Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 32

< Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations
Latest comment: 8 days ago by Lee Vilenski in topic Contesting GA quick fail

Please nullify the reviewer's commitment to review due to lack of review actions (similar to abandoned review) on Talk:Modafinil#GA_Review_3

Latest comment: 17 days ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I would like to ask appropriate administrators or appropriate persons involved in overall management of the GA process for a reconsideration of the review commitment by User:Irruptive Creditor for the review page Talk:Modafinil#GA_Review_3. The assigned reviewer has not undertaken any review actions, such as providing feedback or asking questions, leaving the review section empty and in a state of limbo, apart from my message where I tried to contact the reviewer. I tried to contact the reviewer on the review page, their user page, and via Wikipedia email, there has been no response; still, the reviewer was active on Wikipedia on April 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12 according to their edit history, yet, as of now, they did not reply to any of the outreach attempts; therefore, I believe that the commitment to review may have been a misclick.

As such, I propose that the review commitment be nullified, and the review request for the Modafinil article be returned to the queue. However, rather than treating it as a new request, I suggest it retains its original position and date, as if the review had never commenced. This is akin to an abandoned review, but without the disadvantage of returning to the queue anew. I tried to engage with the reviewer, and the lack of activity from the reviewer’s side should not penalize the progress of the article’s review process. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean by "akin to an abandoned review" Maxim Masiutin; this is an abandoned review, and the procedure followed for them is precisely to return the nomination to its original position in the GAN queue. I will tag the page for G6 deletion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted. Thanks AJ29, and good luck MM with the renom. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I checked now the articles nominated for review and the date of Modafinil is as I requested, i.e. 23 February 2024, the date it had initially. This is exactly what I asked for. Thank you! I didn't know whether it is handled automatically when you delete a review, or you had manually to adjust the date. Please let me know if it was handled automatically, so If next time it will be the same situation, I will just ask you "to request a G6 deletion of the review page" as specified in WP:GAN/I#N4a -- sorry for my initial lenghy request, as I don't have full knowledge of the what's going behind the scene. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
By the phrase "akin to an abandoned review" I meant a situation where a review process has been initiated but not followed through by the assigned reviewer. This is similar to an "abandoned review" where the reviewer has stopped participating in the review process, but with a key difference: in a typical "abandoned review" scenario, as per the Wikipedia instructions, the review would return to the backlog and be treated as a new request. This could potentially delay the review process as it would need to wait for a new reviewer to pick it up from the start in a priority similar to new nominations. However, in my case, I asked the administrators to handle so that the Modafinil article be returned to the queue, retaining its original position and date, as if the review had never commenced. Particularly relevant instruction in my case is (quote): "If the reviewer has not made any comments other than opening the review, it may be better to request a G6 deletion of the review page and start over" - still, it is not explained to which position the nomination should return in the queue. In my case, I asked that the review would not be treated as a new request, but rather continue from where it left off, thus avoiding the delay associated with starting the review process anew. This is what I meant by "akin to an abandoned review, but without the disadvantage of returning to the queue anew". Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is that this was an abandoned review. The process described at WP:GAN/I#N4a was followed. If there had been more comments and if the G6 were declined, I believe the nom would still be in the same place in the queue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Going to hijack this to ask about a related issue. Talk:Melania Trump/GA1 received just a few bullet points about the first few sections before the reviewer CSD'd it, but an admin rejected the CSD and set it to second opinion instead. Is this the correct process? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you please start a new topic instead and when you refer to a related issue put a link, e.g. write: "my issue similar to that mentioned in Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Please nullify the reviewer's commitment to review due to lack of review actions (similar to abandoned review) on Talk:Modafinil#GA_Review_3 - it will help us handle both issues separately. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
It's the same issue. The solution to one is the solution to the other. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why that would help Maxim Masiutin; in any case, you're not handling anything.
Thebiguglyalien, as the review is seemingly complete in the reviewer's eyes, and you're the one dissatisfied, I would say that asking for a second opinion is the correct process; you can of course also ask the reviewer to fail the nomination and renominate the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I probably would have declined the G6 also, since there were substantive comments made in the review—not saying there weren't other issues. I'm not sure what the next step is, but a second opinion seems reasonable to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't a G6, it was a G7. The nominator left the review (by mutual agreement). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Number of GANs

Latest comment: 17 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! Just a quick question, is there a specific guideline that constrains the number of GANs one can nominate? My expectation would be in terms of fairness that the closer to one, the better, so as not to saturate a backlog and give other users equal opportunity to have users select their articles for review. Is this thinking correct? If so, is this explained anywhere? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There's no maximum, although if you have more than 10 at once, anything new that you nominate gets temporarily hidden in a separate little collapsed box. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok, good to know, thanks again for your help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So, remind me...

Latest comment: 17 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...what's the difference between good articles and featured articles? (Typed via my Galaxy Tab A.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

A brief summary at Wikipedia:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article, and I would summarise in that a FA has a much higher standard for content thoroughness, as well as much higher standards for formatting and presentation. CMD (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New statistics tool to get information about an editor's GA history

Latest comment: 16 days ago53 comments17 people in discussion

I've created a GA statistics page that takes an editor's name as input and returns some summary information about their interactions with GA. It shows all their nominations and reviews, and gives a summary of their statistics -- number promoted, number that are still GAs, and the review-to-GA ratio. Please let me know about any bugs or enhancement suggestions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this tool, Mike. I noticed when I input my name, I'm credited for two nominations that weren't done by me. This is because I reverted some out of process promotions (see this diff) and it appears the tool thinks I was the nominator, because I was the one who made the edit restoring the nominee template, even though the real nominator's name was present within the template. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that -- the tool can get confused by things like that. I fixed the one you linked to; if you tell me what the other one is I'll fix that too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
That would be 1990 San Diego Chargers season. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
One other comment: the tool makes it look like my nominations to promotions ratio is lower than it actually is, because it is actually counting GAs later promoted to FAs against me (4 such articles in my case). Is there a way this could be accounted for by the tool? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I would consider that to be working as intended: the tool is now reporting your actual ratio of reviews to successful nominations, rather than artificially inflating it by not counting some of your nominations. This was discussed at §Using all GA nominations for the GA statistic rather than current promoted ones above. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm planning to make that change in the numbers on the GAN page too. I haven't done it yet so please comment at the earlier discussion if you disagree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
My concern is not with the review ratio, I agree that it should reflect all nominations I've made to be fair. It's more that it makes it look like I've had 5 GAs that were delisted, when only 1 was actually delisted and the other 4 are now FAs. I'm not sure what the answer is for this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Mike!
One comment: it looks as though there's something wrong with the "Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs" field: it returns 0 for me, but it should be 21 (Brothers Poem and Corinna are now FA). I see for your stats it instead reports that all of your GA noms are still GAs, though two (Amazing Stories and Ghost Stories (magazine)) have since been promoted to FA. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The numbers for my stats confused me too, but it's because two of them predate the cutoff for ChristieBot -- Space Science Fiction Magazine and John W. Campbell. That coincidentally cancels out the two that have since been promoted to FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The "Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs" number is now fixed; it was case-sensitive and now is not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, also comparing the results given against SDZeroBot's attempt, I notice that your tool misses Women in Classical Athens Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
It appears about 70 GAs were not properly categorized in the database; not sure why, but I'm doing a run now that should fix them. Please let me know if you see more omissions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Superb work, Mike. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
GA nominations: 197
Promoted GA nominations: 179
Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 0
GA reviews: 301
Ratio of reviews to successful nominations: 1.7
What does "Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs" actually means? I have about 150 or so that are still GAs. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks like there's a bug in that calculation; I will take a look at that next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Should now be fixed -- the tool was case sensitive for that value, but I've made it case-insensitive. If we ever get two users at GA whose usernames differ only in case I'll have to change it back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks like the issue was actually that my search was "Lee Vilenski " rather than "Lee Vilenski" (mobiles tend to add additional spaces for reasons). Searching just for the username gives the correct info. In case someone else mentions it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
One small thing in the GA reviews section, the table lists the nominators as reviewers instead. -- ZooBlazer 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The stats for me seem incorrect.
GA nominations: 0
Promoted GA nominations: 0
Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 29
GA reviews: 0
Ratio of reviews to successful nominations: Infinite
Obviously, I have done GA nominations which were then promoted to have that number that are still GAs; and I have done a number of reviews. All of these were within the last 6 months, so they were surely captured by ChristieBot. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems the problem is the tool sometimes gets into a state where it can't get to most of the data. I fixed the problem for now by restarting it so you should see your numbers now, but it will no doubt happen again. I'll see if I can figure out what's going on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I've got a similar issue with my stats:
  • GA nominations: 0
  • Promoted GA nominations: 0
  • Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 14
  • GA reviews: 0
  • Ratio of reviews to successful nominations: Infinite
I tried checking PMC and Premeditated_Chaos in case the issue was with the space, or my signature, but no dice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
User:Tim O'Doherty, who also has two FA nominations to his name, asserts to have nominated 8 successful GAs and reviewed 12 GAs, some of which I have been involved with. However, according to the GA nominations page and the new GA statistics tool, it shows that Tim has neither nominated nor reviewed any successful GAs. I was hoping you, @Mike Christie, could look into this since ChristieBot and the new GA statistics tool were developed by you. Regards, and yours faithfully. MSincccc (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Fixed -- the apostrophe in Tim's username is what was causing the issue. Usernames with apostrophes should now work correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
However, it appears the bot that maintains the "still a GA" number is not recording the data correctly for users with apostrophes, so that number is still showing as zero for Tim. I've left the maintainer of that bot a message. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Also I recently took up Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's article for GA review. As done for other users, shouldn't it show that the article is under GA review? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: I've had four successful GA nominations under my belt, but the tool indicates five, possibly due to the Prince George of Wales nomination being listed twice instead of once. Tim O'Doherty successfully promoted the article to GA-status, whereas AndrewPeterT abandoned the review after making just the opening comments. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The bot decided that AndrewPeterT's review was a pass because there's no record of the outcome anywhere, and the article is currently a GA. I've added article history to the talk page and rerun the analytics for that GA, and the bot now understands it was not a promotion. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan is missing because in debugging over the last couple of days I inadvertently caused a problem for the part of the process that picks up new GAs, which is supposed to run once a day. It'll run again today; if you don't see the GA reflected in the tool's output tomorrow morning let me know and I'll take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: On the project page Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, under the Royalty, nobility, and heraldry section where it indicates that the article Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is under review, it still displays-Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). (13 reviews, 0 GAs) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC) However, we are aware that Tim has 8 successful GA promotions attributed to him both from the new tool and his own record. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
That number comes from this tool, which doesn't correctly handle usernames that contain apostrophes. Per this discussion I am planning to change that number from "promoted GAs that are still GAs" to "promoted GAs regardless of whether they are still GAs"; I can provide the latter number accurately, so the number should be correct then. It'll be at least a week or two till I can make that change, though, as I'm travelling this weekend and don't want to make changes when I'm unable to fix any problems they cause. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Adding my thanks for the creation of this tool. Looking at my stats, I see two oddities:
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Both should now be fixed. I don't know why the California one was assigned to you; I reran that analytics step for that page and it corrected it. For Freetown station, part of the problem was that there was no easy way for the bot to figure out what the outcome was of the first review; there was no "Failed GA" template, for example. I added article history to the talk page and reran the analytics and that seems to have sorted it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll be working on the tool this afternoon trying to figure it why it keeps producing zeros after a few queries. In the meantime here are the numbers for Generalissima:

  • GA nominations: 33
  • Promoted GA nominations: 30
  • Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 29
  • GA reviews: 29
  • Ratio of reviews to successful nominations: 1.0

and for PMC:

  • GA nominations: 31
  • Promoted GA nominations: 30
  • Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 14
  • GA reviews: 107
  • Ratio of reviews to successful nominations: 3.6

The tool will probably be mostly down this afternoon; I'll leave a note here if/when I think I've fixed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a list of all GA reviews you're credited with? My personal count only has 104, I'm curious what ones I've missed ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll leave a list on your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the bug is fixed and the tool should now be working. Please let me know of any other issues, or if this one recurs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mike, would you consider a slight tweak of the sort order? The "reviews" are sorted by nomination date, so my first review is listed at number 5 (the first five are 5-2-1-4-3). It would make more sense to sort the reviews by review date (ideally by start of the review, actually). —Kusma (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Good idea, and an easy change to make, so done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks, Mike Christie. Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA0 is listed in the results for me as "Nominated"; looks like there was some process issue around that review. Also, I think I messed up the template when reviewing Talk:Atul Gawande/GA1 - that should probably be updated to a fail. (I later nominated it myself Talk:Atul Gawande/GA2). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

These should now be fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for creating this. A slight bug in my results, may have been reported above. The tool reports 19 nominations, 19 promoted nominations, and 14 that are still GAs. None of my GAs have been delisted. Three have been promoted to FA. I think the discrepancy for the other 2 is that there were abortive initial reviews, and both were promoted after GA2. That's my guess, and it's not a big deal. Mackensen (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

(Also @Trainsandotherthings, since you raised the same question): the "still GAs" isn't meant to imply that the others were delisted; just that they're not currently listed as GAs -- in many cases this will be because they were promoted to FA, not demoted. I'll find a way to phrase this on the tool's output page to make this clearer. Mackensen, I'll have a look at the other two you mention and see if I can figure out what happened. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Could the tool tell me which promoted GA nominations are no longer GAs (as a column in the table)? Could it even track which promoted GA nominations are neither GAs nor FAs? (Using myself as a test case the tool indicates there should be 4, of which I expect one to be the delisted The Game (mind game) and three to be the featured San Junipero, The 1975 (song) and Why Marx Was Right.) Also, I'm impressed that it seems to track page moves appropriately (Nosedive moved to Nosedive (Black Mirror)). — Bilorv (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not easy to tell whether a page is FA, GA, A, B, etc; there's no single place I can look. However, SDZeroBot does keep track of which articles are currently GA, so I could try checking that and see if I can match up the article names. I might be able to search for the article names in WP:FA or the various GA pages as well. I probably won't work on this for a couple of weeks as I'll be traveling next weekend but will put it on the list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Promotion percentage

I thought it would be interesting to see the promotion percentage for our most prolific reviewers -- that is how many of their reviews end by promoting the article to GA. Here's the list for everyone with at least 100 reviews. This doesn't account for name changes (e.g. Malleus Fatuorum -> Eric Corbett) but I can probably fix that if I turn this into a query on the tool's webpage. I don't think there's necessarily anything negative about a very high promotion percentage -- a reviewer who picks up articles from nominators they know are very reliable might well have a promotion percentage close to 100%, for example, whereas a reviewer who makes a point of reviewing articles by inexperienced nominators (as I've done intermittently) might have an unusually low promotion percentage. Still, I think the numbers are interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting! For comparison, what is the overall promotion rate? —Kusma (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
43,027 passed out of 52,395 in the database; 82.1% promotion rate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
In case anyone else is wondering why my percentage is so low: I don't think it's because I have unreasonably high standards, but more because I tend to pick articles to review where I can reasonably predict the outcome: either a quick fail or a relatively easy pass. I don't want to get drawn into games of whack-a-mole where I point out examples of problematic material in a nominated article, the nominator fixes those examples but not the general problem, and I have to keep finding more examples ad nauseam. For a while that was leading me to deliberately seek out nominations that could be (justifiably!) quick failed, hence my high fail rate. I think for the ones where I initiated a full review rather than a quick fail, my pass rate is much higher. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Very interesting indeed. By my quick calculations, the mean promotion rate for our most active reviewers listed in your table is 86.3% (excluding David Eppstein pushes it up very slightly to 86.6%), and the median promotion rate for the reviewers listed is 91% – so you are marginally more likely to have your nominations promoted if it is picked up by a very active reviewer. This data doesn't let us say why that might be, but a couple of thoughts:
  • Historically reviewers had relatively lower standards than today and were more prolific because reviews used to take less time, and so are disproportionately represented in the "very active reviewer" dataset (there are a lot of names which I do not recognise, or which I do recognise as no longer editing, in that dataset, so this is entirely possible)
  • Very active reviewers have a better idea of which articles are going to pass (either because they recognise the nominator or they have a better preliminary assessment of how good an article is) and favour reviewing better articles
  • Very active reviewers are careless and more willing to promote articles which are not at GA standards (anecdotally I suspect this is not true given the names I recognise on the list)
  • Less active reviewers overcompensate and require things above and beyond the GA standard, and therefore fail things which an experienced reviewer might pass (I have certainly seen this behaviour, but I've also seen inexperienced reviewers pass things which I would not have, so I'm not sure which direction this actually tilts the stats in)
  • Passing reviews take less time on average than failing them, so the most active reviewers are the ones who review the most articles which go on to pass
  • The most active reviewers are the most willing to handhold a borderline article through to passing (perhaps because they generally spend more time onwiki, so they can devote more time to any given review)
Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Who wants to be my 50th fail? ;) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that this is interesting! As you say, I suspect the main differentiating factor is the reviewer's personal choices about what kinds of articles to review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Promotion percentage for GA reviewers with 100 reviews
Reviewer               Promoted Not_promoted % promoted
West Virginian         150 0 100%
Anotherclown           158 1 99%
Ian Rose               137 1 99%
Simongraham           116 1 99%
Rcej                   245 3 99%
Grapple X             122 2 98%
ThinkBlue             356 7 98%
Iazyges               254 6 98%
BennyOnTheLoose       122 3 98%
Seabuckthorn           161 4 98%
Gog the Mild           156 4 98%
Damien Linnane         129 4 97%
Dr. Blofeld           231 8 97%
Shearonink             111 4 97%
CatRacer22             447 18 96%
Zawed                 219 9 96%
LunaEatsTuna           117 5 96%
The Rambling Man       730 33 96%
Parsecboy             169 8 95%
Wilhelmina Will       123 6 95%
Dom497                 123 6 95%
Hawkeye7               185 10 95%
Courcelles             239 13 95%
Gen. Quon             140 8 95%
AustralianRupert       155 9 95%
Ealdgyth               288 17 94%
A person in Georgia   326 20 94%
QatarStarsLeague       141 9 94%
Hog Farm               376 24 94%
Xtzou                 121 8 94%
KCVelaga               120 8 94%
Usernameunique         132 9 94%
Peacemaker67           354 25 93%
Sturmvogel 66         872 62 93%
Nova Crystallis       161 12 93%
Eddie891               120 9 93%
Status                 119 9 93%
Ruby2010               132 10 93%
Dough4872             330 25 93%
ProtoDrake             130 10 93%
Rp0211                 104 8 93%
Auntieruth55           115 9 93%
Whiteguru             102 8 93%
Razr Nation           114 9 93%
Ecpiandy               160 13 92%
12george1             185 16 92%
Jaguar                 682 63 92%
Yellow Evan           171 16 91%
Ed!                   217 21 91%
Kyle Peake             506 49 91%
Tomcat7               171 17 91%
Vami IV               99 10 91%
Casliber               324 33 91%
Zanimum               107 11 91%
Jackyd101             125 13 91%
Cerebellum             91 10 90%
Aoba47                 270 31 90%
Sainsf                 281 33 89%
Mattisse               210 25 89%
Pyrotec               436 52 89%
Juliancolton           107 13 89%
MathewTownsend         179 23 89%
Tim riley             172 23 88%
AryKun                 107 15 88%
Sammi Brie             261 37 88%
FunkMonk               261 38 87%
Miyagawa               225 33 87%
Carbrera               181 27 87%
Lemonade51             97 15 87%
GhostRiver             191 30 86%
Malleus Fatuorum       169 30 85%
Chiswick Chap         298 58 84%
Lee Vilenski           251 49 84%
Jens Lallensack       148 30 83%
Zwerg Nase             86 18 83%
Cartoon network freak 154 33 82%
Sarastro1             88 19 82%
J Milburn             386 85 82%
Wizardman             581 129 82%
Cwmhiraeth             133 30 82%
Hurricanehink         194 45 81%
MarioSoulTruthFan     165 41 80%
Arsenikk               245 63 80%
ChrisGualtieri         102 27 79%
Kosack                 98 26 79%
Amitchell125           188 50 79%
Dana boomer           348 93 79%
Jim Sweeney           86 23 79%
Mike Christie         355 97 79%
Harrias               150 43 78%
Sasata                 145 45 76%
Kingsif               102 34 75%
Calvin999             190 65 75%
Cirt                   209 82 72%
Ritchie333             127 51 71%
Ganesha811             103 42 71%
Hchc2009               73 32 70%
Khazar2               253 117 68%
Premeditated Chaos     72 34 68%
Jezhotwells           386 187 67%
SilkTork               114 71 62%
David Fuchs           66 44 60%
MPJ-DK                 59 44 57%
Aircorn               60 47 56%
SNUGGUMS               124 101 55%
Gary                   101 112 47%
TonyTheTiger           101 113 47%
David Eppstein         35 89 28%

New mentorship page

Latest comment: 16 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The old good article mentorship page can be found at Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor, where it consists solely of an outdated list of usernames. There's clearly interest in mentoring, as it managed to gather 27 mentors over its run, but a simple list of usernames isn't that helpful. I created a basic outline at Wikipedia:Good article mentorship for a new mentorship process. The key difference here is that instead of having to choose from an intimidating list of names, aspiring reviewers can request a mentor in a similar format as GOCE requests.

Subpages:

It's just an outline right now, so please edit the text and layout. Formatting is not my forte. If even just a few people become regular reviewers through this, it would be a significant improvement to the backlog and the good article process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems pretty good to me. I'd be happy if newish reviewers (and nominators) had a guiding hand rather than some of the crazy threads we see after the fact here sometimes. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds great. Maybe we should start a new page rather than using the old mentors page, since that way we know all the mentors are familiar with this system and actively watching it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree, and I've created a new one with a similar format. Maybe once this is up and running a message can be sent to anyone on the old list who's still active to see if they're interested. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

All of the individual pieces should be put together now. But before this gets "launched", I assume the community here would want to discuss how much involvement a mentor would have, and if there are any specific aspects that should/shouldn't be included in their role. And whether the "norm" would be for the mentor to be more active on the review page or on the reviewer's talk page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, can you find a guinea pig who wants mentorship and do a first go at it and a debrief? Maybe it's just me but I think the direct approach will get us to a working model more quickly than talking about it here in the abstract. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing, I just wanted to make sure all of the obvious stuff was established. I was thinking about asking for a guinea pig on the WP:DISCORD given its heavy population of editors who are moderately experienced but not heavily involved in these processes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, much better to ask mentees to request on a dedicated page and have active mentors pick requests up. Could we have some emphasis on "during your first review, consider requesting on this page for someone to provide feedback"? It would be hard to give useful feedback if someone just wrote "I'm thinking of starting GA reviewing—please advise". A mentor needs to have something the mentee has produced (though I suppose that could be contributions history) to scrutinise. — Bilorv (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list - proposal to fix

Latest comment: 16 days ago27 comments8 people in discussion

Let me raise the major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list that I observed first time I submitted an article for GA review a few years ago.

The number of reviews and GAs in parentheses before the user name is misleading as if it was a number of reviews ans GAs that the article received, not the user.

Consider the following example:

Boot Monument (talk | history | discuss review) – American Revolutionary War memorial – (6 reviews, 0 GAs) Relativity (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). (32 reviews, 19 GAs) Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the article "Boot Monument" so far has 6 reviews and 0 GAs or 32 reviews, 19 GAs, suggesting a collective review process for a first-time users who don't understand the process.

Initially, it was only me who understood this way, but later I saw other editors understood the same way as me, suggesting that it was not my fault but a major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list.

I could not find particular examples in the archive to prove my point that other users understood as me, but such cases existed. Maybe I will manage to find examples. However, please do not consider my examples as crucial for considering my request, evaluate my request without the examples.

My proposal is to present the list differently:

Boot Monument (talk | history | discuss review) – American Revolutionary War memorial – (nominated by Relativity who has a past history of 6 reviews and 0 GAs) Relativity (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). (being reviewed by Harper J. Cole who has a past history of 32 reviews and 19 GAs) Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The exact phrase "who has a past history of" can be slightly different, for example consider other variants, such as:

  1. (nominated by Relativity with a track record of 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  2. (nominated by Relativity who has accumulated 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  3. (nominated by Relativity boasting 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  4. (nominated by Relativity known for 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  5. (nominated by Relativity with a background of 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  6. (nominated by Relativity having 6 reviews and 0 GAs to their name)
  7. (nominated by Relativity with a history of 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  8. (nominated by Relativity who has previously achieved 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  9. (nominated by Relativity credited with 6 reviews and 0 GAs)
  10. (nominated by Relativity who has been recognized for 6 reviews and 0 GAs)

We can use any of these alternatives to convey the experience and contributions of the nominator and the reviewer in a clear and concise manner.

My proposal makes lines longer by having the names used twice per line: first time in parenthesis and the second time as a signature similar to that generated by four tildas ~~~~, still, it will resolve the usability issue.

If you are concerned about the lengths of the lines, remove the signature, the user name will be used only once. Signatures provide automated way to reply, but there is no need to reply in the GA nominations list.

Additional benefit of my proposal is that will not only make the list easier to understand, but it will bring clarity for new users on the steps of the GA review process. The current format can be confusing for new users who are not familiar with the Good Article nomination process. By explicitly stating the track record of the nominator and reviewer, we eliminate any ambiguity regarding the source of the reviews and GAs.

I believe that my proposal is consistent with Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia values clarity and transparency in its content and processes. The proposed change aligns with these values by making the information more accessible and understandable. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I will appreciate if the editors or administrator who take care of the overall GA review process nominate my proposal to the whole list of proposals as "Proposal N:..." by putting to to the list of the all proposals. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The proposal drive has ended. And for what it's worth, I never once read the nominations this way, and I don't know if anyone else has either. The proposed change would require a huge use of space on a page that's already full to bursting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Please consider reviewing this proposal separately, on substance, not related to proposal drive. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
If your concern is space than my proposal also saves space wasted by tildas, so your concern is addressed by the poposal. Here it how it looks without tildas:

Boot Monument (talk | history | discuss review) – American Revolutionary War memorial – nominated by Relativity who has 6 reviews and 0 GAs.
 Review: this article is being reviewed by Harper J. Cole who has 6 reviews and 0 GAs (additional comments are welcome)

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site. You have been told such before, on this very page—if you can't remember, you will find it in the archives; no need for miffling about with "maybes". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
How would you have proposed to rewrite my comment with this proposal, can you please provide an example? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I could not find in archives due to poor usability of the search feature. Wikipedia should not be for nerds. My recent example was related to the reviews Talk:Ketotifen/GA1, Talk:Modafinil/GA1, and other reviews by User:BeingObjective. He submitted to many reviews and provided pass or fail message but didn't formally conclude the reviews, when we asked him to conclude reviews, he wrote that he he thought that it is a collective process and his opinion was only a vote. This was in 2023. When I submitted my first article I also thought the same way as User:BeingObjective. Maxim Masiutin (talk) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you and BeingObjective did not bother with the GA instructions, which clearly explain the GA process. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30, you can find the sections relevant to you, through a process I believe nerds call "reading"—I don't know if you're as unfamiliar with it as you are with "clicking". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It can be even simpler: just moving the "(6 reviews, 0 GAs)" after the username and date. So using the examples:

Boot Monument (talk | history | discuss review) – American Revolutionary War memorial – Relativity (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) (6 reviews, 0 GAs)

 Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC) (32 reviews, 19 GAs)

Skyshiftertalk 01:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is also a solution. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
If there must be a change this is the way to do it, but I am not convinced there is a need to make a change. Say in either case it is read wrongly, does this matter much? Not really. CMD (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
It matters much because misleads the newcomer into belief that the counters are related to the article being reviewed, that the review is collective process of votes so that if they click to add their vote to the already big number of reviews of the article it would not hurt. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think the current structure implies any kind of collective voting process. But let's agree that you thought it was - how many people aside from you have actually made that error? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how many people aside from me have actually made that error. The current structure has counters related to user near the article not near the user, there is no reason in positioning it that way. It should be posisioned correctly and unambigously. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
BeingObjective made this error, he wrote about it, but this list of users is not exhaustive, as we may not be aware of all cases, users may not complain or we may not ask them the reason. Typical signals to watch if when a reviwer submit to a few reviews and do not complete at least one. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Even if only me made this error, i.e. was caught by this usability error - that was enough to fix. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This usability error affects not only the newcomers but old editors as well who suffer from their nominations clicked by newcomers misled by this practice of putting counters of user near the article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
No, the "usability error" affects only those who can't be bothered to read the instructions, such as the now-blocked BeingObjective and yourself. Everyone else has managed to get their heads around this, presumably because they spend their time reading instead of making assumptions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can see BeingObjective never said anywhere that they were confused by the "(X reviews, Y GAs)" thing, so I don't know why we are citing them as evidence for changing the system. If we were implementing this from scratch I think I would support Skyshifter's proposed ordering, but I really don't think it's so significant that it's worth changing everything around now we have an established order. People are used to the current system, and the chance that changing it confuses people (and potentially breaks any bots or scripts which expect the layout in a particular order) seems to me to be a good reason not to change things unless there's a compelling reason to, which I'm really not seeing at the moment. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If nothing else works, read the documentation principle means that you don't have to intentionally make obscure design to force the user read the documentation. You didn't comment on whether the current location of counters or that proposed by me and User:Skyshifter is the correct one. If you prefer instead to discuss rule following without starting a new discussion thread, let us do so.

Before you ask others to follow the rules, start with yourself and show by example. I once joined as a second opinion reviewer and concluded the review as Fail while it was a procedural/technical error, I was not authorized to conclude the review as a second opinion reviewer, it was the exclusive competence of the first reviewer. Instead, you admitted my completion of the review and admitted discussion on merit on whether my Fail vote was appropriate or should I have changed my mind to Pass. This discussion was supported by other editors, yet nobody, following the rules, cancelled my completion vote and provided the way for the first reviewer to complete the review as prescribed by the rules.

As for the blocked user BeingObjective issue that you raised, let us also discuss it if you think it is important. He followed the rules on target audience in medical articles and helped rewrite articles in proper language removing jargon, but didn't follow GA rules. He made valuable contributions to the quality of articles yet got banned.

Folllowing rules on article quality and improving the article quality such as BeingObjective did has more merit as it brings more value to readers than following rules on GA process which brings more value to editors rather then users. We write encyclopedia for readers, we are not a social network. Blocking editors such as BeingObjective led that he was the only one editor ever who answered my calls for expert opinion, other calls just hang for months. More users you block, worse for the reader will be. Editors such as BeingObjective should not cope throught and design minefileds of interface design ambiguities and rules scattered through various texts - the thing he didn't manage to do. We now cannot ask him how he interpreted the GA counters because we blocked him.

George Johnson | "Hanged by mistake 1882. He was right we was wrong but we hung him and he's gone.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you seriously comparing this to a hanging? You ought to be blocked for the amount of bloviating you've done to date all based on your inability to follow simple instructions. If you really think that GAN "is collective process of votes" then we are clearly dealing with a PEBCAK error. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, once you block a Wikipedia user, this user is gone forever, we cannot ask BeingObjective about GA review because we blocked him. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
As for the user BeingObjective, I don't think that it was a PEBCAK error in that case. That user could rewrite articles for simplicity to be understood by general audience as required by Wikipedia, and he could provide expert help on Medicine when I used "expert opinion requested" template. You cannot do that, but you can understand GA counters. Each person has different abilities and we have to acknowledge that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI to achieve the same result for you. You may take that as a final warning. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  Please see the ANI discussion Maxim started at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:AirshipJungleman29. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Several reviews open at once

Latest comment: 15 days ago14 comments6 people in discussion

I recently reached out to SafariScribe (previously Otuọcha) regarding the reviews they've opened, a total of 22 over the last four weeks:

Completed:

Open:

I've expressed my concerns that this is an unreasonable number of reviews to be doing at once and that they may not be fluent enough in the language to pursue reviewing at this time, but they disagreed. As I said to them, I appreciate their drive and I think they could do a lot of good for Wikipedia, but this isn't the best way to go about it. Previous discussions at their talk page (permalink) and mine (permalink). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed them, but as they haven't actually abandoned a review yet, I haven't engaged. I would suggest that they try to pick up reviews one at a time though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hm, the grammar in their replies to you is not encouraging... -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
And it's reflected in the copyedits they're asking for in reviews, which is why I was hoping this could be addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien, I agree. I would recommend all of their open reviews be reset. All they seem to have great intentions, I think there is a lot of learning to do before they are able to go through this type of reviewing process successfully. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I see this page now says, "Warning: nomination is malformed -- Status indicates review has started but there is no review page" re: Lashauwn Beyond. I am hoping someone can fix this, so the review can get picked up. Was a bit disappointed with the result of the Dwayne Cooper GAN (Talk:Dwayne Cooper/GA1), but oh well! Thanks for any help with the reset here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

SafariScribe appears to have realised they have bitten off more than they could chew with Jude Law, Pure Japanese and Lashauwn Beyond, and requested to delete those reviews without correctly fixing the talk pages, which I have now done. I don't quite know what they were insinuating with "glorious contributions" at Talk:Dwayne Cooper/GA1, but that was definitely a sub-par review; there is in any case no prejudice against immediately renominating. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Another Believer, @Thebiguglyalien, @Gonzo fan2007, @AirshipJungleman29, @Asilvering, thank you all for such an impactful assessment, it'do add to my person like I always say. However, English is my first language and I do speak it fluently, I may also have some errors in my sentences which I admit and have taken care of it—reading more books, revising my proficiency, and other self improvement works. The problem is that: typo via keyboard, speed typing in mobile, feeling less concerned to the flow of the lang because while speaking, its not usually identified in where I stay, Nigeria. I appreciate what you all discussed and 've taken record of them. In not varying worlds, there are also justifications that seems provocative. One of the things I've learnt do far is that, people changes by day, there are more to improvement as well. I will also be proud of my reviews, even though some says it's not likewise. I'm not here for any argument but addressing such cases will make Wikipedia a better place. I love to see people correct me while I taken it to heart. On civilly, reverting should be done in reviews only if he/she have discussed that with the reviewer. Like I said, no one has found fault with my review, even when I give a little still promising truth of an article. What if I was about asking a second reviewer. Lastly, I appreciate all of you and your contributions but know that It's for the best. Thanks and will needs some piece of "good" advice. For reviewing, I'm stopping for now. Regards. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
SafariScribe, you still have Talk:Maybe You're the Problem/GA1, Talk:An Act of Conscience/GA1, and Talk:The Skeptical Environmentalist/GA1 as ongoing reviews; are you saying that you will not complete them? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29, please stop adding words to my mouth and understand subjectively based on ones response. Maybe you're missing 'future'. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
SafariScribe, the word "future" has not been in any of your comments. What does "For reviewing, I'm stopping for now" mean? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29, My bad, apologies. But you are here for years and should possibly know what some editors are up to. I mean taking it slowly for now. Any advice? — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
While I have been editing for a couple of years, I have not yet received mind-reading abilities. Taking it slowly is probably a good idea. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete GAN

Latest comment: 15 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The Bertram Fletcher Robinson article's GAN was obviously not thorough. The reviewer literally rewrote the GA criteria list with some AI bot and this was the only noteworthy thing the reviewer said:

"After a thorough assessment of Bertram Fletcher Robinson, I can affirm that it successfully meets the criteria for Good Article status on Wikipedia. The article is well-written, with prose that is clear, concise, and accessible to a broad audience, adhering to the Manual of Style guidelines in all respects, including the lead section, layout, and incorporation of lists. It is verifiable, with all references correctly presented and reliable sources cited inline for any content that could be reasonably challenged. There is no evidence of original research, copyright violations, or plagiarism. The article is broad in its coverage, addressing the main aspects of the topic while maintaining focus and avoiding unnecessary detail. It represents viewpoints neutrally, without editorial bias, and remains stable, not subject to ongoing edit wars or content disputes. Furthermore, it is appropriately illustrated with media that are tagged with their copyright statuses and have relevant captions, enhancing the reader's understanding of the subject."

We can see that this was just a rewrite using some artificial intelligence bot, further displaying the fact that this review was just rushed. Otherwise I see some redundancy in the prose as well as one of the sections being way too long.  750h+ | Talk  09:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Either Talk:Wii U/GA2, which was also not reviewed seriously. 2001:4455:3AA:B000:699C:DDA6:CE7E:B379 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how a review from two years ago from a different user is informational. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Two months ago, that may exceed our statue of limitations for reversion. The lead should be more comprehensive as well, but at a glance it's not a quickfail sort of situation where I'd jump to a GAR before posting on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    The main image also has obviously incorrect sourcing information (or the nominator is over 120 years old). —Kusma (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed. GAR is the only next step I'm afraid. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this perfunctory and harsh?

Latest comment: 15 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Pokelego999 recently quick-failed Super Mutant, and then nominated it for deletion ~2.5 hours later. It's been a while since I've done GA reviews, but I have a couple of concerns:

Is this article really so bad that a quickfail was appropriate?
Is it normal for a GA reviewer to nominate an article they've reviewed for deletion without waiting for the nominator to make any appropriate improvements? Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Normally I would have left it alone, regardless of my concerns, but I've discussed the topic with the nominator and we both agreed to send it to AfD. In any case, I quick-failed on the rationale of Rule 3, which indicates that the subject needs broad and significant in-depth discussion. The discussion in the article is rather bare per reasons I've outlined in my comments on both the review page and in the AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, the quick fail and RfD are two separate acts. If you think the subject isn't notable, it can't be a GAN. Whether or not the reviewer wants to give the nominator enough time to find the sources is a bit up to them. Considering the AfD seems to be going towards a "redirect" verdict, it seems like it's suitably non-notable. No amount of work can make it notable.
I think if you have notability concerns, taking the article to AfD seems like a suitable next step. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Crusading movement

Latest comment: 14 days ago20 comments6 people in discussion

@Borsoka has nominated this at GAR, flooded the nomination with his own point of view and closed this without giving me any chance to respond.

That doesn't seem like due process. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I would be more sympathetic if the close paraphrasing wasn't ubiquitous and blatant as described. Good articles simply cannot contain any plagiarism. If there's an acceptable quick, unilateral GAR, it's done for these reasons. Remsense诉 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:GAFAIL for close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
None of the close paraphrasing incidents raised against the article are outstanding Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
During the article's FAC plagiarism was detected by other reviewers as well. Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
That ignores the point, that none of the issues raised are outstanding. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the principal problem: you have been unable to understand for years that plagiarism is a serious problem. Borsoka (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Still, none of the issues are outstanding—that is the key point. That and the fact that has been pointed out to you, you are WP:INVOLVED so should revert you clousre and let a neutral reviewer pick this up. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Please revert your close Borsoka: per the GAR instructions, "After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article." (emphasis added). Additionally, as you opened the reassessment, you are considered INVOLVED. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I closed as per GAFAIL because sections rewritten by the nominator still contain plagiarism. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:GAFAIL does not apply to GAR, Borsoka, only to GAN, and again, you are involved per NACINV. If you do not revert your close, I will do it for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Your interpretation may differ from other editors' interpretation. @Remsense and Serial Number 54129: what is your opinion on the issue? Plagiarism is not debated. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
There's no interpretation to be had. WP:GAFAIL applies to Good Article nominations, not Good Article reassessments. The reassessment process is outlined at WP:GAR, which says that "After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article." Clearly NorfolkBigFish was making improvements to the article, and so delisting it was out of process. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I think at this point it would be fine to allow someone else to close the GAR now that eyes are on it, I agree that the GAR guideline says what it says. Remsense诉 14:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
It needs reopening, and then someone with a fresh pair of eyes to review it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted the close and reopened the discussion, since Borsoka is unwilling to do so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
And yes, Norfolkbigfish, WP:FORUMSHOPPING at two different noticeboards is extremely poor behaviour. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fair point @AirshipJungleman29, I have learnt something and won't repeat this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • NBF, your WP:FORUMSHOPPING is duly noted; this section opened at 10:24 today, followed by AN/I 14 minutes later?! ——Serial Number 54129 11:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
    Appreciate that, I was following Borsoka's advice to raise here, I have asked for guidance on the correct forum for this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Regular backlog drives

Latest comment: 14 days ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I've made the backlog drives subpage "permanent" in the tab header to give it more visibility, since we've agreed that we ought to be having drives more often. We didn't agree on timing or number of backlog drives, though. Here's an inventory of most of the suggestions that seem applicable and possible:

  1. We have three backlog drives a year
  2. They are regular and recur in the same months every year
  3. Some are themed/only address part of the backlog, to cut down on reviewer fatigue (this is proposal 14)
  4. January and August look like good times
  5. Swap Unreviewed nominations with Old nominations at Backlog Drives Progress (this is proposal 6)

In light of those, here is a proposal:

  1. Three drives a year, in January, May, and September
  2. The January drive is the "main" one, targetting all nominations, but especially old ones (ie, prop 6); bonus points are given for reviewing longer and older articles
  3. The May drive is particularly newbie-friendly; we put extra effort into recruiting new reviewers, give points for mentorship, etc (I'm happy to brainstorm/co-ordinate on this)
  4. The September drive is focused on some particular element of the backlog drive, and the co-ords will draw up a list of qualifying GANs in advance (possible examples: articles by editors with no GAs, articles by editors with more reviews than GAs, etc); points will still be given for reviews that aren't on that list, but the aim is to wipe out that list in particular.

In the earlier discussion, @AirshipJungleman29 said I mean, sure, but all of them require people to do the things. If you want to showcase model reviews, reward good reviews, be a mentor, or anything else, get on with it. I stepped forward with GAR and have been basically running the process for a year. So, here I am, getting on with it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Regardless of whether we will have regular backlog drives (I expressed against regular backlog drive on Proposal 1 discussion and gave arguments), I liked very much to have a list of past drives at Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives#Past Drives. I didn't know that we had this list. Anyway, the special permanent page for GA drives, even if we will not have many GA drives the future, is a good think that I appreciate. For example, we can have announcements of future drives or analysis of past drives there. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping forward. The proposal sounds good and fair—a solid foundation to start with, and to change if things don't work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I like the proposal, although since the last drive was in March, I think it'd be too soon to have one this May. I'd like to see the next one about recruiting more reviewers—maybe with two streams of awards, "Reviewing" and "Mentoring". — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Encouraging new reviewers sounds great, definitely worth a try in the next backlog drive. —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think it would be good to have a backlog drive this May, that's too soon. So the next drive would be September. Lots of time to figure out how best to make it newbie-encouraging. -- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
May is too soon, but September is too far away - what if we did one in July, and one in October? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I considered those months but decided it was best to keep them at equal intervals, since my idea is that this will be a recurring thing with a fixed schedule. Since our most recent drive was all the way back in August of last year, September didn't seem too far away to me. But I don't think anyone will die of confusion if we end up with this year being March/July/October and then every drive thereafter is planned for January/May/September. (For all we know we won't stick with this thrice-yearly schedule anyway.) -- asilvering (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan to me! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bilorv, how do you see this working? I understand you to mean something like dividing participants into two categories (newbies/reviewers and mentors), then giving a point for the completed review to the reviewer and the mentor? -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't quite know. I think people would sort themselves by either asking for a mentor or volunteering as a mentor. NPP backlog drives often have some "re-reviewing" element with a barnstar, so serving as a mentor might earn you a "teamwork" barnstar. Maybe there would be some special barnstar for completing your first GA review. Or maybe the key element is just advertising (notifying WikiProjects, something well-timed in The Signpost, talk page messaging people we think could be interested). — Bilorv (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Links to the mentorship page

Latest comment: 13 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There's a discussion about Wikipedia:Good article mentorship above, but I'm creating a new discussion because this is a visible change that should have clear consensus. Should links to the mentorship page be added to WP:GANI and Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Tab header so they're visible to new reviewers? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with the addition of these links. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do! -- asilvering (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible hasty GA review

Latest comment: 13 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I nominated U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee for GA status a while back, and the reviewer passed it with essentially no comments. That is extremely rare, especially for an article this long. I asked them about it, and they said that in general they thought it met the GA criteria, but weren't very familiar with the GA review process. As such, I would like to request a second opinion. I'm not asking for a reassessment; instead, I'd appreciate if someone would look over the article and suggest comments on the talk page in the same manner as the GA review process. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The review is at Talk:U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee/GA1. Not a pure checklist, but has no source checks and not too much explanation. Looking at the article, obvious questions emerge such as how the entire lengthy second paragraph of Route description could be sourced to two maps. CMD (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The route description is sourced to a lot more than two maps. I'd appreciate if someone would be willing to take a look at it, though. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
In the look I took the paragraph is sourced to Tennessee Atlas & Gazetteer (Map) (2017 ed.) and this one-page pdf. If there are other sources you should probably add them. CMD (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible Good List

Latest comment: 12 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

So I was looking over a few pages and found List of Smallville characters which is a GA despite having List in the name. Is there a reason its a GA and not a FL? The nomintation page seems to be unavalible. Should it be taken down and sent to FLC?Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It was titled Characters of Smallville when it was promoted so didn't have list in its name. Nomination page is at Talk:List of Smallville characters/GA1. Indagate (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Well now it does so should it be reassesed? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the title is itself a reason to do so. The lines between list articles and prose articles are sometimes blurry, and this is a case in point. TompaDompa (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Something being called a list doesn't neccesarily make it a list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

GA bot

Latest comment: 9 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Titanic Memorial (Washington, D.C.) passed GA this morning and the bot hasn't added the icon or left me the standard message. Is there a glitch in the matrix? APK hi :-) (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Noting that the article hasn't been added to the GA Lists, although this is probably not the issue. Will add it now. CMD (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. APK hi :-) (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Christie This is at mismatches now. I'm happy to fix it manually, but checking if you want to troubleshoot this. CMD (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Go ahead and fix it manually; thanks. I had a look but can't tell what happened, but the bot did crash at around the time it should have promoted this article. I have an idea as to what caused the crash and will be trying to fix it soon -- it is happening every now and then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, done manually. CMD (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Contesting GA quick fail

Latest comment: 8 days ago12 comments8 people in discussion

Child abuse in association football have been quickly failed for WP:COPYWITHIN and WP:OR. While the 1st is a quick fix (that I have done) there is no clear details about the later (see Talk:Child abuse in association football/GA1). I have asked @Schierbecker to provide more elaborate answer as I want to improve the article and did not receive any reply although the editor is active. I understand there is no deadline here but not providing a coherent feedback from the beginning makes it hard to resolve the issues and - sometimes - contesting the editor decision as these decision are not made in vacuum and the assessor does not hold absolute powers to promote or fail an article. I wonder if other editors can take a look and either become a WP:3O or provide a more substance to the quick fail to help me improve the article. At the end of the day the GA process is there to help improve articles up to our standards and this is a very important topic that I truly want to get it right. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what Schierbecker was thinking, but at a quick glance the first thing I notice is that there are five paragraphs of text (375 words) in the section §Definitions, of which the first sentence (36 words) is actually about child abuse in football; the remaining four paragraphs do not mention football at all and the sources all appear to be about child abuse more generally.
Once we get into the stuff which is actually about child abuse in football, it all seems to be random collections of stuff: for instance, all we are told about France is that "Ahmed G., former amateur football coach, was sentenced to 18 years for sexually abusing and raping young players." Is this an important fact about Child abuse in association football? Is this the only, or most significant, case of child abuse in association football in France? It's unclear, because the only source is a contemporary news report. This is an article about a broad social issue, but it seems to be made up of a patchwork of random claims sourced to reports about individual examples of the issue: what it really needs is to be based on reliable sources about child abuse in football generally. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The section title is “Known cases by country” not sure what are you confusing there.
The definition of child abuse in general is needed because it’s not different from football. It is not like there is a football specific kind of child abuse.
the section also goes into details about other aspects relating specifically to child abuse in football FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Separately from Caeciliusinhorto's insightful comments on this specific article, to answer the question of "contesting" a quickfail in general: there is no process for contesting a quickfail. If you think the reviewer was wrong and they aren't amenable to changing their opinion, you can always renominate the article. Keep in mind that any future reviewer may well agree with the first quickfail, and a failure to address valid concerns from prior reviews is explicitly a quickfail criteria in and of itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it will be a huge waste of time to re-nominate the article without addressing the first reviewer comments. It will be a circular argument if the first reviewer did not comment properly and the next reviewer just agreed with them because they can read minds which I currently can’t (working on it. And that is why I am here FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes, pinging or replying on an article's talk page doesn't necessarily notify an editor. Make sure to check the editor's talk page and inform them before posting here. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, exactly. That is how it works though. Unless you think the GA Review was done in bad faith (in which case, this isn't the venue for a grievance), you can't change someone's mind about an article. If you fundamentally disagree with what they say, simply renominate. If you agree that it needs work, but want time to make those changes, just make the changes and renominate. You can't force someone to wait. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Personally I think that raising the issue here (as indeed the OP has done) would be a legitimate course of action if you think the quick fail is simply inaccurate. That doesn't have to imply bad faith, merely that something fundamental was missed. Clearly not the case here, as we see from the replies - this quick fail was justified - but making someone renominate and go to the back of the queue again when maybe no other editor would have quick failed it, seems somewhat harsh.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd argue that the renomination should happen regardless, and a comment here stating your thoughts and allowing another editor to pick up the second review if they agred is a better course of action. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
What are your core sources establishing the subject of the article? Because at a glance, I can't see that the article has a backbone that forms its scope. Looking at the first 31 citations, only citations 1 and 2 discuss the subject of 'child abuse in assocation football', and then citations 28 and 31 discuss the more general subject of 'child abuse in sport' (the latter of the two being focused on Zambia specifically). The remaining sources may in instances provide support for the article, such as providing a definition of child abuse, but these should be supplementary. They shouldn't be predominant within the article. They also generally shouldn't be necessary. If a source doesn't comment on the article topic directly, it probably doesn't belong in the article. Consequently, there is copious material that isn't tied to the topic concretely and is probably extraneous. As is, the mainframe of the article is closer to a 'list of instances of child abuse in association football' with an unfocused definition section than it is to an article on 'child abuse in association football'. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
“instances of child abuse in association football” that is a good title as child abuse is child abuse. FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The only parts of the article that are WP:DUE are the first paragraph of the "Definition" section and a highly summarised version of the "Children safeguarding in football" section. Everything else is extraneous information that should probably be cut. The "Statistics" section in particular strikes me as particularly WP:SYNTH-like; this may be what the reviewer was referring to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_32&oldid=1221885896"