Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsJuly Backlog DriveMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport

Good article nominations

This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN) and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

Feedback on review

Looking for some feedback on the recent review I completed of MidCity SmashedBurger before I start another GA review. I am quite nervous I am going beyond the scope of GA, and would appreciate some line drawing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The criteria say The six good article criteria are the only aspects that should be considered when assessing whether to pass or fail a GAN. Other comments designed to improve the article are encouraged during the review process but should not be mandated as part of the assessment. In other words, it's fine and encouraged to pick up on whatever points of improvement you can during the review -- technically speaking, for example, spelling, grammar full MoS compliance and factual accuracy are not strictly part of the criteria, but it would be a very strange idea to consciously pass over mistakes in those if you spot them. Reviewers often preface non-criteria comments with "advisory" or something similar. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar are part of WP:GACR 1a: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct, so that's not the best example. There are however indeed many things that are not part of the criteria that can nevertheless make a big difference in terms of article quality. TompaDompa (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, fair point -- amended, more strictly, to full MoS compliance, which is probably the most common and important case study here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou. Feel like I'm slowly realising what's in scope, and this stuff helps. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Controversial quickfail on Arleta Library Bakery & Cafe

Earlier today I quickfailed the page Arleta Library Bakery & Cafe. I did this as I believe the article requires a significant rewrite to meet the GA criteria. It looked like this at the time of review. The co-nominators strongly disagree with the quickfail and many of the comments I made in the review, and after this discussion they renominated the article. They noted some criticisms of how I went about the quickfail here. I am avoiding closing any nominations until I receive feedback to avoid reproducing possible issues. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Good quickfail, imo. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging TrademarkedTWOrantula and Another_Believer Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

GA reviews are "cheap" -- there's nothing stopping the nominators from re-nominating it immediately, unlike at FAC. I've been on the wrong side of this as a reviewer before, but in general I try not to fail an article without giving the nominator a chance to respond unless there are serious issues that will take an undue amount of work on the reviewer's part to establish when they are addressed: for example, where there are large-scale copyvio problems, or where enough concerns came up on the sourcing that it would need a more thorough check than is reasonable at GAN to establish that things were sorted out. Other reasons under the quickfail criteria are that the article has unaddressed cleanup banners, ongoing edit wars, or outstanding issues from a previous review. In other cases, generally, it's a good idea to give the nominator(s) the chance to reply and make changes.

It does seem like most of the matters of contention in this review were about what counts as notable or important: that's not as clear-cut as (for example) the article containing missed citations, unreliable sources or policy violations, and so would generally be the sort of thing where a bit of discussion is helpful. The quickfail criteria don't advise an immediate failure simply for not meeting the criteria unless it's a long way away from doing so; in future, it might be helpful to explicitly tie the judgement into the criteria (here, I think the issue was mostly 3b), and to be clear why you think, as the quickfail criteria say, it's not reasonably possible to fix the issues in a sensible span of time. However, ultimately it's your decision when you're the reviewer -- as we've seen here, if the nominator(s) disagree, there's no problem with putting the article up again and seeing what happens with a second opinion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that this quickfail was appropriate and within reasonable reviewer discretion, though another reviewer may not have chosen to quickfail. Reviewer time is precious and we should not be expecting reviewers to go above and beyond to salvage articles that are simply not ready. This reads like an advertisement. Honestly, the article doesn't even make any real claim to notability for this restaurant and I'm not sure why it has an article when it needs to clear the higher bar of WP:NCORP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI regarding good article reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent incivility by EEng about disruption in a good article reassessment which may be of interest to those with experience at GAR. Pinging @GAR coordinators: Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Or, for a direct link, the assessment itself is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/2. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about inactive reviewers

Hi everyone. On 10 June 2024, a GAN review for Cécile Fatiman was opened by Caeciliusinhorto. Two weeks after the initial comments were left, the reviewer informed me that they'd been delayed by real life stuff. They again left some comments on 9 July 2024, but have been entirely inactive since then. This review has been left open for over a month and a half now, and I don't see the end in site. Is there anything I can do about this other than wait for their return? I'm anxious to see the process for this article through to completion. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Two weeks of inactivity isn't terribly long when real life hits, so mostly you should just wait a bit longer. You could send a ping and/or talk page message to remind the reviewer that this GA review is almost completed and just needs final checks; some people do take note of pings or messages even if they do not edit. WP:TIND. —Kusma (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

How do deal with a name change with an unstarted GAN

Hi all, I've recently completed a WP:RENAME and I want to update my nomination template on Talk:Parental rights movement without breaking anything on the back end, so I thought I would check here first. Am I good to go ahead and replace the |nominator= section on the talk page or are there other considerations first? I understand the database is maintained by a bot, so I wanted to check first, or to see if there was something I would need to so as to not miss anything. Thanks, and apologies for any inconvenience, this is my first GAN. — Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You can just change the signature in the template on the article talk page. Anything that contains a link to your user page or user talk page will work; I've just made the change for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)