Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport

Good article nominations

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.

Moving sections (sport)

Hi guys - I know I've asked this previously, but the cue sports section (within other sports) now has 200 entries. Cricket has a section of its own, and has 51 less GA articles. Do you think we could swap them around? I get that cue sports aren't quite as populated as some of our other topics, such as football or motorsport (I'm working on it though!), but it is significantly larger than one we already have. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, if I recall you asked back in the Vector 2010 era, we are in the bold new Vector 2022 world where the lists are vertically compressed. I would support creating a lv3 Cue sports heading in recognition of the substantial work done in that topic, and the usability of the lists. Please don't do it boldly though, lv3 might have technical ramifications. However, I see no reason it can't be split into multiple lv5s now, that can all be moved together later if there is consensus to split. I would appreciate a split by sport, I saw at a glance some pool and some snooker, there might be others, but it's not easy to tell from some event titles, and obviously impossible to just tell from the biographies. As for downgrading Cricket, interesting question and we are about to lose another GA there, but doesn't need to happen to split off Cue sports. CMD (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I wouldn't make the change myself. There are a few issues with doing changes by specific sport, as there's quite a bit of overlap. Almost all snooker players have played pool or billiards (and vise versa). The other issue is that we have "snooker" but then also a mismatch of all other cue sports. We'd have to have an "other cue sports" topic, which I'm not a fan of as it suggests it's lesser than snooker.

I do think there is a suitable bio Vs non-bio split which would be suitable if there was a level 3 header for it. (~60 bios, with the remainder split between tournaments , governance and articles about the different games). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't mind a bio split, mostly coming from the angle of being a bit more informative to those less familiar with the various sports in question. CMD (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Just to confirm, is anyone happy for this change to be made? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie and Novem Linguae: please note above proposal to create a new lv3 section, a Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation#Cue sports. CMD (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

ChristieBot only cares about the sections of the GAN page; it doesn't interact with the GA sections at all. If this won't change the GAN page organization or create new nomination categories or keywords it shouldn't require any changes to ChristieBot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this would be more for Novem, because the GA promotion script uses the different headers. Good to know ChristieBot has no issues though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Round-robbin reviewing?

Note: I have created in a page at WP:GARC as a concept of what this may look like . —— GMH Melbourne (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Further to the above discussion ^{(pinging AirshipJungleman29, Premeditated Chaos, Skyshifter, & Kusma)}, I understand the issues that may arise with a one-on-one voluntary QPQ reviewing and I agree that the concept will sacrifice the quality of reviews. A potential alternative solution could be a discussion space where it pairs up 3-5 users and then A reviews B, B reviews C, and C reviews A's articles, thereby mitigating the COI in each review, I am happy to set it up and coordinate. Thoughts? GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I would submit my GANs to one of these! Especially if cross-pollination is encouraged, both in people being invited to join the review circles (we wouldn't want them to get stale editorially) and people within the circle encouraged to comment on GANs in the circle other than their primary. Remsense诉 06:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

this sounds like a fun idea if it can be properly organized! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

(Sawyer, I just realized you use TemplateStyles to fit more in your signature. That's genius...) Remsense诉 10:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I found out that using TemplateStyles isn't technically necessary for the use he's putting it to. Case in point... → —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

you're giving me too much credit! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea! Skyshiftertalk 09:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to participate in an experiment if it can be set up; this sounds interesting. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's shaping up nicely! It may also be useful to allow users to indicate their preference on which other article they'd like to review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

thats what the topic-of-interest parameter is for, perhaps i'll change the name to be more clearer. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

With a page now ready for this idea, would anyone be opposed with adding it to WP:Good article nominations/Tab header for a around week a week while it is being proposed/ as a trial of how it may work. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

We seem to have enough participants in this thread to conduct a test run. It may also be beneficial to keep the trial more lowkey and see how things turn out before opening the process to general participation. I don't have a strong objection, however, if other editors think differently. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the "Coordinator" one of the reviewers/participants, or another individual? CMD (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: The coordinator would be another individual and would pair and notify users, I am happy to assume the role. If there's another way it could work I am open to ideas. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Blackpink/GA1

Talk:Blackpink/GA1 was not a proper review. The reviewer has made 118 edits and it was rushed. 750h+ 07:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• 750h+, per the note at the top of the page, it is best practice to attempt to speak to the nominator first before dragging them to a public noticeboard. Have you tried to do so? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I pinged them. Will wait for a response 750h+ 07:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is best to message on their talk page. I left a message there almost an hour before this was opened, please add to it if you wish. CMD (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Very weirdly, this was partially clerked by a user and an IP. Given no activity from the reviewer, I have properly reset the template. CMD (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

splitting the world history sections

at Wikipedia:Good articles/History, there are a few sections that are worth splitting in my opinion:

• Historical figures - politicians (357 articles)
• Historical figures - other (452 articles)
• North American history (217 articles)
• European history (326 articles)
• Monarchs (365 articles)
• Royalty and nobility (303 articles)

they're all getting difficult to read due to the giant walls of text. what are people's thoughts on how to split? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Could split United States history into a subsection, which would make a small difference although I suspect that subsection would remain in need of splitting sooner rather than later. There are a couple of options for European history, British Isles history seems an obvious one as being easy to define geographically and has quite a few items, splitting on continental Europe geographically is a bit more tricky with anachronisms (eg. what do you do with Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin), although clearly defined regions like Italy might work. There's probably a couple of obvious subgroups for Monarchy, Royalty, and Nobility with 20+ units, perhaps staring with Roman/Byzantine. CMD (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

yeah i think splitting geographically will make the most sense, even with edge cases. splitting off British & US-American items would be a great first step ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Many of the figures in Historical figures - other are miscategorized. Many of them are nobility, and should be put in the Royalty and nobility section. Some are military figures, and should be put in the military people section. Religious figures should put under religion, artists under their respective sections, etc. There's even some animals, which should be filed under Animal domestic breeds, types, and individuals.

For politicians, monarchs, nobility, etc. it seems like they could be split by continent.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Added in animals to their proper section. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If shifting Animals from Wikipedia:Good articles/History to Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences, please remember to change the topic on the article talk pages as well. CMD (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah. i am about to run and can't do that atm - id really appreciate it if anyone could Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realise you'd already started. I'll handle the 12 moved, despite personal misgivings that the animals were likely mostly respectable historical figures. CMD (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

i'll start moving some of the "other" figures into their proper sections, so that we can know what the actual makeup of the "other" section is. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Done up to the Os of these, was reverted on Nelson (cat) by Tim O'Doherty. There is also Judy (dog) in Warfare. CMD (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi CMD, sorry about that. I'd say it's closer to history than natural sciences. Happy to discuss. Cheers - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opinionated, aside from feeling it would be best to have something clear and consistent for animal individuals. Might split them into their own lv5 for a start, there's about 25 and I'm not seeing the natural link with breeds/types. CMD (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I've split off the individuals (there were 30, although given the articles are just single names the line length is relatively short) and saved Olaf the Peacock. Would be good to hear more thoughts on where they should go. CMD (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

i noticed that too. & i think by continent would work pretty well. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on nomination process

With respect to the assistance of the nominator, I am having a few problems completing a GAN review of Rayman (video game) and need some guidance. Some of these problems are compounded by delays in me responding to the nominator, but I'd really appreciate some feedback so I can improve how to handle situations like this nomination for best practice in the future.

Basically, the nominator, despite their best intentions, has largely contributed to the article by rewriting the prose. Where they have done that, it is riddled with mistakes. As seen in the review, nearly every sentence of the article has some issue or other that needs to be fixed, mostly in terms of tense and wording. That is fine and I am working through that with them, but I am only at the copyediting stage of the review. I'm not sure the reviewer understands some of the feedback and whether I could do better in explaining to them. For instance, a suggestion to 'omit' something from the article led to them adding that word in multiple places. Or some substantive feedback, such as suggesting the topic sentences of review paragraphs thematically reflect the content, seem to be ignored. I feel like what I am doing is really, in the end, directing them to write word for word what I feel the article should be to meet the standard.

How can I best help the nominator, and how should I best handle a review process like this where the nominator has good intentions and is trying their best, but there is a lot of quality assurance issues in their contributions and nuance that is being missed? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, if the article is not up to GA quality, and the nominator is having trouble understanding the fixes that would be necessary to bring it to GA quality, you may simply need to fail the nomination. There is no shame in doing this as a reviewer. It is the nominator's responsibility to make sure the article meets the criteria. An inability to understand what looks to me to be fairly simple feedback is not something you're responsible for. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

What to do when a reviewer picks up an article scheduled for a circle

I started a review for an article that I later found out was scheduled for one of the GA circles that GMH Melbourne is organizing. I think those circles are a good idea, but I'm mentioning this here since this conflict will probably come up again and it would be good to make it clear what the expectations are. I think the point of the circles is to avoid substandard QPQ reviewing, but guarantee a review of the participants' nominations. If someone outside the circle picks up one of the articles, I think that's a good thing -- it means the person scheduled to review no longer has to do that review (though we might encourage them to pick up another article instead). I don't think there's any reason for a reviewer to deliberately avoid articles scheduled for circles, though I wouldn't deliberately pick one either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've also been trying to come up with a process for when this situation occurs. Two options I have thought of are a) asking the user to provide comments on the other reviews in the review circle, or b) ask the user to review another article in the GAN list in the spirit of fairness. I also agree that we shouldn't prevent articles scheduled for circles from being reviewed. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any pressure not to review articles that are listed as available for review. If the list at WP:GAN wasn't representative of the ones actually available, I'd feel less inclined to look through it and start reviewing a nom. They should be available to anyone up until the moment that it's decided the nom is part of a circle, and once it is decided, the review page should be created. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this. Another layer of friction for reviewers is also likely to be especially offputting for people who have never reviewed before, and discouraging new reviewers seems like a decidedly undesirable outcome. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If this initiative is to go forward, perhaps the circles could be organised in advance, allowing those involved to 'soft nominate' articles and only fully nominate them when the circle is agreed. This should allow them to be picked up very quickly by the other members of the circle. CMD (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for that -- it would add more overhead to the circles, which seem to be moving pretty quickly at the moment (a good thing). I like GMH's suggestion that if a circle article is picked up, the editor who was scheduled to review it should be encouraged to pick a random other article to review instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps one from the "oldest unreviewed" list? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this would go against one of the purposes for the GA circles which is to help address the backlog. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add a message at {{GARC-new-circle}} saying "If another user starts a review you were assigned before you were able to, kindly find another article to review at WP:GAN and inform the circle below." GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Slowpoke (Pokémon)

Someone should look at the GAN review. Its not reviewed properly. 2001:4455:36D:9100:395D:8B1D:4133:4588 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Does a previous failure to meet GA criteria stay on?

I recently reviewed and promoted Tamil Nadu to Good Article status. It was unsuccessfully nominated a decade ago and the old notification of failure to meet GA is on the Talk page. Does that notification stay on the Talk page, even though it's now a GA? It seems to contradict the current status unless read carefully. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried to merge the new review into the {{Article history}} template. The important bit is to update the "current status". —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

GA quickfail discussion

I recently opened a discussion at WT:USRD#Failed GA regarding a GA review I quickfailed. It would be good if I could get some input regarding my action. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Fusajiro Yamauchi

I'm not too sure if this article meets the criteria for what makes a good article. At a glimpse:

• Amateurish prose: Indeed, due to the fact these places...
  • Thus in the goal to inherit the company, Fusajiro was adopted...
  • Fusajiro then has the idea of using the Hanafuda cards of lesser quality...
  • Many other examples of this.
• Awkward wikilinking: Just as Hanafuda cards were allowed again in 1885 so too did occidental playing cards (Standard 52-card deck) become allowed...
• Grammar errors: ...these western cards so called "Trump" by the japanese population...
• Randomly inserted sentences: (The sen is a subdivision of the Japanese yen which became obsolete in 1954.)
• Questionably sourced media (one is straight up ripped from Eurogamer)

The GAN review seems to be lacking as well, with a very light prose check, no discernible source spot check, and no copyright check, which I'm 99.8% sure is just an incorrectly-done review. Should I proceed with a reassessment request, or can this GAN be rescinded altogether? joeyquism (talk page) 01:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That was a very recent GAN, closed 9 June 2024‎, it can be reopened if needed. First step is to raise it with the reviewer. CMD (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the lack of source and copyright checking and the amateurish prose are both grounds enough to go ahead and reopen the review. Of course I assume WP:GOODFAITH from both parties, but it seems that this is a case of WP:CIR. I've informed both the reviewer and nominator that the review has been reopened. joeyquism (talk page) 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think "amateurish" and "CIR" are a little harsh. It just looks like people who are working to learn best practices and could use some helpful advice—something that tends to be rarely given for up-and-coming editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough - I didn't mean any offense by my use of these terms, just for the record. I've also extended a hand to both editors in case they are in need of any help during the GAN process. joeyquism (talk page) 03:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for those very polite and well-worded talkpage messages. CMD (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Do aviators fall under the subject section Transport?

Asking because unlike some of the other subject areas, Transport does not mention related people/professions as included, and none of the nominations currently there are for biographies. AddWittyNameHere 13:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

GAN sorting uses different categories than Good Article nominations?

Is there a reason why User:SDZeroBot/GAN sorting uses a different category system than Wikipedia:Good article nominations? I was looking for a few articles in "GAN sorting" to see how long they had been waiting for reviews, but the categories don't match up at all; the only way to find an article was to do word searches by the article name. For example, Charlemagne is listed under the "History" category in "Good Article nominations", but under "Culture/Biography" in "GAN sorting"; Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth is listed under "Social sciences and society/Law" in "Good Article nominations", but under "Geography/Regions/Oceania" in "GAN sorting". It would be helpful if both lists used the same categories. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The bot's sorting is done automatically using a machine learning tool, and includes articles under every topic it thinks is relevant (so you will see that Charlemagne, for example, is listed as "Geography/Regions/Europe/Western Europe" and "History and Society/History" among other topics). I imagine they differ because the ORES classification was developed after the already-existing GA system, and they weren't concerned with making them compatible - the ORES system the bot uses is used to categorise e.g. AfDs as well as GAs, which had developed its own categorisation.

I suppose we could change the way the WP:GAN page works to sort articles using the bot rather than the current system, but that seems like a bunch of work for no clear benefit. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The benefit is that it makes it easier to use both pages. There is no way to use the Sorting page to sort by the categories on the GA nominations page. Suppose I want to see the oldest article in the History category on the GA Nominations page, to review it because someone’s been waiting a long time for it. There’s no way to do that, because the History articles are scattered about by an entirely different category system, putting Charlemagne in “Culture/Biography”. There’s no way to see the oldest “Law” articles waiting for a review: the decision of the High Court of Australia (Fair work) is sorted under “Geography”. I don’t see any benefit from having a sorting system that isn’t based on the categories used on the Good Articles nomination page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There’s also the point that relying on a bot/AI to determine the categories is less useful than relying on the judgment of the nominator who decides which category to put an article in when they nominate it. The decision of the Australian High Court in the Fair Work article is notable as an article about an important legal issue from the highest court in Australia. But the bot ignored that, and decided it was most notable because of its geographic location. Judgment by a human is more accurate here than a bot. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)