Wikipedia talk:Reviewing good articles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Preliminary draft

This guide is currently in the Draft phase. If you would like to comment on it, please do so below. If you see any changes or additions that need to be made, whether they are minor or major, be bold and do so. Well, what do y'all think? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that I would appreciate is a clear deliniation between the standards of FA and GA. For myself, I have no problem commenting on FACs because I know clearly how high the bar is - as high as possible. But where, exactly, is the bar for GA nominees? -- Pastordavid 08:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a page that already does this. It is called: Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured We may want to link it from this guide, but rehashing it is probably unneccesary. In very short order, the standards of NPOV, image use, and stability are largely identical. On the topic of writing, GAs should have correct spelling and grammar, but FAs should have compelling and brilliant prose. There is also a lower threshold of compliance to the Manual of Style. GAs only require that no aspect of the MoS is violated, FAs require strict adhearence to it. GAs require broad coverage, FAs require comprehensive coverage. Also, since FA reviews have more eyes on any article, by its nature it will expose more faults in an article, and thus FA reviews are of a higher standard simply by the fact that they have to please many people, there only needs to be one serious opposition to hold up an FA. GAs only require a single person to review and accept it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the paragraph that you just wrote is better than that page. That page actually does less actual comparison, and more rehashing. I support Pastordavid's call. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, there is no consensus on how high the bar is!! Believe me, I have scars from many tussles.. with a small cohort of people saying GA is irrelevant & should just disappear Ling.Nut 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Too long

The draft is too long. One of the purposes of GA was to cut down on the lengthy policy needed to identify good articles over that of the endless FA process. The section "How to review an article" might be all that is really nessary, plus a bit of an introduction.--Rayc 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cut section out, cut some more back

Of course, as Rayc points out, this is too long. I wrote most of this, and I admit that my prose gets overly verbose and self indulgent at times. It is why I am seeking help in this. Also, Fred Chess had some good insticnts. He eliminated the section I eliminated, and then reverted himself (maybe to avoid stepping on toes). Honestly, the section was redundant, too long, and a little condescending in tone. And keep in mind as I say that, I wrote it... We want to encourage Good Article reviewers to be as helpful as they can, and provide them with as much guidance as they need to do a good job, but the section Fred first tried to remove (and which I removed again) really was excessive. Keep trying to make more changes to this as needed, and all of you follow your instincts. It is why I wanted more eyes on this. The more people we have fixing this up, the better it will be. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

This page is a good idea, but it would be better to add the content to the already-used page of "what is a good article". No point in requiring GA-people to read two pages where one will suffice. >Radiant< 11:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. WP:WIAGA is intentionally a short guideline, it is supposed to merely list the criteria for passing. It is designed for both nominators and reviewers alike to see the standards a Good Article should meet. This isn't doing that. This is supposed to be a How To guide for reviewing a good article, and as such, is targeted towards reviewers only. No need to clutter WIAGA with this page, since they don't neccessarily serve the same purpose. I understand your concern about having too many pages, but there is also a concern about cluttering a page with excess information, merely to reduce the number of pages, especially when that information is only tagentally related. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Give priority to "Quick-failed"

I think we can do this process before reading whole of the article carefully.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems

Reference formatting. Do refs need to be formatted properly or does any style of referencing outlined at WP:CITE suffice, personally a ref is a ref to me. An article's content and reliability has nothing to do with proper reference formatting. I have seen this invoked as a reason for an article to fail more than once. The criteria say nothing on the subject other than the "does not seriously violate MOS" bit. What are thoughts on this? IvoShandor 10:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• WP:CITE has been edited mercilessly since I've been a Wikipedian. I really don't think there's even been any attempt made to reflect or build consensus when making these changes.... I say, any citation format that's accepted outside of Wikipedia (Harvard, APA, even the much-hated-by-me MLA) is acceptable. --Ling.Nut 13:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a persistent problem across many guideline pages. IvoShandor 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And again, the only restriction on using whatever format one wants is the MOS. My problem is, we don't require inline cites de jure, why should we require proper ref formatting de facto?IvoShandor 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Examples of inadequate Good Article reviews"

Giving actual examples of bad reviews could be a bad idea. Some could take it personally. Suggest replacing this section with "common pitfalls", or deleting.... --Ling.Nut 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A bad review is a bad review. If I made one I wouldn't object to it being posted here, as long as someone who really knows explained to me why it was "bad." IvoShandor 13:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Yes, but that's you. other folks may not appreciate having their names recorded for posterity under the category "bad reviewer." :-) I suggest either creating a fictitious review that reflects a composite of poor reviewing practices, or else just a discussion of common pitfalls. Ling.Nut 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair enough, but has anyone expressed dismay at this, perhaps preemptive action isn't the best policy here? I mean, reviews can always be altered enough so that identity isn't an issue. IvoShandor 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent). Mmm, I'm talking about not spotlighting any individual's faux pas by reproducing it here on this page. And when you say "altering so that identity isn't an issue.." isn't that pretty much the same as creating a composite review? Yes, the key point is, the identity(ies) of perpetrator(s) of a very poor quality effort(s) should be protected... Ling.Nut 15:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just think real, actual examples would be better than any idealized version of a "bad review" could be. IvoShandor 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Inline cites

Perhaps it is time to revisit the idea that inline cites aren't required by the criteria (though I am sure it has been discussed at length) I couldn't even get away with a paper with no inline cites in high school (and it was an American public school). IvoShandor 13:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But beware of the Citeless Nazis. They're everywhere... and it's not a coincidence; it's a conspiracy... :-) Ling.Nut 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The citeless Nazis should be quick failed back to Bavaria. (No offense meant to Bavaria : ) IvoShandor 15:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they are besieging the walls of FA territory. Depending upon your point of view, they may have already captured that flag. Certainly, they are very well-represented among influential Wikipedians... :-) Ling.Nut 15:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-working

I think we can do this great work better if there is co-working among us. Can we add a section about this issue in the guideline?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

do it --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Coworking GA reviews? Really? Bit hard to coordinate... --Ling.Nut 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what he is trying to say is to add something about the fact that it is OK for reviewers to enlist the help of other reviewers where needed. Even though only one editor is needed to make a decision, there are times when the first reviewer may wish to bring in other opinions. We should not discourage that, and maybe even encourage it.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker of English and I want to co-work with others especially in the case of the first criterion. But I've found there isn't any usual procedure to do so. I think it can be helpful for all of us to co-work with each other and it's usual in reviewing of FA nominees. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent)

• This idea sounds good in theory, but I'm wondering whether it could really be put into practice on an ongoing basis. A few months back I suggested that there should be a procedure for mentoring GA reviewers, and it met a very tepid response. Based on that experience, I'm skeptical that there would be a lot of support for tag-team GA reviewing.
• I do recommend asking for advice/input from experienced reviewers when you find an article that is difficult to review. I do think that people are willing to lend a hand from time to time. Ling.Nut 10:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with Ling.Nut. IvoShandor 14:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

att no longer policy

This page was created past ATT, and so I had no guideline to work from in terms of reverting now that ATT is no longer policy.

So at the first mention of ATT, where both policies and guidelines were being listed, I substitued V, NOR, and RS for ATT, as ATT was an attempt at replacing those.

At the second mention I simply substed V for ATT. I changed no text, as there seemed to be no direct quotes etc, that needed changing--though I will say that having the text for an inline citation at the second instance and not the first through me for a loop for a while.

I also changed some links to avoid redirecting, but everything should still look the same. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

asymmetric power relationship

really, this applies to FA reviewers more than to GA reviewers... but I'm thinking about adding a sentence or three about the asymmetric power relationship b/w reviewers and reviewees. Comments invited. --Ling.Nut 14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates?

How do we mark an article as good? What templates do we use? Can you provide us some text to paste in that will mark an article appropriately?

(Yes, I can find out the answers, but it would be useful to have them in this guide -- it might even be useful to have a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles)

-- TimNelson 09:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

multiple FACT tags

I made a change which I believe reflects a growing consensus at Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates that a single {{fact}} tag isn't a quick fail criterion. I thought I should mention this discussion here. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Only one fact tag isn't quick fail? "Growing consensus"? That's... interesting. I've been away too long. Ling.Nut 10:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) OK, I see. I misunderstood. Should drink more coffe before reading... Ling.Nut!

GAC backlog elimination drive

A month-long backlog elimination drive has started. There are several awards to be won. For details please go to Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Query for message on quick-fail

Hi, I was thinking of having a go at a GA review and on reading the instructions have hit a problem. In point 3 of the section "How to review an article" there is a link to a message to be placed on the article's talk page if it is a quick fail. The template only covers a fail for NPOV what happens if the fail is for one of the other 3 cases? Keith D 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to use any templates if you quick fail, and probably best not to IMO. Just leave a message on the article's talk page explaining why you made the decision to quick fail. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition to the quick-fail criteria?

After reviewing the absolutely appalling Eric the Midget bio, it comes to mind that since the BLP is to be taken so seriously by editors, shouldn't an "obvious violation of the biographies of living persons policy in an article within its scope" be a quick-fail criteria? VanTucky ^Talk 22:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed a shockingly poor article. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the name is the only problem, the coverage inside the article seems to disproportionently cover negative things about this person, and in a somewhat non-serious fashion. (A new superhero called "Ballon"?) Is there a reason why quick-failing this article isn't technically valid via the GA criteria? Homestarmy 23:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying my quick-fail of Eric the Midget was technically invalid. I'm saying that since the BLP is a basic and absolutely essential policy in which there is no leeway for violating content, and that neutrality (as I used in this case) may not always be a decent substitute, then the BLP should be included as a qfc. VanTucky ^Talk 23:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, would it be possible for a BLP violation to also not violate the GA criteria? It seems to me a BLP violation would most likely come from NPOV violations or verifiability problems.... Homestarmy 21:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, but under the current verifiability standard it would most definitely slip by. The BLP is much more strict about direct, inline attribution for any possibly violation, and current general verifiability is much more basic. The currently required minimum of a cite to the end of each paragraph and for quotes doesn't cover all the necessary cites in a BLP article. At least in application right now, the notion of having an inline citation for "any fact likely to be challenged" is voluntary, practically speaking. With a BLP, this is not so. But the criteria doesn't point that out. VanTucky ^Talk 22:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has kind of petered off. Does anyone have a strong objection to me adding a mention (not a new requirment entirely) to the verifiability section of the QFC? VanTucky ^Talk 21:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:CREEP for me. If the article is a BLP violation, it already meets criteria #2 of the quick-fail. hbdragon88 06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, actually no. BLP requires that any potentially controversial fact be directly cited by a reliable source. Something can be a neutral treatment of a significant view, and still violate the strict verifiability clause of the BLP. VanTucky ^Talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That article is an isolated case, probably 2% of quick-failed articles would be for this reason. It's sometimes better to ignore all rules rather than modify an already established criteria. Yamanbaiia 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Bad cases make bad law. No change to the quick fail criteria needed because of this one incident. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Criteria adjustment

As a long time editor who is appalled by the current fixation on and demands for inline citations, I would urge that any reference system established and recognized by academic and business standards be acceptable and encouraged for use in Wikipedia articles. To insist that the use of just one of many standards and styles is required to gain recognition as a good article, reduces the potential for contribution from editors trained in other styles as well as the casual contributor. I personally believe that this enforcement effort has its roots in a desire to improve Wikipedia's reputation in media outlets. However, simply citing a source inline does not create a quality article, as many sources are erroneous, present a minority or biased opinion, or inappropriate for other reasons. I would personally appreciate reconition and use of alternate styles. WBardwin 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Accepting alternative methods of inline citation might be reasonable, but we really do need to have some sort of inline citation in place. Wikipedia, by its nature, can be trusted only so far as the sources given can be checked to verify what is said. And if all you have is a list of things used to write the article, you can't do that. -Amarkov moo! 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion -- I obviously disagree. Copious inline citations, to me, simply encourage the use of our articles as a finished school project for kids. No research, no reading the sources, just print! It also gives Wikipedia a quick defense to a media criticism, even if the source is unreliable, so it solves the PR problem. But inline cites by themselves do not improve the encyclopedia. In addition to accepting other standards, I would be more interested in setting standards for sources themselves as so many "fringe" sources are given inappropriate weight in Wikipedia articles and discussions. WBardwin 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But how, then, can we verify that the sources given actually support what is being said? Inline citations do not improve the encyclopedia, but they make it easier to accept that what is being said is actually true. -Amarkov moo! 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Presenting a source, any given source, does not mean that the information is true. This is the first thing that was pounded into my head as an undergrad in history. "Truth" in any field is unattainable. The "reliability" of both primary and secondary sources is a matter of careful consideration and contrast. "Weight" in the presentation/article should be given to those sources with good verifiable documentation and research. Unfortunately, most of Wikipedia's information is drawn from tertiary sources based on internet, media and popular synthesis -- but the inline citation system accepts these as sources. What these citations create is simply a defense of error, a way of saying that a presentation is not Wikipedia's editors' "fault: -- our product becomes "...somebody else, anyone else for whatever reason, said this....." In my opinion, Wikipedia's position should be, "...after due consideration, comparison, and discussion, our best opinion is........" WBardwin 01:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But that doesn't work when people don't have to be intelligent, and in fact can be actively evil. If I wish to prove something, since you have no reason to assume that I actually know what I'm talking about, I need to tell someone how they can verify what I say. Just giving a 300 page book and saying "I used this" doesn't work. -Amarkov moo! 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So, do you agree or disagree with me? If you think we can "prove" anything, than we must disagree. Truth is not out there to simply pluck and reprint. But it appears you believe that putting out recycled "crap", based on citing what other misc sources say, without verifying the reliability of the source and weighing the various opinions, is justifiable because our editors/readers may be unintelligent and/or evil? Should that be our objective? If we list our references, even a daunting (??) 300+ page book, I believe we are making the statement -- "This is a good resource for your use. Please review it carefully." I am unwilling to place that label on all the sources people cite in this encyclopedia. Many of them are simply undefendable -- but they are given undue authority by the inline citation system. In my opinion, this misleads our readers and is politically correct scholarship -- and is simply lazy to boot. WBardwin 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of sources

An interesting issue was brought up on WP:GAR in the Hurricane Philippe (2005) discussion regarding the necessary number of sources. The article has only one source (National Hurricane Center) and there is some question as to whether that is sufficient. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles states "Small articles that are referenced to a single source may still be adequately referenced without the use of inline references", which implicitly indicates that one source is acceptable. My concern, however, is that WP:N states “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject”, in which “significant” may be open to interpretation, but the plural “sources” certainly is not. It seems to me contradictory to have an article that could be classified as a good article, but is, at the same time, eligible for speedy deletion for lack of notability. As I agree with the WP:N statement, I would argue that a single source is never sufficient for articles above stub class, for both notability and neutrality reasons, and I perform my GA assessments accordingly. I’m a great admirer of the flexibility and relatively informal nature of the GA process, but I think there also needs to be, at the very least, a consistency in the guidelines. Not wanting to get into a thorny debate about an exact number, I would suggest a minimum of 2 sources (i.e. lowest plural possible) and an appropriate rephrasing of the “Small articles that are referenced…” sentence. Thoughts? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You've highlighted a curious anomaly that I for one hadn't noticed before. I think though that it's the speedy delete criteria that need to be changed. One reliable source is a reliable source. Two sources doesn't necessarily make an article any more reliable than one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A concern there would be that altering the speedy deletion criteria would still present the situation of a good article violating WP:N. Although the GA guidelines, curiously, fail to explicitly mention WP:N (unlike the other major content guidelines: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR), I think it would ultimately be equally contradictory to have a GA that violates WP:N. The necessity of two sources, therefore, is not so much a reliability issue, but one of notability. I agree with you that two sources will not necessarily make the article more reliable. I do, however, think multiple sources assist with neutrality, as any and all sources are going to contain some degree of bias; they’re written by human beings, after all. One source, by definition, will present only one view. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do the Speedy deletion criteria really say that more than one source is required?

I'm also not sure that there is a clear contradiction between what WP:N says and the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles statement "Small articles that are referenced to a single source..." WP:N states “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. However, the multiple sources is a test for noteability, and isn't -- as far as I can tell -- a prescription for the many sources an article must reference. For example, Hurricane Philippe is noted in NOAA, USA Today, The Miami Herald, etc, thus meeting noteability criteria via multiple reliable sources which are easily uncovered by Gsearch. However, the article references only NOAA -- per WP:RGA minimum of one source for short GAs.

Even if there is not clear-cut contradiction, it's still an interesting question. In almost all cases multiple sources are preferable to a single source. However, in the case of this short article, I must agree with Malleus. Addition of another source would not improve the article's quality. Majoreditor (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point with the distinction about what should be referenced; that is an important distinction. I think, however, that the reasoning applies only to the letter of the policy, not to the spirit or, at least, the practice. I think it’s reasonable to say that the WP:N policy is widely interpreted as “if it’s notable, prove it”. Indeed, in cases such as Hurricane Phillipe, whose notability is blatantly obvious, it seems almost lazy to not add some of the readily available sources. As I said earlier, extra sources aren’t about reliability or “quality”, per se, but about neutrality. Perhaps this shouldn’t be a conversation about number of sources needed, but about whether complying with WP:N should be a GA criterion. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me phrase the question somewhat differently. Should Good Articles have a higher notability standard than present? Thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

QFC format

The quick fail criteria are somewhat obscured by their integration into the review instructions; it’s not always easy to spot them at a glance and they’re easily lost in the sea of instructions. Would anyone be opposed to moving them into a box, such as this? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 17:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea, nice work! VanTucky 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I’ve implemented the box. Feel free to tweak the format, placement, etc. (or revert, if I’ve been hasty). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just deprecated it. See below. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

I just previewed the changes of today and I support them, as this guideline now agrees much better with other (wikipedia and good article) guidelines. Much kudos to those who have improved this guideline through consensus editing: keep up the good work! Geometry guy 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All these seem fine to me. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Second opinions

I'm still rather new to reviewing articles for GA, having done it only 5 times, and I had a question none of the wikipedia help pages seem to cover. If there's a second opinion requested, who ultimately is responsible for passing the article, the original reviewer, or the the reviewer giving a second opinion? It would be nice if this was stated somewhere...if it is, please direct me to it. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Who determines the criteria

and what qualifications do they have? Is it the same group of people? If so, how can they determine what is factual/verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, etc. when there is such a broad range of subjects on Wikipedia. Are there specialists in each subject/topic area? If not, there should be.KGBarnett (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The criteria can be found at WP:GA?. They are decided upon by discussion and consensus on the talk page. Verifiability is determined by adherence to Wikipedia's policy on that; WP:V, same with neutrality (WP:NPOV). No, there are no subject experts - just dedicated volunteers! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick-failing

I have adjusted the text under 'how to review an article' to de-emphasize the "quick fail" criteria (more or less eliminating it, actually). While I think there still will be some articles that are obvious fails and can more or less be "administratively removed" from WP:GAN for various reasons, I think that if the purpose of GA is overall article improvement, we should be providing as much information as possible in our reviews so that editors become more familiar with the GA criteria and can apply all six of them in the articles they nominate. If we simply quick-fail an article, with very little helpful text, and based on one simple thing, we're ultimately not helping reviewers out. The only reasons to remove an article's nomination without conducting a more or less full review are really procedural, such as if the nomination was malformed, one editor is nominating the article five or six times over and ignoring previous comments, etc. This can largely be handled by more experienced reviewers, and need not be listed in any guidelines for new reviewers. Let's focus on getting new reviewers to do good, decent, and full reviews of articles; once they become comfortable with that, they can then help us more experienced folks out with the administrative stuff,... Dr. Cash (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

fact checking

I added a new step to the process, explicitly requiring fact-checking. Bwrs (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've copyedited a bit. Actually I think the entire page probably needs a heavy copyedit. It is a bit embarrassing if a process aiming to promote article quality has guidelines whose prose is poor! :-) This is no criticism of any contributors here: it is inevitable when a text evolves the way a guideline like this does. Geometry guy 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit++. I hope this irons out some inconsistencies, and presents current and desired future practice well. I've kept to the current structure and spirit. It is possible that a more substantial change may be beneficial, but that needs to be discussed first. I'm not in favour of radical change, but my copyediting has only cut the page by 400 bytes, and it would be nice to cut another 1000 or so. Geometry guy 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't do a very good job, G'guy. I've copyedited some more, but I'm still not happy with this guideline. Geometry guy 22:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What is a quick-fail?

Under "First things to look for" a quick-fail is defined as a fail "without going through the on hold process", something that should only be done if the article fails 5 basic criteria. Then, under "Process" 2.3, it says "If the...changes are not likely to be met within a week fail the article..." Is this identical with a quick-fail? Are we talking about failing the 5 basic criteria here? If not, who's able to predict how much work an editor is able to do in seven days, and what harm can it do to put it on hold? This is horribly confusing, surely it could be said clearer? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 00:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be said more clearly: the dividing lines between "quick fail", "on review" and "on hold" remain as clear as mud. Geometry guy 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge tags

Is an unresolved {{merge}} tag on an article grounds for a quick fail on the basis of stability? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Imaging that you begin reviewing the article and the next day it is merged with another. How are you going to comlete the review? Ruslik (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Another improper review

Recently I was doing the GA review of the article Ramakrishna, and an editor, comes on Day1 and give a ambigious review 3 and on day two writes, "Article relies on 30 to 100 year-old scholarship, rather than dealing with current scholarship" and fails the review. Apparently this editor is not suitable to review either because he has made significant contributions to the article, and the discussion page archives are full of his personal attacks on other editors. I feel this review is not proper and GAN should be restored. And moreover I see other editors discussing and working deligently to fix the problems. Any comments?--Bluptr (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to quick-fail

Does anyone else think that another reason to quick-fail could be added: "The article has been previously nominated, and failed, and the reasons for failing have obviously not been addressed?"

Or something like that? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 03:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I quick-failed one article for that reason, it having been resubmitted a week or so after the first failure; and I did consider that for a second article, but sometimes it is possible to "repair" a marginal article so I choose that option for the other one.Pyrotec (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• oppose Earlier this year I nominated an article, and someone signed up to review it but did not provide comments. 18 days later I asked when commnets would appear. The next day the reviewer quick-failed it with some very unhelpful comments (e.g. "prose issues" but no examples) and a comment that there was no sign of recent activity on the article - of course there wasn't, I was waiting for comments since making non-minor changes to the article while the reviewer was commenting would have been unhelpful. I re-nominated immediately (wiht some opposition from the reviewer), and it passed within a few days after another reviewer provided helpful comments. Morals: check whether the first review was helpful; what matters most is how close the article currently is to GA quality when a review starts, not what a previous reviwer said. --Philcha (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick failing for WP:Crystal and all references to foreign language sources.

I recently quick failed Follo Line for GA as the article concerns a railway line in Norway that may be built in the future. Estimated start of construction is 2013 AND because the references were to sources in Norwegian, with no English translations provide. This is is challenged at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Follo_Line/1 as is the nominator's right. I would appreciate input there as I may have got it wrong, but currently I believe that I interpreted guidelines correctly. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Crystal can be a tricky issue. The lead of Follo Line says it's part of a larger plan, which is often true of railway and other infrastructure developments, plans for the Follo line were first published in 1995 and construction of lines that connect to it is under way or complete. Hence I think it's very unlikely that the Follo line will be abandoned or severely curtailed, short of a war or economic meltdown.

OTOH at WT:GAN fairly recently there was a question about a US lunar mission that was pencilled in for about 2019, was about 10th in a series and would "possibly" be in support of a proposed lunar base. I thought this was a clear case of WP:Crystal because: it was 10 years in the future; the programme could be cancelle dor curtailed for various reasons including disasters and budget cuts; the mission objectives were vague and the most specific part was contingent on another programme several years ahead.

I don't think there's a "bright line" for this sort of question, but I think the Follo line is clealry on the right side and the proposed space mission well over the threshold. --Philcha (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

IIRC (? at WP:V) the relevant parts of non-English sources must be translated in the footnotes. The problem is the reliability of the translation. Automated translations are usually crap (no other way to describe them!). The nominator's translation inherently has WP:COI issues. FA review might require a professional translation (who pays?). For GA I'd accept a translation from a non-involved editor who has a native-level knowledge of the language, most likely as a first language - if you can get one. --Philcha (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if I should post this here

How long does a GA review generelly take. Just out of interest, and so I know how long I should spend if I ever review one (or wait if I ever nominate one). Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 things you might be asking about. Do you mean once a reviewer has signed on to review the article, how long does it take them to make their comments and eventually pass/fail the nomination? Or d'you mean how long after adding an article to the nominations page will it be before someone agrees to review it? –Whitehorse1 19:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The first one. Thanks for answering so quickly. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It depends. It varies by complexity of the topic, along with article length. It also varies by reviewer.

Top-level topics, perhaps science-related, take longer, because it involves looking at how well complicated ideas are covered. Likewise, reading all of an article that prints to over 10 pages, means more review time than with a single page article. Reviewers sometimes ask at a relevant WikiProject if someone will check over specialized article content.

Different reviewer styles find some create the review subpage, go off and read through the article, returning after a few days with details of what needs fixing. A reviewer with lots of comments might add them in stages, so nominator(s) aren't confronted with a long list at once. Others, shortly after creating the review subpage, list problems with a note they're allowing say 5/7 days to fix them. Often there's discussion, such as asking the reviewer to clarify something, letting the reviewer know something's meant to be a particular way for whatever reason, etc.

As a general guide: Reviews take up to 7 days. Short or 'simpler' articles can be reviewable within an hour, by an experienced reviewer, with a list of issues or the article passed as a GA. If it's clear an article has problems requiring longer than a short hold period to fix, it can be failed shortly after opening the review. Typically, reviewers get back with comments within 1 day. Most will add a note when they create the review subpage, saying if it'll take a while to check through the article. –Whitehorse1 20:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the lateness of my response, I fell asleep. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 08:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent expansion

WhatamIdoing has made some improving copyedits to the reviewing guidelines recently, but has also expanded them significantly: see this and this. Substantial changes to guidelines require discussion and consensus. Some discussion would clearly be very helpful here. At the very least, I believe the additions should be pruned to keep the guidelines lightweight and avoid instruction creep (nobody reads long guidelines). Geometry guy 22:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I agree with your comments. Do you think reverting to the prev. version while discussing the changes is best here? –Whitehorse1 23:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully not, but if it proves necessary, yes. I'm not a procedure junkie: we are all friends at GA and can prune and adjust the guidelines to suit our current practice. Discussion is much more important than procedure here. Geometry guy 23:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the expansion and was unhappy. I think the informality has worked well for GAN, and I don't care for the seemingly authoritative tone in the changes. Yes, mistakes are made. But the friendly atmosphere makes GAN a less intimidating place in this era when Wikipedia is becoming more rule-bound at the same time that it is trying to attract and retain new editors. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As usual, I don't assume that my 'first draft' is perfect, and I would be happy to see improvements made (or proposed, if you're not feeling very WP:BOLD today).

My overall goal was to name some specific problems that I've seen with (a subset of) GA reviewers. This page already did a pretty good job of opposing lazy reviews and passing articles that don't meet the criteria. It now also opposes (appropriately, IMO) the error of failing deserving articles because of the reviewer's ignorance, arrogance, and bias. These are problems that I've personally seen, or that I've had established editors moan about to me. They range from trivial (it's faster to fix the spelling error than to explain it in the review) to major (ignorant reviewers demanding that the entire subject of the article be changed).

Geometry guy is right: the handful of reviewers that are most likely to cause these problems won't read the instructions. However, nominators that are dealing with a self-appointed GA dictator will read this page, and those nominators will be hoping to find support against abuse here.

I hope, as a result, that there will be less work for GAR. More importantly, a bad experience with a GA review can cost Wikipedia good editors. It can destroy functional editing environments. It can kill off any sense of being friends and working together. I hope that by labeling and formally opposing these behaviors as unhelpful and/or inappropriate, we'll see less of them, resolve them more quickly when they appear, and keep all our editors working productively and happily on the encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was a prolific GA article reviewer, but I don't like the tone of the changes. I notice the backlog of unreviewed articles has suddenly grown! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we make some useful edits? Could someone (e.g. Mattisse) pare the recent editions down to their essence? I can copyedit. Geometry guy 00:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• It looks like we're underway with revisions (yay!). However, restoring this sentence:

  Reviewing is a serious responsibility, and the most dedicated reviewers spend considerable time on each article.

  seems inappropriate to me. The "serious responsibility" bit seems rather self-aggrandizing, and the assertion that the most dedicated reviewers can't be quick or efficient smacks of the error about mistaking activity for results. If you can correctly promote or fail an article in half an hour, then I see no reason why you shouldn't do so. We don't want to honor people for being slow by calling them "the most dedicated". We also don't want to scare off potential new reviewers by overemphasizing the time-consuming nature of some reviews. "Spending considerable time" (unlike fixing minor typos as you find them, which Whitehorse objects to calling "good") is not actually a best practice; it's merely a common natural consequence of reviewing an article on a complex topic, especially if the article doesn't quite meet the six criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I gather you dislike my changes so far. That's okay. Hopefully we'll all arrive at something we're happy with. That sentence seems very important to me. In drawing attention to the concept carefully looking at an article from several angles takes time, we do not honor plodding reviewers for being slow nor do we suggest efficient reviewers able to swiftly make good headway in their review are somehow 'doing it wrong'. Any task done frequently becomes easier with repetition; it will still always take a degree of time and care to do effectively. We're at crossed purposes. I do not object to calling fixing minor typos a good thing; I do object to text implying to readers "if you were a decent reviewer, you would fix these things yourself", which might be perceived as snappy. I'm sure through discussion we can all explore different possibilities and arrive at something mutually agreeable. –Whitehorse1 03:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't care one way or the other about most of your changes. But I think that the tone on this sentence is wrong, that the content is questionable, and that the location (supposedly it explains " Why articles are nominated for Good article status"?) is strange. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay. Of all the statements I think that ranks among the most important. I see where you're coming from when you say it seems self-aggrandizing, and I'm not opposed to a copyedit of the sentence itself. It's important, in my view, because it makes clear reviewing usually involves an article someone has worked very hard on, and going through the motions with little effort, perhaps to tick off an activity notch before RfA, or making comments like "it's definitely long enough" (referring to broadness), does the author(s) a disservice as well as chipping away at confidence in quality of reviews. A memorable statement someone wrote, was along lines of “for smaller or niche subject articles, often a GA review is the only real in-depth independent assessment they'll ever get”. I didn't save a diff, and I'm sure it was pithier, but you get the idea. Its location can easily be moved, so that part's no problem. –Whitehorse1 17:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• I would vote to revert it to this version:[1] which was easy to read and encouraging. I think few will read it the way it is now. It is too long and confusing. I am not going to read long lists of 16 bullet points. I suggest removing entirely "Refusing to pass articles that meet the Good article criteria", as well as "Confusing suggestions and personal preferences with the Good article criteria", "Passing articles that do not meet the Good article criteria" and " Why articles are nominated for Good article status". The original article was geared to interest the editor who may feel too intimidated to do a GA review. The current article makes reviewing sound very burdensome and is very lecturing in tone and seems to assume that the reviewer will most likely make decisions for the wrong reasons. I doubt I would have ever reviewed an article if I had tried to read this first. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I share your concerns. I've worked on it a bit. I still have concerns, primarily with "Issues to avoid in reviews" being 6 subsections comprising around 20 bulletpoints. I've now made 15 edits; the aim was dividing them into distinct changes with each explained using editsummaries. It's time to check in though.
    Additionally, I have a question for User:WhatamIdoing. To best effect spirit and practice of collaboration it would be helpful to learn what shaped your perspectives on this. We all recognize there are many ways to contribute, and I note you assess pages as part of wikiprojects. Your last couple of thousand Talkspace history edit targets don't seem to include 'GA1', beyond commenting on two. You did mention above having perceived problems with reviewers. Have you been the reviewer for any GA nominations in the last 2 years? For simplicity, I ask that you please treat it as a closed question. Naturally, feel free not to answer if you prefer. Thank you. –Whitehorse1 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Ignoring your two-year time limit, I'd guess that I have ever reviewed two, nominated two (never for anything I had a significant hand in), and seen some two dozen reviews in progress, most of which seem to be competently (or even brilliantly) handled, and a few of which are disastrous. I rarely comment on GA reviews, although I'll very occasionally point another editor at the review if it seems likely to help. As you've seen, my usual wikignoming with WP:MEDA has taken me to something on the order of 10,000 medicine-related articles each year; as a result, I have more opportunity than the average editor to see what's happening in a broad swath of articles. A problem that appears in only 0.1% of articles may be invisible to you, but it will be on my screen about once a month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for posting a response. –Whitehorse1 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A review of Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles

Based on the most recent version.

Coverage

• Should give more guidance on how to recognise whether coverage is adequate. I always find this difficult, and I remember more experienced GA reviwers saying at WT:GAN that they found it difficult. I've found recent GAs on similar subjects helpful, especially when reviwing a subject are that's new to me, but recent GAs (passed mid-2007 onwards, after standards were raised) are often hard to find. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Needs to say a lot more about how far we should check adherence to WP:V. My impression is that I spend more time than most on checking that the text is supported by the refs. Regretably I've found this necessary because even articles nominated by experienced editors have a few statements that are not fully or even at all supported by the cited sources. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Other guides need to be reviewed before inclusion here. For example WP:RGA recommends User:Giggy/GA tools, and this links to User:Giggy/A noob's guide to GA reviewing. I agree with over 90% of User:Giggy/A noob's guide to GA reviewing, but emphatically disagree with: "References need to go after some form of punctuation ..." as the Chicago convention is not mandatory per whichever guideline; "It's tedious and pointless (in most cases) to check refs inline ...", as I said earlier, I often find issues; "Insist on reliable sources, or the FAC regulars will eat us", because FAC is not a GA reviewer's concern and I have doubts about WP:RS. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Should list tools that are known to handle some of the chores and are regarded as reliable. I like: User:Dispenser/Link checker for checking that URLs still exist and that the citations have the required parameters; and [Count links on a page for checking wikilnks, especially to DAB pages. Dispenser's Readability analyser can be useful if you have concerns about an article's length or intelligibility. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• I recommend that section "Why articles are nominated for Good article status" should be scrapped - guessing about the nominator's motivation is not a reviewer's business. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Should we give more specific hints about how to go about a review, assuming that we're past the "quick fail" stage? I almost always follow a set sequence: coverage and then structure, as problems with these may force major rewrites; walk-through of main text sections; check images and links (link issues may force changes in main text if refs have gone offline); lead, after all main text issues are resolved. It would be interesting to hear whether other editors have a standard pattern, especially if different from mine. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

About your third bullet point, the relevant guideline is WP:REFPUNC. Several GA-related pages have contradicted the actual guideline on that point until recently; given the popularity of that style, it's a not unreasonable mistake to make. Would you like to leave a friendly note for Giggy about that issue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Giggy isn't very active these days. Anyway, WP:REFPUNC isn't a GA requirement. I suggest we make it clear that essays are essays, not part of the guidelines. I also suggest that in copyediting these guidelines, we ensure they only make definitive statements where there is widespread agreement. Geometry guy 21:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that WP:REFPUNC isn't supposed to be something that the GA reviewer checks for compliance on, but some reviewers require compliance anyway. Some also incorrectly assert that citations must be consistently and correctly formatted, that URLs must have access dates, that dead links can't be used as citations, and so forth. For more examples of this "criteria creep", you might want to look at what WP:GNGA#Brief fixes: nearly the entire section is optional advice presented as stuff that nominators really ought to comply with anyway. User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet does the same kind of thing, e.g., requiring the presence of {{Persondata}} for biographies. In fact, I'm not sure that any page about GA nominations or reviews correctly limits itself to an explanation of the actual criteria, without inventing new criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How about making one? (An essay about GA noms that limits itself to clarification of the criteria.) Are you up for it? I'd gladly contribute. Anyone else? Geometry guy 23:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Structure

Subject to points raised under "Coverage" the structure looks OK. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Maion text

• I'd retitle section "Issues to avoid in reviews" to "Mistakes to avoid in reviews" to make its purpose absolutely clear - "issues" in the sense of problems / mistakes / difficulties is management-speak. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Otherwise I'm reasonably happy with the current content, subject to the points I raised about coverage. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead tool?

The linkcount tool, which is listed in the article's 'Useful tools' section, seems to be out of action: I get a 'User account expired' message when trying to use it. Judging from their Danish pages, that editor has been inactive since early September 2009.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's been dead for months. My current toolset is at User:Philcha#Tools. --Philcha (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that pointer: I'll grab those.

For the moment, I've deleted the dead link from the page to save anyone else chasing it.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Anyone (with a username) can nominate"

Not that I anticipate smooth sailing when an IP nominates, but can't IPs nominate? - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate, only an editor with a username can review. This has been discussed already on this talkpage. Pyrotec (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: How to review an article #5

dont see why a current event cant ever get GA by this definition. there can be well comphrensive and resourceful articles like the current tunisia protests and the 2010 Ecuador crisis that are in fact good articles but unnecessarily restrained. I suggest we review this criteria.(Lihaas (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Could someone explain the motivation for criterion #5? And maybe some examples of how the prediction of a "definite end" is to be made? Unless we know the arguments for the criterion, we can't present alternative arguments. i'm wondering if someone reversed the definition from "without a definite end" to "definite end", though i haven't actually checked the page history... Boud (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it was written with movies in mind. I have the impression that there was something of a problem with articles being written and attaining GA status before the movie was released, and then being a GA-listed mess after the release. So much changes (or should) when the movie is released/the election is over/the event happens/etc. that the article will need to be completely re-written and completely re-reviewed. We conserve our most valuable resource (reviewer time) by not doing reviews for articles that will soon be OTBE'd. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer involvement in content discussion

As well as various copyedits and rewordings in the last month, I have just added a sentence on reviewer involvement in content. It has been a recent issue, and probably not only a recent one. However, it is a delicate issue where getting the wording right is important, so comments and further discussion would be much appreciated! Geometry guy 23:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Image use criterion

Should this be expanded to include sound and video clips? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Are "blogs" inherently suspect?

The "Assessing the article and providing a review" section instructs people to "check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources)..." Is that really what we want to say? Many books are reliable, and many are not. Many blogs are reliable, and many are not. What bearing does the blog "format" have to do on its reliability? In my opinion, this should link to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, where it says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Singling out blogs seems to be misleading. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"unless there are exceptional circumstances"

I'm trying to import this mechanism to Hebrew Wikipedia, so I read the page and got to the sentence "If a review is already underway, then, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the reviewer should promptly close it as "not listed"". I don't really get what these exceptional circumstances may be. Can someone explain me? Also, I got to the sentence "or may place the nomination "on hold" for a period of time to give regular editors..." - and wondered, how long this period of time may be and usually is? Thanks, --Tomer T (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Exceptional circumstances" may indicate a variety of things, such as the review already having a lot of input from multiple editors, an editor retiring/leaving in the middle of the review, the article getting excessive media attention, or is comprehensive in its assessment of the article. This phrasing was probably added for special situations that have occurred in the past, and to prevent a review from being completely removed if something out of the ordinary occurs. The period for keeping an article open should be at least seven days to give the nominator ample time to begin to address the reviewer's comments. It is up to the reviewer to determine if the review should stay open beyond that. Usually, if the nominator is working to address all of the issues and is facing some delays (such as having to go check out a source book from the library to verify a sourced statement or is busy in real life), a compromise can be worked out between the reviewer and the nominator. In the case of the English Wikipedia's GAN process, some articles can wait over two months to be reviewed, so some consideration can be given to go beyond seven days as necessary. Ideally we don't want the reviews stretching out for months, unless there are "exceptional circumstances". --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Command of English

I'm wondering if it should be mentioned on this page, something like "Please be confident that you have a strong command of the English language." Seeing as one of the requirements of a GA article is that it's well written, I think this is a fair request to make of reviewers (as would be the equivalent on any other language WPs). Otherwise articles with sub-par prose may leak through. --Lobo512 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Is this criteria for a "Quick fail"? If it is not, should it be?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree and done. AIRcorn (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Quickfails

I think there are some misconceptions about quickfails presented here and some bad advice. First off it says that some editors call any fail without a hold a quickfail. While that is a common misconception they are in fact two different things. A fail without a hold means that a full review has been conducted, but in the reviewers opinion it will take too long to get to Good standard. A quickfail simply means it meets one of the five criteria mentioned here. We should be explaining the difference, not conflating the two. Not sure about the If it is apparent from the article edit history and/or talk page that the nominator has put extensive work into the article, then "quick-failing" is likely to be inappropriate or offensive, as the GA process is intended to help editors with article improvement, not dismiss their work sentence. I know why it is there, but a quickfail is a quick fail no matter how much work has gone into it. Also it is very subjective; how much is a lot of work? And finally the options given. Really there is only one, the first one leave a short note explaining the major problems, but without officially closing the review until the editors at the article have had a few days to respond to your concerns. You may find that they are interested in significantly improving the article. If you are providing a detailed review then it is a non-holding fail and if you think the article is a quick fail you shouldn't be withdrawing from it. I also think this section should be named for what it is "Quickfailing an article". AIRcorn (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Updated. Left out the name change to quickfail. In accordance with discussion (or lack of opposition at least) at WT:GAN I will look to copy the criteria to WP:WIAGA under the heading Quickfails, meaning the change here is unnecessary. AIRcorn (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnote regarding review required before classing as GA

I came across an instance where an ersatz GA had been nominated for GAR. The article itself had never been vetted as GA ([2]). It was simply classed as such some 3 years ago. I raised the inquiry on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#Help_--_Improperly_assessed_GA, and after some feed back decided to abort the GAR and reassess the article. I've added a footnote about the requirement for a nomination and review so that future improperly assessed articles can be reclassed without a GAR process. – S. Rich (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Cut back nominator section

The small nominator paragraph/section is now removed. The topic it discussed was off the subject of this Reviewing guideline page and it occasionally conflicted with the responsibilities spelled out, not only in the Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles, but in the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. In its place is a brief description of a nominator and a link to this topic's guidelines page: Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles. Also see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Instructions#Inconsistency in nominator expectations. Prhartcom (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

The guideline states that, "The review should not be influenced by beliefs about how the article could be made "perfect", by how the reviewer would have written the article..." In my opinion the last part of that makes little sense and a case could be made for removing it. If a reviewer makes a suggestion to the editor or editors mainly responsible for the article's content, then in effect he is expressing a view about how he would have written the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Not everyone should be nominating good articles

Please chime in at a discussion I've started about limiting who can nominate good articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There should actually be more concern about who can review good article nominations since currently, anyone can and that means sockpuppets and bad faith editors too. — TheMagnificentist 06:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)