Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQJanuary backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport

Proposals

Welcome. This page is designed to serve as a workshop for new proposals for WP:GA's policies. It has been nearly a decade since our last proposal drive, the format of this drive will follow a similar structure to the last one. This page is designed to serve as a workshop for all the new proposals that are meant to replace the backlog elimination drives at the Good Article nominations process, streamline and update the policies, to help increase the number of reviewers, and encourage users to become reviewers. If you are willing to bring a proposal to be evaluated by community, you are welcomed to do so in the section below. Add your proposal under a level three header here, and start a new thread at the discussion page of this page with the following title: "Discussion: The name of your proposal", so that community can be able to discuss your proposal there. Remember to link the appropriate discusion section at the end of your proposal on this page. Feedback for implemented proposals is being discussed at Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023 Feedback.

---

Proposals

Proposal 1: Implement an awards system

Proposed by: Etrius ( Us)

Proposal: Implement an awards format similar to Wikipedia:Triple Crown for GA reviewers. For every milestone, award a barnstar or equivalent reward to users to entice people to perform more reviews.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N There is no consensus to implement this proposal.

Proposal 2: Make spot checking a requirement

Proposed by: Trainsandotherthings (talk)

Proposal: Make spot checking a requirement for GA status. This isn't FAC, and we cannot expect people to spot check every single source for a GA review. But at least one or two sources that are decently used in an article should be spot checked as an absolute minimum.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed and will be implemented. Proposal 2a, which received no consensus, must be taken into account.

Proposal 2a: Specify a minimum number of sources to check

Proposed by: Unexpectedlydian (talk), credit to Mike Christie (talk)

Proposal: Specify a specific number or proportion of sources which must be checked per review. Something like "check a minimum of x% of the sources, and no less than y in total".

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N There is no consensus to implement this proposal.

Proposal 3: Adopt "quid pro quo"

Proposed by:Krisgabwoosh (talk)

Proposal: I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of WP:QPQ rule, as WP:DYK has. It seems like a pretty fair system, giving nominators five freebees before asking them to review one article for each one they nominate.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N A near-unanimous decision has been made to reject this proposal. It will NOT be implemented.

Proposal 4: Proposed model reviews

Proposed by: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c)

Proposal: I also think there should be some model reviews. Right now, the barrier to entry for "what is a good review" is that it's hard to find ones that are recognized as being high in quality. Post-Coldwell, I wish there was a standard for what percentage of references to spot check, for instance. Making it easier for editors to conduct reviews that meet our expectations will also help.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed and will be implemented.

Proposal 4A: Recognize exceptional reviews

Proposed by: czar (talk)

Proposal: Open a page to collect noms on a rolling basis for a perennial "Exceptional Review of the Month" recognition. Let's not get lost in the details of what qualifies, as the point would be mainly to recognize exceptional reviews and affirmed by the community. I.e., reviews of difficult subject matter or of a broad Vital article, reviews that are exceptionally welcoming to a new reviewer, reviews from an expert in the field who wouldn't normally review. Basically we'd encourage nomination of these and any reviews over some voter threshold would get barnstars and their review shown in a place of honor for some limited time. This would effectively address the heart of Props 4 and 1 while providing a format for peer recognition. I'd like for editors to "collect" exceptional review recognition the way that other editors collect GA and FA icons.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, will be implemented.

Proposal 5: Make the mentorship program more visible

Proposed by: Etrius ( Us), credit to Kingsif (talk)

Proposal:The mentorship program is underutilized and honestly difficult to find. I propose we place the template centrally on either the Wikipedia:Good article nominations, Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, or create a separate tab for it.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, will be implemented.

Proposal 6: Limit open GANs per editor

Proposed by: Z1720 (Talk)

Proposal: Limit the number of active nominations each editor can have at GAN.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, will be implemented.

Proposal 6A: Cap concurrent GA nominations per editor at 20

Proposed by: Trainsandotherthings (talk)

Proposal: Limit each editor to 20 active nominations at any one time.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y A modified version of this proposal has passed (10 active nominations), will be implemented.

Proposal 7: GAN expiry date

Proposed by: Z1720 (Talk)

Proposal: GANs that are older than a set number of days are automatically quick-failed. The article may be renominated again.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N Proposal will NOT be implemented, the modified version Proposal 7A has passed, however.

Proposal 7A: Flagging articles with inactive nominators

Proposed by:♠PMC♠ (talk)

Proposal:I'm going to split this out into its own proposal so it doesn't get buried under #7. Assuming it's technically possible via ChristieBot, a flag of some kind should be added to nominations whose editors have not edited in 30 days. The flag would be removed if they start editing again.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, has been implemented.

Proposal 8: Default instructions

Proposed by: Rjjiii (talk)

Proposal: Rewrite the WP:GANI Reviewing section to be a prescriptive step-by-step guide. Additional material, alternative approaches, mentor pages, sample reviews, and Wikipedia policies would be linked, placed at the very end, or embedded in footnotes. Then use the exact same language from the step-by-step guide as instructional comments in a default template. This would create a recommended default path for new reviewers.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, has been implemented.

Proposal 9: Change sort order of GAN page to prioritize frequent reviewers

Proposed by: User:Mike Christie (talk)

Proposal: Change the sort order on WP:GAN so that within each section nominations by nominators who had a high ratio of reviews to GAs would be above nominators with a low ratio of reviews to GAs. Nominations by nominators with no GAs would be highest of all, and these would be sorted by the number of reviews in descending order.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, will be implemented.

Proposal 10: Reduce peer review expectation

Proposed by: User:czar (talk)

Proposal: Codify that there is no norm/expectation that GA reviewers provide an extended, written (peer) review. Instead focus on enforcing the GA criteria as a checklist assessment.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N Most of the support is conditional, and generally seen as unfeasible overall. It will NOT be implemented.

Proposal 10a: Set peer review to optional

Proposed by: :♠PMC♠ (talk)

Proposal: Detailed peer review at GA should explicitly be optional, determined by the nominator's wishes. A peer review/FAC prep/whatever parameter should be added in the {{GAN|review=yes}} template so the nominator can flag whether or not they're looking for that style of review. This parameter could also be another useful sort parameter for the sorting overhaul being discussed at proposal 9.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N A near-unanimous decision has been made to reject this proposal. It will NOT be implemented.

Proposal 11: Ban drive-by nominations

Proposed by: (t · c) buidhe

Proposal: Currently, the rules allow, but discourage, drive-by nominations. Change the rules so that only nominations by someone who is a significant contributor to the article will be considered.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, will be implemented.

Proposal 12: Add open GAR listings to GAN page

Proposed by: Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Proposal: Create a section on the GAN page to list open GARs, to increase their visibility. This could either be a new section, or GARs could be listed as a subsection of the appropriate topic sections.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, will be implemented.

Proposal 12a: Downsize the role of GAR

Proposed by: theleekycauldron

Proposal: Part of what makes GAR a cumbersome, months-long endeavor is that it attempts to copy the GA model of addressing problems as they are pointed out – but often times, the original GA nominator isn't around to be the point person and fix all of the issues that come up. To that end, GAR should just stick to reviewing, and not to attempting to fix major flaws in the article. GARs should be limited to two weeks; the result can either be to take no action (keep as GA), delist the article, or send it back to GA for a full review if someone (who isn't the GAR nominator) volunteers to field it through the GA process.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N There is no consensus to implement this proposal.

Proposal 13: Coordinators for Good article reassessment

Proposed by: Etriusus (inspired by Lee Vilenski)

Proposal: Good Article Reassessment has historically been a very slow process and reassessments often sit for months. I propose we implement coordinators to handle the workload and keep it moving.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, will be implemented.

Proposal 14: Merge individual and community good article reassessment

Proposed by : Femke (inspired by PMC)

Proposal: Streamline the GAR process by merging individual and community good article reassessment, with a process loosely modelled on the following concept:

All GARs are centrally listed, with anyone free to weigh in. A GAR can be closed as delist after a week by the editor who opened it, unless someone objects to the delist. At that point participants are expected to discuss the article's issues, make any necessary changes to the article, and come to a consensus about whether the issues are resolved or not. If a clear consensus develops at that point, the opener can close the GAR on their own recognizance. If participants are not able to resolve the discussion, an uninvolved editor or the GAR coords (if that proposal gets consensus) should step in and determine next steps.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, has been implemented.

Proposal 15: Invitation

Proposed by: Rjjiii (talk)

Proposal: Have a bot leave an invitation to review GAN on first-time nominators talk pages if Proposal 9 passes. The invitation would briefly explain Proposal 9 and the benefits of doing a GAN review.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed and will be implemented.

Proposal 16: Change backlog box at top of GAN to list new nominators

Proposed by: Mike Christie (talk), credit to Sammi Brie (talk)

Proposal: If proposal 9 passes, change the backlog box, Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items, to list the five articles that sort to the top using the sort order in proposal 9. The containing page, Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog, would also change to say "highest priority" rather than "oldest".

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y An amended version of this proposal (add, rather than replace) has passed, will be implemented.

Proposal 17: Redirect talk pages to the GAN talk page

Proposed by: Aircorn (talk)

Proposal: Redirect the talk pages for the criteria, reassessments and possible others to the nominations talk page.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, will be implemented.

Proposal 18: Put a nomination banner in mainspace

Proposed by: czar (talk)

Proposal: Put a notice banner for active GA nominations atop the article (in mainspace) as encouragement for editors reading the article to review it.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N A near-unanimous decision has been made to reject this proposal. It will NOT be implemented.

Proposal 19: Require self-review

Proposed by: czar (talk)

Proposal: Require the nominator to run through a self-review of the GA criteria as a checklist on the talk page to show how the article meets the criteria. This shifts the burden of the first passthrough comments from the reviewer to the nominator. It also shows where the nominator needs coaching if they didn't understand the criteria. For instance, if we want the reviewer to spotcheck citations for controversial statements, the nominator should be able to say they checked that in advance.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N proposal did not achieve consensus, and will not be implemented.

Proposal 20: Create pre-review bot

Proposed by: czar (talk)

Proposal: When an article is nominated, have a bot provide a low-level review, so the nominator is prompted to clean up the basics before the reviewer arrives. (This moves some of the reviewer's burden to a bot.) I.e., anything afoul of the quickfail criteria, notice of any open maintenance tags, Earwig %, recent edit warring, reversion of drive-by nom (if approved above), paragraphs lacking citations.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N There is no consensus to implement this proposal.

Proposal 21: Make GA status more prominent in mainspace

Proposed by: czar (talk)

Proposal: Hold an RFC on options to make GA status more prominent in mainspace. Showing and explaining GA status in a more prominent way would both help with reader literacy of status (and prompt curiosity about the criteria) while rewarding editors for their efforts.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, will be discussed further.

Proposal 22: Add short description and shorten {{GANentry}}

Proposed by: czar (talk)

Proposal: Shorten the article metadata next to each nomination in WP:GAN and add its short description to make the overall nomination list easier and more appetizing to browse

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, will be implemented.

Proposal 23: Make GAN categories subpages

Proposed by: Joe Roe (talk · contribs)

Proposal: Split the topical sections of WP:GAN off into transcluded subpages, so that people can watchlist them individually. Do the same with User:SDZeroBot/GAN sorting.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N This proposal is not technically possible. Subpages for individual watchlisting already exist.

Proposal 24: Realign GAN categories with a more widely-used categorisation

Proposed by: Joe Roe (talk · contribs)

Proposal: Change the categories used to sort nominations on WP:GAN to match those used by WikiProjects, Featured Articles, ORES topic predictions (as used by User:SDZeroBot/GAN sorting), or something else widely-used elsewhere, making it easier for potential reviewers to find articles that interest them.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N There is no consensus to implement this proposal.

Proposal 25: Allow nominations to be placed in multiple categories

Proposed by: Joe Roe (talk · contribs)

Proposal: Allow nominations to be placed in multiple categories on WP:GAN, WP:DELSORT-style.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N There is no consensus to implement this proposal.

Proposal 26: Make lots of pages instructing how to create a good article

Proposed by: CactiStaccingCrane (talk · contribs)

Proposal: Make essays like those in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N There is no consensus to implement this proposal.

Proposal 27: Give nominators with a certain number of reviews a minimum sort-weight

Proposed by: Iazyges (talk · contribs)

Proposal: Following Prop 9 passing, I wonder if it might be fairer if those that have a very high number of reviews shouldn't get some form of minimum weight. With a ratio of 4.46 (259 reviews to 58 GAs), I am basically guaranteed to be at or near the top of any sorting; however, some, like User:Chiswick Chap (311 reviews to 488 GAs) and User:Sturmvogel 66 (914 reviews to 821 GAs) are (to my mind) unfairly penalized by this. Certainly, their ratios are not as good, but I would defy anyone to say they haven't contributed very significantly to the project; indeed per the stats, they are some of the most prolific reviewers in our history. I am strongly in favor of our new sorting system, but think it could be made fairer by setting minimum weights to nominators with a certain number of reviews, perhaps 0.5 for every 50 reviews, or something similar (perhaps a simple decimal value for every single review would be easier), such that Chiswick and Sturmvogel would get ratios of 6 and 18, in recognition of their extensive work on both sides of GA, rather than their present 0.63 and 1.13. And of course, any ratio higher than the minimum assigned by the number of reviews would be retained.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N There is no consensus to implement this proposal.

Proposal 28: Encourage collaborative reviewing

Proposed by: theleekycauldron

Proposal: One of the strengths of FA reviewing is that people can play to their own strengths; some people review prose, some people review sourcing, some people review image licensing. If reviewing were itemized by criterion, instead of having one person doing all the work for every nomination, that might help streamline the process. Of course, we don't want people stepping on each other's toes – GA reviewing shouldn't have community members duplicating each others' efforts or anteing the bar up too high – so one reviewer per criterion.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N There is no consensus to implement this proposal.

Proposal 29: Continue with backlog drives, or similar time-limited focuses on reviewing

Proposed by: Unexpectedlydian

Proposal: Hopefully the changes we are proposing won't result in us needing backlog drives in the same way we have needed them in the past. But, I think there could still be value in allocating certain months where the GA community focus solely on reviewing. There could be associated barnstars or awards for particularly impressive reviews. It could also be a good way of getting new people to participate in reviewing if we phrase it in a friendly "come along and review" way.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, nothing to implement.

Proposal 30: Add a category separating GAs by month and/or year

Proposed by:Onegreatjoke

Proposal: Most special stuff on wikipedia gets organized by every month of the year. FA has it, DYK has it, FL has it, FP has it. Yet, Good articles don't have a separation by month of the year. So I propose adding categories that separate GAs based on when they were promoted. For example, GAs promoted in December 2022, January 2018, May 2012. It'd be a nice way to categorize GAs and analyze GAs promoted long ago. Onegreatjoke

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, will be implemented.

Proposal 31: Reduce WikiProject notifications for GAR

Proposed by: Femke

Proposal: Rather than notifying each listed WikiProject for a GAR nom, only notify those projects for which the article is high or top importance.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N proposal opposed, and will not be implemented.

Proposal 31a: Make notifying WikiProjects optional for GAR

Proposed by: Femke

Proposal: Leave the notification of Wikiprojects up to the discretion of the nominator. Change the text from "Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, the nominator, and the reviewer." to "Notify major contributing editors, the nominator, and the reviewer. Consider notifying closely related WikiProjects"

Discussion: : Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N proposal opposed, and will not be implemented.

Proposal 31b: Have a bot handle WikiProject notifications for GAR

Proposed by: czar

Proposal: Since the above sections say we want WikiProjects to be notified of new GARs, this sounds like a job for a bot. Notify the WikiProjects for which the article is tagged and make the bot respect a "do not notify" opt-out template.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N proposal has no consensus, and will not be implemented.

Proposal 32: Close new proposals

Proposed by: Etriusus

Proposal: We are 31 proposals in and have a long discussion still ahead. I propose that we close this page, so that there are no new proposals but continue discussion at the talk page. Even if this doesn't pass immediately, it should still be left open for when we do inevitably close off the proposal page.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed, no new proposals from here on out.

Proposal 33: Post a monthly review digest to WikiProjects

Proposed by: czar

Proposal: Have a bot post a monthly digest of open reviews associated with each WikiProject to increase review visibility. The bot should comply with a "do not notify" opt-out template.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N proposal did not achieve consensus, and will not be implemented.

Proposal 34: Create a page, Wikipedia:Former good articles, for delisted GAs, similar to WP:FFA

Proposed by: Onegreatjoke

Proposal:This is more of a personal opinion of mine but I propose the idea of making a page listing delisted GAs in a similar way to other pages like WP:FFA and WP:FFL. This is because I feel that the way showing delisted GAs through Category:Delisted good articles is pretty cluttered to me. Sure it works somewhat but I feel like it could be done better in the ways that I've listed. Would like to hear some opinions.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

Y This proposal has passed unanimously and will be implemented.

Proposal 35: Make a contest for empty out GA backlogs

Proposed by: CactiStaccingCrane

Proposal: A list of GA-related backlogs can be found at https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Good_articles.html. Cleaning up backlog as a contest helps editors to stay engaged and it is also a good way to draw attention to improving poor good articles as a whole.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate discussion of the talk page.

N proposal did not achieve consensus, and will not be implemented.

Proposal 36: Fix inaccurate GA review numbers for users whose account names have changed

Proposed by: Red-tailed hawk

Proposal Until the bot that updates the table at User:GA bot/Stats is fixed to accurately reflect statistics of GA reviews for users who have changed usernames, the sorting of the GA table should revert to being a reverse-chronological order (i.e. oldest-at-top)}}.

Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate Wikipedia talk:Good Article proposal drive 2023#Proposal 36: Fix inaccurate GA review numbers for users whose account names have changed

N proposal did not achieve consensus, and will not be implemented.