Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Good article nominations

WT:GAN

This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN) and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

See the Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, several other GA talk pages redirect here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33

GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4

Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

GA help: 1, 2

Nominations/Instructions: 1

Search archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Good article review circles

Hello, I thought I should give an update on good article review circles which has so far fostered approximately 48 good article reviews.

I feel the project has moved past any teething issues and is now working quite well, however in recent months the number of nominations being submitted to the project has plummeted.

If you have an article you needs to be reviewed and are also willing to review someone else's article, please consider participating so we can get more circles running more often. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If editors' aren't fussy and are willing to do a review, they can always put in someone elses' nom if they don't have one.

Just means that the items in the circle don't get removed for being under review, which means they were reviewed without getting an extra review (your review is then worth two for the backlog). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the bit after "which means that" please? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap Sure, sorry it reads confusingly. GARC's purpose is to get more reviews to take place. This works by participants agreeing to review an article in exchange for theirs being reviewed. However, if someone outside the pool starts reviewing something in the pool, the nominator of that article no longer is obligated to do a review. So we've lost an extra review. Pools taking longer to fill up makes this more likely to happen. However, if you put an article in the pool it fills up faster and it makes it less likely we lose an extra review. In the case where you prevent one from dropping out, the review you committed to has now ensured a second review will take place. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for explaining. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should advertise the review circles more clearly on the main nominations page? Looking through the main WP:GA pages, review circles are only mentioned in an easily-skimmed-over part of the Instructions page. We could probably do more to draw nominators' and reviewers' attentions towards it. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had the exact same thought. With GAN, I come and go. So I must have missed this inititive when it was launched - I can't be the only one. When I joined in the October GAN drive, I didn't read the instructions page. Because I assumed it had stayed the same, and I remebered all the important info. Likewise, if and when I nominate an article, I am not going to read the instructions page either. I only know about the review circles because of this thread. If I'm being radical and bold, I almost think it would be worth sending a message on user talk pages when a someone puts in their first nomination/first nomination for a while, with the line from the instruction page: "Consider reviewing two nominations for each one that you nominate or joining a review circle." with some sort of breakdown of the current expected wait time (like {{AfC category navbar}}) to help promote this. As the #Atlanta Braves nomination thread above points out. The wait alone is quite off putting. SSSB (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about reviews opened by blocked users?

Hey all. Today, a user who had opened a review for one of my nominations was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. The review page is now empty, with no comments. This is unfortunate, as I've been waiting for a review on this since April, but I notice this user was also concurrently reviewing 3 other GA nominations (technical geography, black holes in fiction and Patricia Bullrich), so I assume those will not be completed either.

What can be done in these cases? I assume the reviews can't be marked as finished in many cases, but does this mean nominators will have to go back to square one and join the back of the queue? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The review of Anarchism without adjectives hasn't been edited at all so I think if you request speedy deletion as G6 it will keep its place in the queue? (cf. WP:GAN/I#N4a). For the others, probably the easiest thing would be for someone else who is interested to take over the review; if there isn't anyone who would be willing I don't know if there's a way of closing the review while retaining the nomination's place in the queue. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GeogSage, TompaDompa, and Cambalachero: Courtesy ping. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: I've had the review page speedily deleted, thanks for the help! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I almost hesitate to say this since I suppose it could be abused, but the date of nomination is taken from the parameters in the template on the talk page, not from the timestamp when the template was added. That means you can fail a nomination and create a new one and have it retain its place in the queue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have done just that for my nomination (Talk:Black holes in fiction/GA2). TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Technical geography/GA1 seems to have had some work, but it's almost a month since the nominator was pinged so it may be close to being wrapped up as resubmit when fixes are made.
Talk:Black holes in fiction/GA2 has had almost no review, pending no objections the best thing to do there is increment for a new reviewer.
Talk:Patricia Bullrich/GA1 is a bit trickier, has had some review, but it is incomplete including there being no spot checks.
CMD (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the situation, and have no rush. The article of Patricia Bullrich may be closed as failed and then nominated again, I'll just wait for a new reviewer to show up. Cambalachero (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. CMD (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on finishing technical geography up. I nominated it, and the reviewer took some time to get back to me due to life things. By the time the got back, I was defending my dissertation, starting a new job so a bit busy. I had set aside time this week to finish. This block is shocking to me honestly, the user was pretty upstanding and involved in a number of projects from what I've seen. I'm not sure what happened, and so suddenly at that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. At the very least, once you have fixed up the sources and page numbers, someone else is needed to carry out a spot check. CMD (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm at a bit of an impass here. Should I renominate and go through again, the process was longer then usual due to life events for both of us, but I think it was almost done.... GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations

I suggest that The Blue Rider's nominations simply be removed, i.e. the articles unnominated. These are:

Talk:Elephant Rock (Iceland), 2 November 2024
Talk:Mordechai Schlein. 28 October 2024
Talk:Tamara Bunke, 9 November 2024
Talk:Tamara (given name), 14 October 2024
Talk:Fiona, 22 October 2024
Talk:José Vicente Barbosa du Bocage, 10 November 2024

—Alalch E. 22:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All six nominations have been removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Missing" GA review

For Haymarket affair? I guess it should be here, but... if anyone can find it, it'll be appreciated. SerialNumber54129 16:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Haymarket affair/Archive 1#Good article nomination on hold. This is Jan 2008, so possibly before the GA nomination process was as well-defined as it is today? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Caeciliusinhorto, that's helpful. Yes, I suppose back then it wasn't transcluded from a separate page? Cheers, SerialNumber54129 17:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 drive theme

I'd like to put forward a theme for the January 2025 GAN review backlog drive (courtesy link for when the page is created): to focus on GA nominations by nominators who have a certain minimum review-to-GA ratio.

Step 2-4 (optional) of the nomination instructions says Consider reviewing two nominations for each one that you nominate, so a 2:1 ratio seems about right.

This assuming it isn't too much of a headache to put together a list of qualifying articles. I feel that it'd be nice to give a nod to those who have maintained a high ratio and maybe remind others of that optional step to encourage more reviewing. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the idea of the January drive, as part of the thrice-yearly schedule, is to have no theme and to focus on all nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I found an earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 32 § Proposal 1: Regular backlog drives which mentioned this as a possible theme. Maybe for the third backlog drive next year. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informal discussion

An informal discussion, a "Before opening a reassessment", has been initiated at Talk:Dylan Thomas#Article issues and classification. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an ancient GAR to the GAR archives

Hi, I'd like to move Talk:Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis/GA1 to the GAR archives (Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis/1 as the title based on others I've seen). There were 2 GANs; one I've now moved to /GA2, but the first one is at Talk:Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis/GA Review 1. The naming is just a mess and it's from 2007 so I figured I'd try to standardize them as I fixed the stranded talk subpages, but not sure how to go about doing it or if i'm mucking up some preservation of preference title norm. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Sennecaster (Chat) 03:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we usually do this sort of curation of older subpages. I'm not sure what should go where and what has moved already, but at least one entry in the Article history template at Talk:Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis is now pointing to the wrong page. CMD (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the first GAN is at /GA Review 1, under the old page title. The second GAN was at /GA Review 2, and I moved it to /GA2 without realizing where the GAR subsequently was. The GAR is at /GA1. I'm going to un-muck the article history template once I figure out what to do with the subpages. I'm thinking if the GAR doesn't move to the GARchives then I can move it to /GA reassessment and then the first GAN to /GA1? Sennecaster (Chat) 04:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one curation we do do is move all subpages with the main page, so whatever is before the /X should be the current (talk) page title. As for the rest, I'm not fully following what is where. The very old GANs were just talkpage sections, so they have no subpage to move. CMD (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]