, and then sprinkled among whatever legitimate references he was able to find. In any event, if I'm correct about all of this then the integrity of the article has been severely compromised, and at a minimum, its GA status should be rescinded.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  16:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I'm afraid you've come into the middle of this (me improving the references), made an assumption of bad faith, not paid enough attention, and come to entirely the wrong conclusion. All the newspaper references had no urls until I went through adding some. So yes, it will have been an innocent copy/paste error. From me, not the nominator. Many newspaper articles simply don't include the author. This was the case for many of those in the Times and the Guardian that I came across. From the checks I have done on those, all but one have checked out fine, and the other is likely my searching. On that basis, I am comfortable that the rest are almost certainly all genuine too. Harrias talk 18:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
If the process of you laying your eyes on these articles has convinced you that they are real, then by all means, allow us to experience that same level of certainty by providing the documents themselves — rather than labeling me as not paying attention after just discovering your error.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The links are there, help yourself. Harrias talk 20:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
"From the checks I have done on those, all but one have checked out fine, and the other is likely my searching." You confirmed 28 out of 56 references, and that a fairly good amount. "On that basis, I am comfortable that the rest are almost certainly all genuine too." That seems premature. You checked half of the references, but you're willing to speak for an additional 35% sight unseen. You'll forgive me for being a bit more skeptical, especially in this case. You mentioned that I came late to this process, but weren't you checking these references just now, fully one month after GA status was originally approved? Why these checks weren't made before is an understandable question to ask.
I'm sorry if I'm coming off as perturbed at this situation, but considering it took one month and 2 separate review sessions to pass a single article which, even at this stage, still contains 35% unverified references — well I'm sure you'd agree with me that doesn't appear to be the GA process we all deserve. Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  22:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Even for a Featured article, we don't need 100%, or even 50% of the references to have been verified. They do however need to be verifiable. Typically even for a Featured article review, only spot checks would be carried out. If those find no problems, we assume the rest are fine too. In this case, where there are reasonable problems raised with the nominator, I can understand your scepticism. But even with that taken into consideration, I am more than happy with what I have seen. Should the nominator have provided more details (ie. author details when present, and certainly page numbers) yes. Absolutely. But what is provided is enough to find those sources, so they are technically verifiable. Should more have picked up and requested earlier? Maybe, yes. I will continue to try and flesh out the references where I can, there are certainly a few more from the Guardian that I ran out of time to look for, and then I'll see whether I can find any of the other papers in any of the archives I have access to. Harrias talk 10:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money.3F about paid editors using a position of trust or community-granted tools to affect articles (e.g. via OTRS and WP:AfC - based on a real case). I'm wondering whether something very minor might be added here as well. I'd like to say that prohibiting reviewing for pay just does not need to be said, nevertheless based on the OTRS case, it probably does need to be said.

The current wording here (repeated in several places) is:

"Anyone may nominate an article, and any uninvolved and registered user with sufficient knowledge and experience with Wikipedia content policies may review an article nominated at this page against the good article criteria."

I'd like to add at the end "Nominating or reviewing an article for pay is prohibited." Any feedback? Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If somebody's getting paid to write articles that actually meet the GA criteria (as opposed to a walled garden of socks passing each others' work), then I see no issue. We need to get this silly "ewww paid editing is evil ban ban ban ban ban" mindset out of our heads - do you think Linus Torvalds wrote the Linux kernel entirely in his spare time for no renumeration? Of course not. If it meets the core article policies of being verifiable, having a neutral point of view and no original research, it doesn't really matter if the writer got paid $250,000 or a cheese and ham pizza. (In fact, I have previously disclosed on-wiki that I have written an article and got paid one of those two things I just mentioned). Anyone doing slapdash reviews tends to get picked up and routinely slapped about a bit (see the Reviewer 65 thread above). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't really see what the issue is with someone being paid to build up and nominate or review a nominated article. Surely, as Richie says, if the article actually meets the standard needed for GA, then providing it's conducted in an open and public manner, why would there be an issue? Looking at the bigger picture, it may well be that some articles are actually written to a high standard or indeed expanded to an extent that would have otherwise taken a long time, if at all, without someone doing so through incentive. An article that can be justified being on wikipedia should not be banned from the GA process because the editing user gained in some monetary way. If there is a real, genuine concern why this is disruptive then it needs to be mentioned, as I can't identify any real issues surrounding this. Bungle (talkcontribs) 22:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 1st question - how many reviewers have declared that they are editing for pay when they have reviewed an article for pay in the last 3 years, as required by the Tou? I'd guess zero.
  • 2nd - how many reviewers do you think have actually reviewed for pay over the last 3 years?
  • 3rd - if paid reviewers are going to casually ignore our most basic rule, the ToU, shouldn't we remind them that they need to follow our rules?
  • 4th - do you think that a reviewer paid by the subject of the article, or by the article writer can really do an objective review? Wouldn't they be considered to be "involved"?
Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My feeling is that people who are being paid are automatically involved, and therefore cannot be reviewers. Just as significant prior editing of an article creates a conflict of interest between an editor's attachment to their own writing and their ability to review that writing impartially, so does being paid to review an article creates a conflict of interest, because it is in the interest of attracting future business to pass things rather than to fail them. Perhaps this needs clarification, that paid editors cannot be reviewers. I'm less certain what to do about paid nominators, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Given a review is conducted in an open manner, then a review that appears to be passed without significant, or indeed any scrutiny, will surely be identified by others and perhaps flagged up as a concern (e.g. Reviewer65). I accept that someone being paid to review will no doubt be expected to pass an article, though I am not sure why a company or individual would want to pay to have their wiki page "GA", which often goes unnoticed to the casual reader; more likely the paid editors are just that - editors. I favour an expectation of paid editors being transparent and disclosing that they're gaining monetarily (or by other means), though how you could enforce that I do not know. I still do not think a blanket "ban" is appropriate or conducive, particularly when there hasn't actually been any real concern of a prior incident (that I know of) as to why this should be considered. Bungle (talkcontribs) 09:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think GA reviews typically undergo much scrutiny. And if a paid reviewer was trying to underplay some problematic aspects of an article, it would be really easy to do by just spending more attention on other aspects to make the review long. So I don't have any confidence that problems coming from paid reviewers would be caught. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
As a compromise, maybe article nominated or reviewed by paid editors should be flagged as such on the talk page? FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
What's the point? If it requires an untainted reviewer to do the same review work anyway, what is the value of the paid review? And why should we be catering to paid editors by allowing the creation of a market for paid GA reviewers? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, the point is, again, to compromise between the two opinions. Barring paid review/nomination would seem to be a wider issue not only relevant to GA, so I find it unlikely that it will happen any time soon, if ever, (though I am sympathetic to the idea from an "ethical" standpoint, but don't feel strongly about the issue). In the meantime, flagging could be a temporary solution. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
If we have a choice between a good thing and a bad thing, we should choose the good thing, not try to find some compromise between them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It isn't much of a compromise in any case.. Paid editors are required by the Terms of Use to declare their paid status for any edit, either on the their user page, the article talk page, or in the edit summary. So the "compromise" is simply that they have to declare it on the talk page every time and then there would be an implied acceptance that paid reviews are ok. No thanks!

I'm surprised that people are arguing that paid reviews are ok. Isn't it obvious that they make the reviewer involved? Since people are arguing the opposite, I guess it needs to be said clearly "soliciting or accepting payment for a review is prohibited." The statement that "if the article actually meets the standard" then everything is ok is just self-delusion. Making GA reviews open for sale, as a couple folks seem to be proposing is nuts. It would degrade the entire project.

Given that one side presents this issues as "We need to get this silly 'ewww paid editing is evil ban ban ban ban ban' mindset out of our heads" and thus allow the purchase of GA reviews, I think the choice is obvious - clearly prohibit payment for reviews. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My expression of opinion stems from the fact that I have actually yet to see or identify a paid review that caused enough controversy as to warrant a change, or as some say, a clarification in the terms under which a review can be undertaken. Whilst I certainly wouldn't say I am in the "favour" camp for permitting paid reviewers, I have not been given any reason to believe it would be problematic to the extent that it should be prohibited. A paid reviewer will no doubt be proficient at what they do, and more than likely conduct a more thorough undertaking than your average editor, some of whom are unfamiliar with the criteria or simply have not got the ability to understand what's expected. Personally, if the terms change to ban paid reviewers, then I wouldn't really care less, but I do know the backlog is vast and there has been no suggestion made as to how it could be enforced.
The separate matter is about prohibiting paid nominators (also proposed in the opening paragraph), which I understand to be editors that have been paid to build up an article, but will subsequently then be reviewed by an unbias third party. Again, have we had any issues in this respect that demonstrate it as an unsuitable approach? Bungle (talkcontribs) 08:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
So much for "Comment on the content, not the contributor". Does anyone have any actual examples? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It is one thing to write an article for pay, it is another to promote an article to GA for pay. The first is allowed, the second IMO should not be. If we start allowing the selling of peer review we will have a problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Actual examples[edit]

Let's start with the first paid editing blow-up that I'd ever seen (in 2009) resulting in this discussion

The article Dalberg Global Development Advisors was written and nominated for GA by User:Zithan a soon-to-be blocked sock of an admin. See Talk:Dalberg Global Development Advisors/GA1, [1]. The article is just an embarrassment to anybody who reads it and was delisted 6 months after being listed as a GA.

I'd rather not get into details about current editors and reviewers, and will not make any accusations here, but let's just say that I consider the reviews of the following articles to have been problematical. All the articles were written and nominated by @CorporateM:, a still active and disclosed paid editor.

Now that's over 10% of the GA output of CorpM, who as a declared paid editor is just the easiest person to check. And indeffed reviewers are just the easiest way to check the quality of the reviewer. If I were to check other editors and use more subjective screens I'm sure I'd find lots more problematical reviews.

Again, I'm not making accusations against CorpM (e.g. his clients might have been operating behind his back). But this does show that there's a problem. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

So two editors did a bunch of slapdash reviews that were overturned, and were later blocked. The system works fine as is. I'm pretty sure I've done a GA review for CoporateM at least once, I just can't remember which. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm also a paid editor who has reviewed and nominated articles. Since I work for a university library, my position is a little different, but I am still a paid editor. I also have two student editors who work for me. I don't think there is an official policy on it, but I never review articles that my students nominate for GA. In the past, I've encouraged them to review other articles to get to know the process, and also to alleviate the review burden we contribute to when we nominate articles. Some articles we nominated failed their GA review, which encouraged us to improve them. I can list a few articles if you're interested. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Richard III of England/GA2[edit]

I'm concerned about this GA review. Although some action points have been listed, they don't appear have to been acted on, and there have been a few large scale reverts. Having quickly run this by Ealdgyth, she has identified key problems with the sourcing, and we agree that for such an important topic, a GA review has to be more thorough and investigate the source material far more carefully. The easiest option is to revert the pass and continue the review. What do other people think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not an obvious bad review so the best approach would be WP:GAR. AIRcorn (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
You can always request that the reviewer reverse their pass and resume the review so you can add your comments about what issues still need to be addressed; I've done that on a few occasions. If they refuse, or agree but then repass it before the issues have been addressed, then you'll want to open an individual reassessment, not a community one, as the latter could take months. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The reviewer did leave a section for non-reviewer comments so might be open to reopening it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The easiest thing to do would be list the issues which are considered serious here (or on the review page. I don't mind), if they can be dealt with quickly enough I would be perfectly happy to keep it marked GA while that is done. Otherwise I will have to reverse the pass and put the review on hold whilst they are dealt with. Dysklyver 10:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey, User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, why don't you just revert your pass and return the article to its place in the pool? — fortunavelut luna 11:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Mostly because it would be a whole lot of work to revert it, derail the DYK and put everything on hold, and I would rather not do so until a few people have commented on it. (The concerns, while not detailed, are already stated here User_talk:Ealdgyth#Richard_III). If no one comments to the contrary I will probably put it back into a review later today. Dysklyver 12:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: OK, thanks. I've left a note on the DYK/Riii page for the reviewer; incidentally, you haven't finished the nomination yet. You filled in the template, but it still needs to be moved to the actual nomination page. — fortunavelut luna 12:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
fortuna, good to know! Well with the DYK suitably in limbo, I am going to put the review on hold pending rectification of the issues and input from the people here. If everyone could busy themselves with making comments on the review page that would be great. (I will ping everyone there). Dysklyver 12:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the GA should be reversed, the article put back into the pool, and a - I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but - a more experienced reviewer to take it on? How many GAs have you reviewed so far, User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver? -I make it two? I think this is just biting off more than one can chew. Running before walking, etc.— fortunavelut luna 12:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Well I am not going to pass it again until Richie is happy with it, so it should be fine. That being said I have already reversed the pass, and it isn’t in the pool yet, any technical assistance would be useful... Dysklyver 13:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer blocked[edit]

Ritchie333, now that A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver has been blocked for at least six months, would you like to take over the review, or should we put the nomination back in the pool of unreviewed nominations to await a new reviewer? BlueMoonset (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's best to put it back in the pile - I don't think I've got the required knowledge to do a good job on an article like this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I've archived the review page and the nomination is back in the pool with no loss of seniority. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Where would nightclubs fall?[edit]

I'd like to place my article nominated for GA, a nightclub, in the correct slot. A nightclub is a place for recreation, but even though dancing occurs there, it isn't a sport. It serves a product for consumption, liquor, and for that reason it may function like a restaurant. But while drinks are important there, food really is not. So does that make it a business? Or is it just miscellaneous? I currently have it under Ag food & drink, but that doesn't feel right. I've searched the FAQ archives under the terms bar and nightclub and found nothing. The closest I found to a nightclub was a GA done on a strip club, and that had been placed under business. Please advise.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  20:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • @Spintendo: Hi, thanks for coming to the talkpage. I actually saw your article at the "Agriculture, food, and drink" section and thought it was fine. The fact that San Francisco views nightclubs similarly to restaurants (as you mentioned in the comment posted in the nomination's page) satisfies inclusion, per "This includes agriculture and farming, horticulture and forestry, restaurants, cuisines, food, drink, food and drink companies, food and drink people, and cookery books." Feel free to ask for a second opinion. MX () 21:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll just keep it where it is then, thank you for your help.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  22:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Tidying up a template[edit]

Don't know if this is relevant, but we have an open 2016 template on On the Art of the Cinema/GA1. The original reviewer was unable to complete the review, so another editor completed the review on the article's talk page. It passed GA that way. I'm just wondering if anything ought to be done to close out the template itself. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Most GA reviews are not archived in any way. The GA1 review was effectively abandoned, and the GA2 was the review that was completed. I don't see any particular need to archive the GA1 page, if that's what you mean. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Aging Reviews in Progress[edit]

Hello, I have noticed as I look for more articles to review that many articles such as "Hungary" have been in "Review in Progress" for months. Is there any steps we take to this? Do we fail these articles? It just seems to create a bigger backlog than we should have. Thank you. AmericanAir88 (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I try and do a sweep every so often, but it's gotten overwhelming in recent months just to keep up given there's pretty much no reviewers anymore. Some the review is complete and the reviewer just never wrapped it up, other times the write disappears and it's never closed. No quick fix, just gotta go through each one and figure out whether to pass/fail/re-queue/ignore it. Wizardman 16:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)