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

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

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)

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)
I'm fine with the review nomination date as August 9th. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
GA1 should work fine, in my opinion. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Unprofessional review[edit]

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)

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)
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)
(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)
Feel free to pick up the review, The Rambling Man. Azealia911 talk 20:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)
  • 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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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

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

May I ask for the deletion of the page Talk:Pope Francis/GA2? The user that made the minimal review accepted his mistake here. It may be more simple if we take it back to a nomination awaiting reviews. Cambalachero (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Taylor Swift/GA3[edit]

This individual reassessment was opened by an editor who had prior edits to the article. The review was started two months ago, but the reviewer immediately delisted and tag-bombed the article after posting the issues to be solved, without notifying major contributors to the article and relevant WikiProjects (e.g. WP:SWIFT). The delisting and tag-bombing has been reverted. How should this be handled? 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Social sciences and society - problem with not listing reviewers[edit]

Links to GA review subpages clearly already have a GA Reviewer, subpage link says discuss review and not start review, but for a lot of them it's lacking the note below it saying Review: this article is being reviewed .

Any ideas on how to fix this?

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's two redundant duplicate sections on that page of the same exact sections. The bottom one is correct, the top one is not. Any ideas on how to fix it? Bot issue? — Cirt (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Akira Kurosawa nomination status[edit]

When I tried to contact the nominating editor for Akira Kurosawa (he nominated the article for GA in Media section) last week, there was no reply since then from that editor. Could someone update the status of the nomination when there is no reply from the nominating editor. MusicAngels (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

2nd opinion request[edit]

Qubool Hai was recently reviewed and passed GA status by Derevation in an extremely cursory review. They've nominated other articles that aren't even close to ready for a GA (a film article on a just released film with no plot section?). The writing is stilted at times, references need substantial cleaning and other issues. There's also some concern because this user and Digvijay411 seem to have traded cursory GA reviews (see Karanvir Bohra, which was reverted). The user hasn't responded to questions given to them and from experience they aren't likely to respond. Derevation also commented Talk:Shreya Ghoshal/GA1 on another GA review in a cursory manner and when challenged on their Qubool Hai review responded very defensively. An independent review would be helpful here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sonnets articles[edit]

As I did a year ago, I've had my students develop several articles on Shakespeare's sonnets for GA status. Last year, one of our articles successfully achieved this status (Sonnet 86). If GA reviewers feel so inclined, I invite them to expedite the reviewing of our nominations. Also, as a note, whether students pass or fail is not a significant part of their grade, so no pressure on that end. Thank you! Westhaddon (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)