Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainCriteriaNominationsDiscussionInstructionsReassessmentReportHelp Desk
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 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.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
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. For comparison, today there are currently 568 nominations listed and 477 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, and it also allows reviewers to choose 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) is 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.
I want to review an article. Do I have to review the oldest unreviewed nomination first?
No. You may review any article you are not involved in, regardless of the nomination's age. As a courtesy to nominators who have been waiting a long time, however, you are encouraged to review the older nominations at the top of the queues first.
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 can ask for a second opinion if the reviewer has not yet failed the nomination. You may also allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then immediately renominate the article (to get a different reviewer). You may even request a community reassessment. 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.
Is the "nominator" a special position?
No. Anyone may nominate any article, including unregistered users and people who have never edited the article. Nominating an article is not the exclusive privilege of an article's primary authors, as nominators have no special privileges over other editors except that they can withdraw the nomination. Everyone interested in an article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. However, "drive-by" nominations (nominations by editors who do not normally edit that article and may not be watching it) are not encouraged, as the nominator is expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article.
Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't?
All editors interested in the nominated article are encouraged, but not required, to respond to reviewers' concerns, not just the nominator. If the reviewer identifies concerns and no one responds, then no one should be surprised if the reviewer declines to list the article. "Drive-by" nominations, which are permitted, are one source of non-responsiveness. If the article does not meet the good article criteria after the reviewer has explained how the article requires improvement and has waited a reasonable amount of time for the nominator to make improvements, the reviewer is sure to fail the nomination.
What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic) IP address?
Any editor may nominate an article for GA status (while only registered users may review), so IP nominators are permitted. Much content on Wikipedia is contributed by IP users. Communication between nominator and reviewer usually takes place on the review page, not via user talk, so a dynamically changing IP address should be fine (as they sign their comments on the review page, the nominator may want to clarify to the reviewer that they remain the same person). An IP nominator that has demonstrated a desire to build an encyclopedia and is responsive to the reviewer presents no problem to a successful GA review. If a nominator or other article editors are unresponsive and the article does not meet the criteria, then the nomination may be failed. Future article editors will benefit from good review comments on how to improve the article.
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 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.
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 community reassessment is available when the "one reviewer decides" model breaks down.
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.
However, in rare occasions a review page is created by an editor who intends to review, but then withdraws due to illness or other reasons. In such cases, the first step would be to contact the reviewer. If this does not resolve the issue, then a new reviewer is needed. In order to find one, follow the instructions page under "If the reviewer withdraws". Do not use this process to void a review you disagree with.
What is the difference between GA and GA-Class?
GA status is determined according to the good article criteria, while GA-Class is a WikiProject classification. GA-Class is conventionally given to articles which have GA status. GA-Class is higher than B-Class but not as high as A-Class (although, depending on the WikiProject, an A-Class article may be required to be GA). The input of WikiProject editors can be invaluable in assessing GA nominations and involvement in WikiProjects is encouraged, but GA nominators and reviewers are not obliged to follow WikiProject criteria. GA reviewers who have passed the article should update any WikiProject templates on the article talk page by changing the "class" parameter value to "class=GA".
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 suggestions to improve the article while deciding on their review. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and fail the article again. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the GA criteria, you can initiate a reassessment.
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.

What did I break?[edit]

I've nominated Marjorie Paxson and the notice is showing up fine at Talk:Marjorie Paxson but hasn't shown up at Good_article_nominations#Magazines_and_print_journalism. What have I done wrong? It's been several hours. Thanks for any help! --valereee (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Valereee As you saw it's been included at GAN. I'm pretty sure the issue is that you had an extra line break between the rest of the headerstuff and the GAN template so the bot missed it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll go look at the diffs and see if I can at least make sure I don't do the same thing again! --valereee (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Havana (Camila Cabello song)[edit]

The user H9v9n9 has picked up his own GA nomination for review. Someone delete the review page because this is obviously against the rules.—NØ 07:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Both the articles are currently loaded with fancruft and need cleanup. Same user has also started a portal and an obviously premature wikiproject for Cabello. This situation probably needs to be dealt with by admins...--NØ 19:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: They just recreated Talk:Havana (Camila Cabello song)/GA1 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Time to report them to the administrators' board. They are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia but be a soapbox for Camila Cabello as a single purpose editor. Trillfendi (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: I prefer to avoid drama, so I'll leave that for you to do? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Number of reviews[edit]

How do I increase the number of reviews I have done next to my name if it seems that I can't do it manually? I recently reviewed 50000 Quaoar, but when I went to nominate Soyuz flight VS22, "(Reviews: 1)" didn't show up next to my name as I had anticipated it would. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 20:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Its done by bot and generally lags a bit. AIRcorn (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Instructions for nominators requesting second opinion[edit]

Having gone through a few troubles with reviews as of late, mostly because of inexperienced editors that don't fully understand the rules of MOS and other site policies, I believe that WP:GAI should include a clear set of instructions for nominators who would want to request a second opinion. As it stands, it's unclear if the second opinion instructions on the page apply to nominators. SounderBruce 00:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is something that can only be asked for by a reviewer. Even when a second opinion is provided it is up to them whether they take it on board and pass the article or fail it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Closing GA[edit]


I recently saw that Indian Administrative Service went without a GA review completed in best part of a year, so I contacted the nominator at Talk:Indian Administrative Service/GA1 to see if they were still happy to go ahead with the review, which they were. I then started Talk:Indian Administrative Service/GA2, and placed on hold a month ago, however their last post was the day that they responded to me. I'm not sure who the best wikiproject would be to instigate the changes I have mentioned, but I am against closing the GA without a single response. Any ideas? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes they just fall through the cracks. I recently failed three GA nominations under similar circumstances. It is one of the biggest drawbacks of having such a large backlog. I know It sucks after you have put in so much work, but your comments will always remain on the talk page if they return or someone else is interested in improving it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't worried about that, I just feel bad for the guy to wait so long, and close it. Oh well, I'll close it (it's been open around a month). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm the idiot who opened the original review and didn't complete it. Sorry for the trouble I caused.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)