Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Active discussions
Good article nominations

This is the discussion page of the good article nominations (GAN). To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the New section link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click to show the frequently asked questions below or search the archives below.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Is there something we can do to restrict nominations?
There have been complaints about the perceived backlog in reviewing since the Good article status was created in 2006. Generally speaking, we don't want to restrict nominations along their path to GA. In the beginning, as many as 100 nominations were waiting for a reviewer to volunteer. By 2011, each day typically listed 330 nominated articles, of which 260 were waiting. By 2016, 580 were listed, 460 waiting. For comparison, today there are currently 354 nominations listed and 270 waiting for a reviewer.
While it may seem overwhelming, a large backlog isn't a bad thing. It shows that many nominators want to use GA as a tool to improve the encyclopedia. It also allows reviewers to choose from a wide selection of articles that interest them. From a nominator's perspective, the main concern is the expected wait time before receiving a review, not the number of articles on the nominations page.
Can't we force nominators to review articles?
Quid pro quo reviewing (editors must review an article before nominating, perhaps after a grace period) was regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to lower quality reviews and fewer nominations from excellent content creators who may not wish to review another person's work.
I want to review an article. Do I have to review the oldest unreviewed nomination first?
Thank-you for deciding to review an article for GA. You may review any nominated article you are not involved in, regardless of the nomination's age. As a courtesy to nominators who have been waiting a long time, however, you are encouraged to review the older nominations at the top of the queues first.
The nominator disagrees with the reviewer. Can another reviewer take over?
If your GAN experience is not going well or if you are disagreeing with the reviewer's decisions, then you may allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer). If the reviewer has not yet failed the nomination, you may try asking them to ask for a second opinion. You may even request a community reassessment. Other than these, another reviewer does not normally take over an active review. You might want to read What the Good article criteria are not.
Is the "nominator" a special position?
No. Anyone may nominate any article, including unregistered users and people who have never edited the article. Nominating an article is not the exclusive privilege of an article's primary authors, as nominators have no special privileges over other editors except that they can withdraw the nomination. Everyone interested in an article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. However, "drive-by" nominations (nominations by editors who do not normally edit that article and may not be watching it) are not encouraged, as the nominator is expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article.
Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't?
The nominator has an interest in seeing the article become GA, so the nominator should want to respond to the reviewer to improve the article. In fact, all editors interested in the article are encouraged, but not required, to respond to reviewers' concerns. If the reviewer identifies concerns and no one responds, then no one should be surprised if the reviewer declines to list the article. "Drive-by" nominations, which are permitted, are one source of non-responsiveness. If the article does not meet the Good article criteria after the reviewer has explained how the article requires improvement and has waited a reasonable amount of time for the nominator to make improvements, the reviewer is sure to fail the nomination. Future article editors will benefit from review comments on how to improve the article.
What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic) IP address?
Any editor may nominate an article for GA status (while only registered users may review), so IP nominators are permitted. Much content on Wikipedia is contributed by IP users. Communication between nominator and reviewer takes place on the review page, not via user talk, so a dynamically changing IP address should be fine (as they sign their comments on the review page, the nominator may want to clarify to the reviewer that they remain the same person). An IP nominator that has demonstrated a desire to build the encyclopedia and is responsive to the reviewer presents no problem to a successful GA review.
Does an article have to be on hold for exactly seven days?
No. Whether to place the nomination on hold at all, and the length of any such hold, is for the reviewer to decide. Depending on the responsiveness of the nominator, a hold may not be necessary. If the reviewer decides that it is, they may choose longer or shorter periods of hold time. The reviewer may even modify the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page to include a "time" parameter, for example "time=fourteen days", and the {{GANotice}} template used to convey messages to the GA nominator to include a "days" parameter, for example "days=fourteen". Keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GA nominations report page.
How can GA be reliable when a single reviewer decides?
The quality of a Good article is only as reliable as the most recent review and articles may deteriorate if unattended. The GA process deals with both of these issues by allowing repeat reviews by any registered user at any time. The process aims to encourage article improvement and build consensus on quality through multiple reviews—even though a single reviewer makes the decision whether to list the article according to the GA criteria. Any editor may contribute to any review discussion and community reassessment is available when the "one reviewer decides" model breaks down.
What should I do if a review page becomes inactive?
This can happen for a number of reasons. Review pages should only be started by reviewers who are willing to take an active interest in the article and are committed to completing their review of the article in a timely manner. Sometimes another editor (such as the nominator) starts the review page by mistake. A reviewer can fix this by placing their signature after "Reviewer:" towards the top of the review page, but if no reviewer is forthcoming, it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions may be posted at the discussion page. If a new reviewer is truly needed, follow the instructions page under "If the reviewer withdraws". Do not use this process to void a review you disagree with.
What is the difference between GA and GA-Class?
A Good article's GA status is determined according to the Good article criteria, while GA-Class is a WikiProject classification. GA-Class is conventionally given to articles which have GA status. GA-Class is higher than B-Class but not as high as A-Class (although, depending on the WikiProject, an A-Class article may be required to be GA). The input of WikiProject editors can be invaluable in assessing GA nominations and involvement in WikiProjects is encouraged, but GA nominators and reviewers are not obliged to follow WikiProject criteria. GA reviewers who have passed the article should update any WikiProject templates on the article talk page by changing the "class" parameter value to "class=GA".
I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified!
That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your suggestions to improve the article while deciding on their review. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and fail the article again. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the GA criteria, you can initiate a reassessment.
What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process?
You can bring those concerns to the discussion page below to get help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in any dispute that you have.

Question about GA subpage where the "reviewer" intended to make a comment rather than do a full reviewEdit

For Talk:Bank of America Tower (Manhattan)/GA1, it appears that Robertgombos, the "reviewer" listed on the review page, wanted to make a suggestion rather than do a full review. I asked Robertgombos if he planned to add more comments or if that was merely a suggestion, to which he replied that it was just a suggestion. A. C. Santacruz has offered to take over the review if Robertgombos was not interested.

My question is should the comment from Robertgombos be moved to the primary talk page for the article, allowing the GA1 subpage to be recreated? Or should A. C. Santacruz leave her comments in the existing subpage? I don't know if this is covered in WP:GAN/I which is why I'm asking. Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Any editor is welcome to comment on a review so I think they are fine where they are. If you hadn't got an offer of another reviewer we might have to do something to put the article back into the queue. The only possible issue might be that the GA review will be credited to the person who created the page, but that is a minor concern and happens quite a lot anyway when new editors take over abandoned reviews. Aircorn (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the comment. The reason I am asking is because of the issue you mentioned, that the commenter just happened to be the first editor of the review page. Therefore, they show up as the "reviewer" instead of just a commenter. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I am pretty sure we can change the reviewer name manually. We can't change who created the page though without deleting it. Aircorn (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Unfortunate side effect of having GA reviews in the Talk space. I would suggest the comment be shifted to the main talkpage with a note of its origin and the page deleted, purely so that the article does not display as being under review on the GAN list. (Unless this display can be manually modified?) CMD (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

IP nominationsEdit

Am I missing something here, or are IP's allowed to nominate articles for GA now? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

WP:GAI merely says "Articles may be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject." Nothing about whether the nominator has an account or not? In fact, as WP:GAN specifically states that reviewers need an account "Anyone may nominate an article, and any uninvolved and registered user with sufficient knowledge and experience with Wikipedia content policies may review.." the omission of that from the nomination statement makes it pretty implicit that one does not need to be a registered user to nominate an article. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/FAQ (at the top of this page) specifically covers this, and says it is fine. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
There's nothing stopping an IP doing it, so they can. The most significant issue with IP nominations is that with IPs being reassigned and the GAN backlog, there is a good chance they may not receive a notification of a review. A series of similar IPs do appear to have put some work into it over a few months, and if that is the same person, then their most recent IP is not the nominating one. Still, there's a chance they'd see it, as they do some to pop by frequently. CMD (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

October backlog drive?Edit

The March and July backlog drives were clearly successes, taking the number of unreviewed nominations from 579 to 273 (-306) and from 464 to 245 (-219), respectively. We're currently at 259 nominations—not bad compared to where it has been before, but still with much room to go down. (It would be significantly higher, but The Rambling Man has reviewed 148 so far this month as part of the WikiCup.) The only reason I can see to wait longer would be to avoid burnout. While this is important to bear in mind, I think it makes sense to have a few drives packed more closely together, and then, assuming the backlog can be taken down to a more sustainable level, spread them further apart (e.g., with two to three drives in 2022). Meanwhile, October is the last month of the WikiCup, so nothing wrong with adding an incentive to gain those points through reviews here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Is that why there are so many recent reviews by The Rambling Man? I thought maybe it was just a one-editor backlog drive. In any case, add my thanks to him for keeping the backlog significantly lower than it would otherwise be. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
David Eppstein it's a bit of both. It's good to keep the backlog down, and I'm enjoying reviewing articles at GAN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If it's in October I won't be available to coordinate because I'm running a one-month NPP drive starting 15 October. (t · c) buidhe 22:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I would be able to help coordinate in October, if someone is needed. Hog Farm Talk 23:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure a drive is needed at this time, the backlog easily hits more than 500 from time to time, and that's when we need the really strong focus on reducing it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The backlog has certainly been higher, but I don't think that's a good reason to keep it from getting lower. Indeed, the Guild of Copy Editor's focus on bi-monthly backlog backlog drives has brought their backlog from 8,000 to as low as 51. I don't think we need bi-monthly drives here, but a couple packed more closely together, followed by more regular ones spread further apart, could probably keep the backlog at a more maintainable level. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The GOCE is a different beast altogether. A thankless task to pre-review articles. I still remain unconvinced that a backlog which is less than we started with in previous drives is useful. Maybe some incentive to review older GANs would be good. But right now we're below where end up after a drive so I don't see the point. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Incorrectly categorized articlesEdit

Heads up: I just went through the results of this query and cleared out around 80 articles that appear to have been erroneously categorized as good articles (their talk page was in a GA-class category, but they did not have the {{Article history}} or {{GA}} templates giving evidence of a review). The category may repopulate again over time, so someone may wish to clear it out again in a year or so. To do so:

  1. Modify the above query to wiki format under the PetScan output tab, then copy the list into your sandbox.
  2. Create an AWB list of the pages linked from your sandbox.
  3. Add a find-and-replace to AWB to set class=GA and class = GA to just class=.

There were two articles that actually were GAs but had substed the GA template. If you want to check against outliers like that, convert your sandbox list to articles, and then do another PetScan run to filter for pages that are missing {{Good article}}. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Fixed the subst templates. Is this much different than what we run at Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches. Aircorn (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Aircorn: Thanks! It's similar, but the mismatches bot doesn't look at Category:GA-Class articles, so it misses instances where someone adds class=GA to a project banner; some of the ones I found were years old. I wasn't aware of the mismatches page and I'm glad to have a more permanent place to put the instructions above. I'll copy them to the documentation there for now, and GreenC, if you're able to modify your bot to include this type of error in the regular listings, that would be fantastic, as it'd help resolve them more quickly. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Requesting new reviewer after strange insta-failEdit

Would someone be able to pick up Talk:Pierson, Iowa/GA1? It was insta-failed with mostly easily fixable issues. There are also non-issues like a healthcare and transportation section which can't exist for this town of 337 people. The reviewer also wants everything stated within the article to also pass the GNG. I waited around a week and half for this after the reviewer picked it up. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Pinging reviewer @SounderBruce: SL93 (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"Mostly fixable" is a stretch. There's several sections that are outright missing, which clearly fails criteria 3a, and several of the citations used are entirely unreliable or too-closely paraphrased. The size of the town is no excuse for not covering the basics of geography and demographics that are expected of every city article beyond a bot-written summary. SounderBruce 02:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@SounderBruce: I said "easily fixable". Much of your review is unfair for the topic. Your review said that only one source was closely paraphrased. The "advertisement" one is not an advertisement which leaves "one" unreliable source. SL93 (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
There are two large sections for the demographics. The geography section already has the basics of a small area. Those sections are similar to my other GA at Kingsley, Iowa. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Two "large sections" generated by a bot from Census data is not enough. Two lines with the coordinates and raw size of the city proper are also not enough and could easily be replaced with the help of map sources. SounderBruce 02:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@SounderBruce: Then what is enough? I'm not sure what needs adding other than number of people, races, and gender. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Pinging @Casliber: who reviewed my other Iowa GA for more insight. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Analysis of why the population grew/shrank between decades, household types, per capita income...all of this is available from the census but not covered by the bot readouts. (Also, please do not abuse the ping function. I do have this page on my watchlist.) SounderBruce 03:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I will wait for more input. It's a stretch to call is an abuse of the ping function unless I know for a fact that you have the page on your watchlist. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Okay hang on, looking now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Right - @SL93: - Sounderbruce's suggestiions are what I would have suggested largely. Also avoid one-sentence paras. Once you've done them all, renominate and I'll review. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm at a loss. The census information is the same thing as the Kingsley, Iowa article. SounderBruce also mentioned better sources for the organizations which is very vague. SL93 (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have some sympathy, there are some very good points made but also a few that go beyond the criteria. In a city? of 300 odd people with low coverage in reliable sources you can’t be expected to create and fill sections where no information exists. Your best bet is to take Casliber on as a new reviewer once you have gone through all the previous review questions. If you don’t agree with any you can say so and then discuss with them why. As long as everyone remains reasonable you should be able to reach a satisfactory compromise that still meets the criteria. Aircorn (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Aircorn: Thanks for the comment. I have started fixing the issues that I can and I agree with. I'm trying to get the article to GA status because of how often I visit the place, but the original review made it seem to me that it was similar to writing for FA. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't even know how to approach a lot of these. Some just seem like suggestions and not actual issues for GA, some are blatantly false, some are already there, some are vague, and some of them cannot even exist as sections. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]


I had multiple tabs opened and accidentally began a review of my own article Talk:Agrippa_Postumus/GA1, meant Talk:Hungarian nobility/GA1. Was checking if anyone looked at mine while starting the other and goofed. Pretty sure it doesn't affect anything but explaining in case it does. SpartaN (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

If this happens you can tag the page for speedy deletion under G7, and with the help of a friendly admin it should fix itself. CMD (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Nominated for CSD, thanks :) I've just about forgotten the basic WP processes lol SpartaN (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Return to the project page "Good article nominations".