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 541 nominations listed and 462 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.
However, in rare occasions a review page is created by an editor who intends to review, but then withdraws due to illness or other reasons. In such cases, the first step would be to contact the reviewer. If this does not resolve the issue, then a new reviewer is needed. In order to find one, 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.

List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles?Edit

I'm curious, is there a List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles, similar to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits? I'd love to know which editors have promoted the most articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't have the numbers, it's not something that has ever been recorded. Harrias talk 15:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
What would the algorithm be for determining that? I suppose one would start with a walkthrough of Category:Good articles and then examine the authorship attribution, measured by character count, excluding spaces for each. Would there need to be a minimum percentage authorship to qualify as "the author" or "an author" of the article? wbm1058 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you go by who nominated the article at GAN?? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Something that could pick up the substitution of GAN would be a start. Even if it could give a raw list of articles nominated by user. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
So each member of Category:Good articles should transclude {{Article history}} on its talk page. A bot could examine the parameters of that template (and flag the talk pages where it was missing) and find the parameter (e.g. |action1result=) whose value was "listed" then look at the discussion link connected with that (e.g. |action1link=) and see what user started that discussion page. Would that work? wbm1058 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: Was {{Article history}} added by bot in the past? I don't see it on the talk page of my most recent passed nom or the one I've reviewed most recently. Picking a couple more recent GAs out of a hat (1 and 2) they don't have that template either. Were folks adding it manually in the past? If that's desired, we could add it to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions... Ajpolino (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking at one random example, I see that it was added by a human, though GA bot was around on the scene doing something. It would be interesting to run a bot to calculate what percentage of good articles have that on their talk and what percentage don't. Actually I might be able to add code to a template to do just that in real time by categorizing them. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Wbm1058 and The Rambling Man: I'd go by nominator plus the editor with the highest percentage according to XTools Authorship. This will prevent false positives where someone other than the author nominated. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 06:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why. This list would be analogous to WP:WBFAN or WP:WBFLN (i.e. WP:WBGAN) i.e. by those who nominated. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: No, what I mean is, you only count it as a GA by that editor if they both nominated it and wrote most of the bytes on the page according to XTools Authorship. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 07:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
But is that how the lists at WP:WBFAN and WP:WBFLN are generated? I don't think so. So this list shouldn't be any different. By all means create another list and compare them perhaps, noting where the most significant author wasn't the nominator, but what I was after (and have been for years) is WP:WBGAN. Not WP:WBGANAEWMC. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: If it's not, it's how they should be. That might cause a mini revolt, though, as it will only ever take away WBFAN's, so people's numbers, if they change, will only go down. SNice.svg Of course, once you already have a "WP:WBGANAEWMC"(no idea what this is supposed to stand for!), it's simple to make a normative(if you're right!) WP:WBGAN, since one is needed to create the other! ➰➰ Looping in Lee Vilenski. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 07:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty straightforward, the clue is in the name "Wikipedians by Featured Article nominations". Nothing is said of "and with most editor contributions". Start with the nominations list and if someone feels they've missed out on a co-nomination, address that using some other method (after all, numbers will not go down, there will be simply more names on the list, post-dated co-noms for "highest authorship" if you like). We need to start somewhere, and using the nomination as the basis is perfectly apt. Then roll in corner cases once an agreement on how to do it is reached. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Why would we care about the highest authorship? Simply having a huge number of edits, or most bytes added doesn't mean that the content is any good! The idea that an FA/GA is not for those who actually cleaned up/nominated the article but rather for the person who wrote those bytes is rather shortsighted. Any list like this would be selfserving by design, but is that a bad thing? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: 🤔 Perhaps a better name for my idea would be "Wikipedians by Good Article self-nominations"—WP:WBGASN—rather than "WP:WBGANWTCMB" or whatever "WP:WBGANAEWMC" is supposed to stand for. SNice.svg However, it's pretty obvious only I like the XTools idea, so I'll take my ball and go home, I have an encyclopedia to write! 🤓 Good luck on the project Lee Vilenski, I don't oppose your way, just thought mine was better. If consensus is it's not, it's not, I accept it. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 16:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Lee's suggestion is the most foolproof, whenever a {{subst:GAN|subtopic=blah}} was added to an article talk page, it can be safely assumed that was the nominator. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

{{subst:GAN}} leaves behind a transclusion of {{GA nominee}} from which |nominator= can be parsed. So in my random example AustralianRupert gets credit for that one. So the algorithm is to search the talk page history for the most recent version with {{GA nominee}} and credit the editor specified in |nominator=? In this example, the nominator would be parsed from the edit of 22:41, 30 March 2012 which was the edit before the edit that removed {{GA nominee}} (and replaced it with {{ArticleHistory}}). – wbm1058 (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
But then we need to know if the nomination passed or failed. It's not just about nominations, it's about how many passed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
If we started from a list generated from Category:Good articles, then we would know they passed. Harrias talk 12:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I LIKE IT. So start with Category:Good articles, then search talk page edit history for last instance of the {{GAN}} subst, and the editor in question notches one up. Someone must be able to do this? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I can do it, but allow me some time. I have a number of tasks on my to-do list. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, my suggestion would only show up nominations, but from there, we should be able to cross-reference and see which articles passed. However, then we'd also have to accommodate articles with multiple nominations. This does have the upside of having a hard number for user's nominations, which is a good metric to see how many nominations/reviews a user has. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
There will probably be exceptions that need to be handled. Once the basic report is generated, someone will probably find errors in it that can then be fixed by code tweaks. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
One point: some nominators do not use {{GAN}} as instructed, but copy a {{GA nominee}} template from somewhere and adjust it, not always perfectly, for their own nomination. It happens often enough that a check for the latter template (which results from the former) might be useful if GAN doesn't turn up anything, or if there isn't a good way of finding GAN substing. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Status updateEdit

Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, which I don't recall seeing before. That's updated by Rick Bot per this April 2007 BRFA. That list is automatically generated from by-year summary lists, for example Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2020, which in turn is created by the same bot. The by-year summary lists are in turn derived from monthly lists such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2020 which are created by humans (shout-out to Ealdgyth and Ian Rose – thank you for your helpful behind-the-curtain work!). The monthly lists simply are lists of transclusions of individual nominations, e.g. {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor/archive1}}.

Having recently worked at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I've seen that there are similar lists of transcluded reassessment nominations, the most recent is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 65. But I'm not so familiar with how the Wikipedia:Good article nominations process works so I suppose an analysis of that is in order here.

Noting that Rick Bot first gets the list of all articles which were accepted as featured articles and then cross-checks that against Category:Featured articles (or Wikipedia:Featured articles) and Category:Wikipedia former featured articles (or Wikipedia:Former featured articles). Thus the bot is able to show the former featured articles on its list (indicated by the hollowed-out star ☆). If I start from a list generated from Category:Good articles I won't be able to show the former good articles on the list. Thus maybe a more appropriate title would be Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by currently-accepted good article nominations.

I hear Psiĥedelisto's desire to include XTools Authorship in the analysis. For my initial implementation I won't be doing that. Besides not seeing a consensus for that I think this is also more difficult if there is no API for me to easily get that data from XTools, and the reliability of XTools in determining "authorship" may be questionable in some cases. What if it doesn't recognize cut-paste moves? Is it intelligent enough to recognize when content has been merged so as to credit the original authors rather than the editor performing the merge by copying the original authors' work while giving attribution to them in an edit summary and/or talk-page template?

This has bubbled up my to-do list so I should be focusing more on this task soon. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There’s Category:Delisted good articles which might be a good starting place for former ga’s. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
wbm1058 good news, thanks for the update. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a User:GA bot/Stats page that ranks GA reviewers by number of reviews they've done. I just read the Signpost WikiProject report Revitalizing good articles (which somehow I overlooked when it came out just over a month ago) and hereby declare that a Symbol support vote.svg GA. Face-smile.svg I see a quote that links to that stats page: "The main problem with GAN is that reviewing is highly concentrated among a small number of users, while nominating is much more broad-based". I see that Legobot took over the task of maintaining that list in September 2013. WP:List of Wikipedians by good article reviews, WP:Wikipedians by GA Reviews and WP:WBGAR all link to the bot's stats page, as does {{User Good Articles reviewed}}. I suppose if GA bot/Legobot maintained a corresponding list of nominators y'all wouldn't be asking for one here. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles was an effort to combine nominators and reviewers into a single table, but that was manually updated and not so well maintained, hence Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 155#Number of GA reviews reports issues with the accuracy of Legobot's stats.

Looking at the GA process, HERE I see Legobot removing a nomination as "passed", though it appears to me that it was placed "on hold". Looking at the review page for that, Talk:Break My Heart (Dua Lipa song)/GA1 doesn't appear to be transcluded in any Good article archive (what-links-here), though Article alerts is on the case. So there doesn't appear to be a way to get this from archives (monthly lists) the way the featured-articles bot does. (Yes I've seen the two appeals for an operator to take over Legobot Task 33 in the archives. I'm fine with taking over the PHP code; my issue is with the SQL database. I've had plenty of experience working with databases on mainframes back in the day, but I'm rusty. I don't think it worth my time to get back up to speed with that. I question why an off-wiki database is needed when the wiki is itself a big database. My inclination would be to replace the SQL stuff with having the bot store whatever data it needed on pages in its own userspace. Then others could see what was going on there which could be helpful in working out any processing kinks.) Talk:Break My Heart (Dua Lipa song)/GA1 was created by the reviewer, not the nominator. It's easy enough from looking at that to see who the reviewer is, but the nominator not so much. From looking at the page history, I can guess who the nominator was (actually that one's easy to guess) but I see the need for trawling through the talk page edits to be sure.

So I will proceed with the algorithm we came up with in mid-June, for the initial development. If that goes well, I'll consider adding a walk through Category:Delisted good articles as a possible enhancement that could either be added to the listed-articles list or used to make a second list. And if the processing turns out to be too intense to keep repeating every time the bot runs to update its report, my inclination would be for the bot to store a table of nominations in its userspace or on a project page to avoid the need to keep searching the talk history again and again to find them. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nuts and boltsEdit

I've made good progress coding this up. My initial trial run through the first 250 Good Article talk pages found the {{GA nominee}} template in the page histories of all but six of them. There are at least three different problems causing these not to be found; I am just reporting one of them now. Template:GAC used to redirect to Template:GA nominee (presumably as an acronym for Good Article Candidate) before it was usurped to make a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC on 29 June 2008. A number of nominations may have transcluded this template during the 1 year, 11 months between its 19 July 2006‎ creation and the 29 June 2008 retargeting. For example, {{GAC}} was used on Talk:22 Short Films About Springfield at 22:00, 19 October 2007. I can make my bot recognize this alias, but to mitigate potential confusion I intend to undo that usurpation that made the cross-namespace redirect. Alas this new usage was put in a template that was substituted many times so it will take about 1800 edits to bypass that redirect to {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC}}. I've got AutoWikiBrowser set up to make these edits (see example test edit), but will wait a bit for any response here. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable plan to me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 5 § Suggested recommended template name changewbm1058 (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not change {{GA nominee}} officially to its alternative, {{GAC}}, to match {{fac}} Wouldn't even need to move Template:GA nominee, as there's already a redirect. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden talk 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Homestarmy 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My script now treats Template:GAnominee, Template:GAC and Template:GAN as aliases of {{GA nominee}}. I found a few cases where editors failed to {{subst:GAN}} (e.g. 20 March 2008 edit, 28 March 2008 edit and 13 May 2008 edit). These all predate this move:

My test run through the first 1,000 Good Article talk pages found one case where the talk history had been moved to an archive page. After I merged Talk:1+1 (song)/Archive 1 back into Talk:1+1 (song) (revisions up to 14:57, 20 April 2012) the script was able to find the nominator for that article. Hopefully if there aren't too many other talk archives like this, they can all be manually merged back in similar fashion to help the script find the nomination.

After making these adjustments the script found the GA nominee for all but three of the first 1,000 processed Good Article talk pages. These three date to the earliest days of the GA process, and give some interesting insight into its evolution. Looking at them in order, the first is Great Comet of 1882 which is one of the small set of founding Good Articles. Wikipedia:Good articles was created at 13:23, 11 October 2005 by Worldtraveller, who last contributed on 3 March 2007. Their edit summary: created page, listed a few example articles that I think are good but nowhere near FA. Their original instructions:

What makes a good article?

A good article will share many characteristics with featured articles, and like featured content it should be well written, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. It should definitely be referenced, and wherever possible it should contain images to illustrate it. Good articles may not be as comprehensive as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.

How to list an article on 'good articles'

The process by which articles are designated as 'good' should be much simpler and quicker than that by which articles become featured. List candidate articles on Wikipedia:Good article candidates, where they will be reviewed, and if no-one raises any objections within 24 hours, they may be listed here. If you see an article listed here that you think is not good, you might consider being bold and removing it, leaving a note on its talk page to indicate why you think it is not good.

And, with that 11 October 2005 edit which gave birth to Good Articles Worldtraveller de facto nominated Great Comet of 1882 to be a founding Good Article. At 18:02, 23 October 2005 Slambo placed the {{GA}} template on Talk:Great Comet of 1882, as the de facto reviewer. At 07:36, 2 February 2008 GimmeBot placed {{ArticleHistory}} on Talk:Great Comet of 1882, declaring September 26, 2005 as the listing date as that was the current version on 23 October 2005. Cool, smart bot! Category:Good articles wasn't created until 29 May 2010. Spider was the first article to be nominated by another editor, hours after Good Articles was created. Perhaps after noticing that their instructions to list candidate articles on Wikipedia:Good article candidates hadn't been followed, Worldtraveller quickly changed the instructions (let's make it really simple): "Simply add any articles here that match the criteria." An edit at 10:53, 24 October 2005 gave shape to the GA criteria (bulleted list so it's easier for readers to see what's required). An edit on 30 October 2005 added the text "It is probably best to avoid self-nominating articles as this can introduce bias."

The second of the three where the script didn't find the GA nominee is 1997 Pacific hurricane season. This was nominated at 20:19, 12 December 2005.

An edit at 04:53, 24 December 2005 added an "experimental self-nomination system": Wikipedia:Good articles/Self-nominations (now Wikipedia:Good article nominations) was created at 04:52, 24 December 2005.

The third of the three where the script didn't find the GA nominee is A215 road. This was nominated at 13:58, 30 May 2007.

Overall not bad that the bot is not finding nominators for just 0.3% of the first 1,000 Good Articles (3/1000). For now I'll focus on reporting the nominators that have been found while grouping the others into a "nominator undetermined" bucket. Might enhance the script to better handle the older cases later. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice work, and a very interesting look back at the history of the GA process too! Harrias talk 20:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I had totally forgotten about that article that I apparently reviewed 15 years ago. If it was nominated today, there are a few things that I would suggest improving, such as the length of the lead section and number and breadth of citations. Slambo (Speak) 00:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Really great work you're doing, wbm1058! Eddie891 Talk Work 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Per a {{policy-change-warning}} (that template was created on 11 March 2006):

Warning sign There was recently a change in policy or guideline on this page. If you were originally familiar with the policy, guideline, or process described on this page, you may want to re-read it or look at the talk page so you are up to date.

Template:GAnominee was created at 15:53, 19 March 2006 and this 15:55, 19 March 2006 edit added the instruction to Add {{GAcandidate}} to the nominated article's talk page. in addition to List it below under "Nominations" using "{{article|NAME OF ARTICLE}}". Sign your nomination using four tildes (~~~~). When the instructions were split to the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines subpage at 17:14, 30 September 2007 they still instructed to list the article at the bottom of the relevant section of Wikipedia:Good article nominations, until this 18:06, 18 September 2010 edit removed the need for manually listing there as a bot was implemented to do that.

For the few cases where my bot isn't finding {{GA nominee}} in the article's talk history, I can have it look back through the Wikipedia:Good article nominations edit history from the 17:52, 18 September 2010 TRANSITION TO BOT FORMAT when {{GANentry}} replaced {{la}}. This should find a few where an editor posted a nomination to WP:Good article nominations but neglected to post {{GA nominee}} to the article's talk, and also nominations that predated the creation of {{GA nominee}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wbm1058 how are you getting on? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
After a couple of program crashes caused by dropped connections or timeouts, I finally have made a successful pass through the entire Category:Good articles. This is perhaps my first "big data" project; I needed to bump up the program's memory allocation to 1536M (1.5 GB) – all of my previous bots ran with just 128MB. It took 11 ​12 hours to finish. See #List of Wikipedians by currently-accepted good article nominations. wbm1058 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


"it's not self-noms that we're discouraging, it's self-promotions"Slambo, 20:37, 1 March 2006

I'm continuing to work on "data-cleaning" including doing history-merges that help my bot find the nominations. The bot couldn't find any nomination in the page history of Talk:Fraser Kershaw and this edit by Chapter35 (whose contributions imply a possible COI) explains why. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I've gone ahead and boldly de-listed that article from GA, given that it never underwent a GA review at all (much less by an uninvolved editor), The other major contributor to the page, Cyberclean101, has a similar coi. Might be worth tagging for undisclosed COI as well. I'd be curious to see if there are any other instances of this. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've yet to find any others exactly like that one. COI editors with that level of knowledge are rare, the more typical scenario I've seen is a GA declaration before any content was even written. Another one-off scenario found at Talk:Gerry McNamara where I found the 2 September 2007 listing, but the non-nomination nomination was on the reviewer's talk page. At some point there are diminishing returns to coding the bot to find these – I've started to hard-code a list to tell the bot where the "hard-to-find" nominations are, e.g. Bridge near Limyra was nominated here, but that was hard to find because it was nominated under the title Limyra Bridge. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It doesn't have to be perfect. 90% accuracy would be more than good enough for me! (t · c) buidhe 13:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by currently-accepted good article nominationsEdit

4,431 editors have nominated at least one Good Article. As of yesterday, when this report was generated, there are 32,118 Good Articles. The program found nominators for 32,008 of them (99.7%). The 110 articles for which the nominator wasn't found generally date to 2007 and earlier. Here are the top forty:

  1  Sturmvogel 66 => 731
  2  Parsecboy => 593
  3  TonyTheTiger => 335
  4  Hurricanehink => 296
  5  Gen. Quon => 272
  6  MWright96 => 258
  7  Chiswick Chap => 247
  8  Hawkeye7 => 247
  9  Mitchazenia => 232
 10  Miyagawa => 217
 11  Sasata => 216
 12  ChrisGualtieri => 206
 13  Imzadi1979 => 193
 14  Arsenikk => 191
 15  The Rambling Man => 186
 16  Cplakidas => 185
 17  Dough4872 => 182
 18  Magicpiano => 175
 19  Epicgenius => 174
 20  SounderBruce => 173
 21  12george1 => 171
 22  Courcelles => 154
 23  Hunter Kahn => 152
 24  Cyclonebiskit => 150
 25  Encyclopædius => 138
 26  Yellow Evan => 137
 27  Carbrera => 136
 28  Ritchie333 => 131
 29  Cartoon network freak => 130
 30  ThinkBlue => 128
 31  Grapple X => 126
 32  Bellhalla => 125
 33  Rodw => 124
 34  Ruby2010 => 123
 35  Hchc2009 => 120
 36  Jackyd101 => 120
 37  ProtoDrake => 116
 38  Another Believer => 112
 39  Ealdgyth => 111
 40  Ed! => 111

I'm thinking it would be good to create a subpage for each editor to list each of their nominations. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I keep a log of my GAs here, except it's 141 not 131 - the main purpose of the page is to show the wider community what I'm really interested in writing and what articles they might expect me to look over if they change or improve them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find the difference. wbm1058 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I also have a running log, done slightly differently, here. It transcludes to a userpage with a list of my major contributions, for the same purpose. Kingsif (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
245 Kingsif => 27 — my list has you ranked #245 and matches the count of Symbol support vote.svg on your subpage. wbm1058 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I list mine on my userpage User:Lee Vilenski, but I may have to change to a subpage if it gets more unwealdy! I've love for there to be a full list that was updated similar to WP:WBFAN! I'd assume I'm in the 100-200 list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
97 Lee Vilenski => 55 ... 64 - 8 = 56 ... off by 1, maybe I can find the missing one. you are tied for #97.
The Featured Articles list is 320,753 bytes and with there being so many more Good Articles, trying to match that on a single page would overload readers' browsers. wbm1058 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I did do a joint nom or two, probably me claiming for something when I didn't actually nominate it. We do have separate lists for the Wikipedians by edit count (1-5000 and 5001-10000) so maybe something similar? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
No, you're good. I found an issue with the way the bot processed Talk:Snooker. The bot credited User:Nergaal because they were the first to nominate that, back in 2009 but that nomination failed. And I failed to account for failed noms follwed later by successful ones. I'll patch the code and rerun it to produce a new list. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: OK, now my bot credits you for Snooker, but it credits you for 60 articles (5 more than the last run). It also credits you for Dolphin (emulator), which isn't on your list. Is that one you missed, or is there something I'm missing? Bot also credits for Fostoria Glass Company, whereas on the first run it correctly credited TwoScars, which is a problem. Maybe I can fix that by checking edit summaries for "Revert", but my algorithm is getting more complicated. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This is awesome. I was hoping to get something like this up years ago, but was told it was too difficult. Well done. It is interesting comparing this list to User:GA bot/Stats. Explains why we continually have issues with such a large backlog. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree that this is awesome. Thanks Wbm1058. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't follow Aircorn? According to User:GA bot/Stats: the 40th most prolific reviewer has done 193 reviews, while the 40th most prolific nominator has nominated 111 articles. Following that logic, we would actually have a surplus of reviews carried out. Harrias talk 07:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I think the point is that not all of those in the list have such a good ratio. It bares repeating to me, if we can automate this similarly to the reviews, we could publish a ratio of reviews to noms , which would show quite a bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Yeah it has been a bugbear of mine for a while. When someone has over 100 good articles and hasn't reviewed any or very few in return it is not ideal. AIRcorn (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about co-nomsEdit

The GAN template lists a single nomination. If it's a co-nom, how do the bots handle the 2nd nominator as far as crediting both users for promoting it to GA (provided it passes the review}? Atsme Talk 📧 20:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Atsme, use code along the lines of |note= USER is a co-nominator to note a co-nom. See the formatting added here and here for currently open examples. There has been discussion about adding support for a co-nominator dating back to at least 2014. The template does not otherwise support a second nominator, and AFAIK the bot does not recognize it, but both users obviously can take credit. A reviewer should manually use {{GANotice}} to notify the noted co-nom about their nomination. Hopefully that makes sense Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Eddie! That did the trick. Atsme Talk 📧 21:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

GANs by blocked usersEdit

Hello all. There are currently at least five open GANs that were nominated by (indefinitely) blocked users. CommanderWaterford has Wolfgang Diewerge, Kailash Satyarthi, and Cemetery of San Fernando, and ZarhanFastfire nominated Clifford Wiens, Daniel Cockburn, Donald Shebib, and You Are Here (2010 film). The most concerning fact is that ZFF is currently blocked for copyright violations. Suggestions on how to proceed? None of the articles appear to be quick-fails at a glance, but none are clearly up to our standards either. I'd propose leaving a note at relevant wikiprojects to see if anyone is willing to take on the nomination and if not, failing the nominations. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, I think nominations by indef blocked users should be added to the quick fail criteria, as they can't respond to changes. (t · c) buidhe 22:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Eddie891, buidhe, I have taken the liberty of reverting/removing all of these GA nominations, with an edit summary saying that the nominators have been indefinitely blocked (and in the latter case, due to copyvios). It seemed best to me to do so right away, so that no one picks up the reviews only to discover that there's no one at the far end. After all, we have over 440 other nominations waiting for a reviewer. The other advantage to this approach is that if the nominators are unblocked in the near future, they can restore the nominations and things can proceed normally. I don't agree that an indefinite block should mean a quick fail, since such blocks can be resolved in hours or a couple of days and the editor back in action very quickly indeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed thisEdit

When you use the start review tab to create the framework of the review (basically the pre-loaded part), the section two heading is titled GA Review, which is not compliant with MOS:HEADING. See Talk:Japanese destroyer Shii/GA1 for an example. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the preloaded header produces a MOS error that at a number of reviewers would comment on in a GA review? Hog Farm Bacon 01:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, MOS:HEADING doesn't apply to talk pages as far as I'm aware. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:1 Wall Street/GA1Edit

I was wondering if this needs a second opinion. The reviewer has relatively few edits in total, and passed the 1 Wall Street article as a GA immediately after leaving comments and making one edit to the article themselves. That in itself is not too concerning, though I would've expected that a few issues might have been brought up in an article of this size. What does concern me a bit is that the review doesn't explicitly mention the criteria, although the review seems to touch on everything in the GA criteria. I would appreciate any feedback on whether this review is all right. epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Epicgenius, you could accept and request a WP:GAR. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia, I could do that. However, my goal is not to determine whether the article should be delisted, just to confirm that the review is fine and there aren't any major errors in the article that would've quick-failed it. As the GA nominator for the 1 Wall Street article, I just want to ensure that everything's fine with this review. epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Good article nominations".