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

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

Wikipedia:Good article review circles is still promising, but I notice that its coordinator User:GMH Melbourne has been less active lately. If I can make a suggestion, we should probably add one or two more coordinators, and then maybe add a link to it somewhere so people familiar with both nominating and reviewing can find it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had been thinking about opening a discussion here as well. I think the process has gotten off to a great start: 12 nominees received reviews in the past month as part of the three "test runs". I support integrating it into the wider GAN process and adding links to it where relevant. As for additional coordinators, PCN02WPS has shown some interest on the talk page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support integration into the GAN process as a whole. I'm happy to hop on as another coordinator to help ease things along if people are good with that. Might go ahead and start up another circle soon to keep the number of waiting articles on the lower side. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS you have my endorsement at least to boldly add yourself to the coordinators list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking review

Can someone check my review for Communism in the Philippines, any help will be appreciated! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheNuggeteer This is a pretty good review, but I think you didn't need to fail it; unless it'd be require a complete rewrite of the article or something very difficult to reasonably do in a few days, it's best to put it on hold and then fail it after 7 days if the changes haven't been made. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, I fixed the problem. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheNuggeteer, just as a note that you may want to refer to sources with something a bit easier to identify than "Source NUMBER", as a slight copyediting of the article or the addition or removal of sources will throw that right off. Alternatively, you can add a specific article version ID to the review so that the numbers will all be the same. On images, do check the licences. (It appears all four are public domain in this case.) Best, CMD (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both Generalissima and Chipmunkdavis for your response, CMD, I have added a note stating the revision. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the nomination was a drive-by one, with FloridaMan21 adding a little, what should I do in this case? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really in this case. Drive by nominations are not necessairly a bad thing if the reviewer is familiar with the sourcing - the problem is, they usually aren't. 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking review (2)

Can someone check another review for 2022 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar election, any help will be appreciated! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important note TheNuggeteer, the WP:LEAD does not need its own sources. What is important for the lead is that it is a summary of the body (ie. not have anything significant that isn't in the body), the citations should appear in the body for said information. CMD (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the 'lead' part, thank you for your response! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer, that's two unnecessary fails you've done now in short order. Quickfails are really intended for articles that are badly beneath the GACR, not just articles that are merely imperfect. Significantly, articles are not expected to be comprehensive at the GA level, just "broad". You defend your fail of the above article by arguing that it's missing a section on campaigning, but it's not required to have this section (and doubly so if the sourcing doesn't support having such a section). I would recommend holding off and waiting for responses rather than failing nominations so quickly in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why you're treating GA reviewing as if you're grinding a video game, TheNuggeteer. In the past day, you have started three GA reviews and taken a pretty slapdash approach to completing them. Perhaps you have not read the reviewing instructions? If you have, I would recommend rereading WP:GAN/I#R3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2022 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar election/GA1

I would appreciate guidance about this review. I'm happy to re-nominate, I'm just unsure of the correct way forward. I've sorted most of the comments that I can but there were a few things that I disagreed with and would have preferred the opportunity to respond rather than having it failed. I have left comments on the review page about the points raised. Tagging the review so they are aware (TheNuggeteer). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not willing to reopen it then you just resubmit as soon as you're ready. Noted your comments on the review page. It certainly looks surprising that they went for a fail given the modest issues found, but that's basically water under the bridge now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I shall renominate. Thanks for your help. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on review

Looking for some feedback on the recent review I completed of MidCity SmashedBurger before I start another GA review. I am quite nervous I am going beyond the scope of GA, and would appreciate some line drawing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria say The six good article criteria are the only aspects that should be considered when assessing whether to pass or fail a GAN. Other comments designed to improve the article are encouraged during the review process but should not be mandated as part of the assessment. In other words, it's fine and encouraged to pick up on whatever points of improvement you can during the review -- technically speaking, for example, ~~spelling, grammar~~ full MoS compliance and factual accuracy are not strictly part of the criteria, but it would be a very strange idea to consciously pass over mistakes in those if you spot them. Reviewers often preface non-criteria comments with "advisory" or something similar. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling and grammar are part of WP:GACR 1a: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct, so that's not the best example. There are however indeed many things that are not part of the criteria that can nevertheless make a big difference in terms of article quality. TompaDompa (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair point -- amended, more strictly, to full MoS compliance, which is probably the most common and important case study here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Feel like I'm slowly realising what's in scope, and this stuff helps. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial quickfail on Arleta Library Bakery & Cafe

Earlier today I quickfailed the page Arleta Library Bakery & Cafe. I did this as I believe the article requires a significant rewrite to meet the GA criteria. It looked like this at the time of review. The co-nominators strongly disagree with the quickfail and many of the comments I made in the review, and after this discussion they renominated the article. They noted some criticisms of how I went about the quickfail here. I am avoiding closing any nominations until I receive feedback to avoid reproducing possible issues. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good quickfail, imo. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging TrademarkedTWOrantula and Another_Believer Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews are "cheap" -- there's nothing stopping the nominators from re-nominating it immediately, unlike at FAC. I've been on the wrong side of this as a reviewer before, but in general I try not to fail an article without giving the nominator a chance to respond unless there are serious issues that will take an undue amount of work on the reviewer's part to establish when they are addressed: for example, where there are large-scale copyvio problems, or where enough concerns came up on the sourcing that it would need a more thorough check than is reasonable at GAN to establish that things were sorted out. Other reasons under the quickfail criteria are that the article has unaddressed cleanup banners, ongoing edit wars, or outstanding issues from a previous review. In other cases, generally, it's a good idea to give the nominator(s) the chance to reply and make changes.

It does seem like most of the matters of contention in this review were about what counts as notable or important: that's not as clear-cut as (for example) the article containing missed citations, unreliable sources or policy violations, and so would generally be the sort of thing where a bit of discussion is helpful. The quickfail criteria don't advise an immediate failure simply for not meeting the criteria unless it's a long way away from doing so; in future, it might be helpful to explicitly tie the judgement into the criteria (here, I think the issue was mostly 3b), and to be clear why you think, as the quickfail criteria say, it's not reasonably possible to fix the issues in a sensible span of time. However, ultimately it's your decision when you're the reviewer -- as we've seen here, if the nominator(s) disagree, there's no problem with putting the article up again and seeing what happens with a second opinion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also of the opinion that this quickfail was appropriate and within reasonable reviewer discretion, though another reviewer may not have chosen to quickfail. Reviewer time is precious and we should not be expecting reviewers to go above and beyond to salvage articles that are simply not ready. This reads like an advertisement. Honestly, the article doesn't even make any real claim to notability for this restaurant and I'm not sure why it has an article when it needs to clear the higher bar of WP:NCORP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at ANI regarding good article reassessment

AN/I closed, civility block CMD (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent incivility by EEng about disruption in a good article reassessment which may be of interest to those with experience at GAR. Pinging @GAR coordinators: Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or, for a direct link, the assessment itself is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/2. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Question about inactive reviewers

Hi everyone. On 10 June 2024, a GAN review for Cécile Fatiman was opened by Caeciliusinhorto. Two weeks after the initial comments were left, the reviewer informed me that they'd been delayed by real life stuff. They again left some comments on 9 July 2024, but have been entirely inactive since then. This review has been left open for over a month and a half now, and I don't see the end in site. Is there anything I can do about this other than wait for their return? I'm anxious to see the process for this article through to completion. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks of inactivity isn't terribly long when real life hits, so mostly you should just wait a bit longer. You could send a ping and/or talk page message to remind the reviewer that this GA review is almost completed and just needs final checks; some people do take note of pings or messages even if they do not edit. WP:TIND. —Kusma (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]