Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:00, 9 January 2025

• WT:GAN

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.

See the Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, several other GA talk pages redirect here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33

GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4 Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 GA help: 1, 2 Nominations/Instructions: 1 Search archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Inactive reviews

I was checking inactive reviews due to the backlog drive coming up, and I saw the following:

• Talk:Sleeping Beauty (1959 film)/GA3: I think the reviewer said they are fine with a second reviewer, but haven't marked it as such. Plus the nom has been inactive for 24 days.

  Relisted.

• Talk:Jonna Adlerteg/GA1: The reviewer has been inactive for more than a month, but it does look almost finished, so maybe it should be marked as needing a second opinion?

  Luckily this review seems substantially complete, unlike a couple of others from the same reviewer, and the reviewer seemed broadly positive on it. If there are no objections, this one might take a light lookover and pass.

• Talk:IMac (Apple silicon)/GA1: Have had no review despite being open for more than 3 months

  Relisted.

• Talk:Andhra Pradesh/GA3: Also have had no review even after being open for three months

  Reviewer has not edited since the ping three days ago, giving this one a bit more time.

  Reviewer has returned.

• Talk:Amos Yee/GA1: The reviewer barely started and have been inactive for more than a month

  Relisted.

• Talk:Mating of yeast/GA2: Had no edits for a month, then had a week of reviewing, and then again has no edits for a month

  A bit more of a confusing one, probably should be relisted, but I've dropped a note on the reviewer talkpage.

  Reviewer has not replied despite editing again, relisted.

• Talk:June/GA2: The reviewer had filled out a review template, but has said nothing, or failed it (as they marked in the template), maybe they are inexperienced

  Opened just this month, dropped a note on the user talkpage.

  Reset.

• Talk:Yang Youlin/GA1: New reviewer did not review, just marked it GA on the talk page, and has not been editing for two weeks (after having not edited for 3.5 months)

  This one is a bit weird, usually I'd wait longer given the review just opened, but, given the talkpage action, the lack of activity in general, and the upcoming drive, not opposed to relisting sooner.

  Failed.

Can something be done about these- either marked as needing another reviewer, or reset, as seems best? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking all this. I've relisted three obvious cases in line with my understanding of our precedents, other comments above. CMD (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. There are even more GANRs similar to the above, but they were all started around less than a month ago, so I only mentioned the most egregious ones. Might do a similar check around the middle of next month. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer came back for Andhra Pradesh, I'm going to try and second opinion Jonna Adlerteg. This is the second time Mating of yeast has been relisted, which is a bit of a shame. Otherwise the rest are handled. CMD (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Second opinion on review

Can I get a second opinion on Talk:Hilda Heine/GA1 to confirm that nothing was missed? I ask because History6042 has already had their reviewing scrutinized at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30#Potential issue with review of Arithmetic (again), and since then they have passed Talk:Texas Centennial half dollar/GA1, Talk:Serbia Against Violence (coalition)/GA1, Talk:Charles Brenton Fisk/GA2, Talk:National Gathering (Serbia)/GA1, Talk:Branislav Djurdjev/GA1, and now this one without taking the feedback on board. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

What was wrong with Serbia Against Violence (coalition), Charles Brenton Fisk, National Gathering (Serbia), and Branislav Djurdjev, no issues were brought up about those. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, I might not be fully sure what a spot check is, the only thing I could find just said see if the sources are good and say what they are. Am I wrong? If so someone please explain to me what a source spot check is. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If necessary I can go back and do one one Hilda Heine once I understand what a spot check is. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I did that now. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Crusading_movement/GA5

In the context of the backlog drive this one could do with a little help to get over the line. It has been on the list since July 2024 and in review for a month now. Mea Culpa it used to have issues with overly close paraphrasing of sources but it should be sorted now. AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) is doing a source check. IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) did check in at Christmas and there was some objective points raised that are now all resolved. What would be really great is if another editor or editors could have a look and give additional feedback/comments. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

As I have said, the review is in progress. I am waiting to gain access to a couple of books. Of course, "Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article", especially with regard to source-text integrity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My impression was that Airship had this review handled. An article of this size is bound to take awhile. IntentionallyDense 19:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @IntentionallyDense and apologies for my impatience @AirshipJungleman29. I shall sit on my hands for a while. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Taking into account that the nominator has failed to clear the article of close paraphrasing and copyvio during a series of reviews for more than four years, I think the reviewer's precaution is quite reasonable. Now, I do not want to refer to several cases of unverified claims and misinterpretations. If I were Norfolkbigfish, I would be extremly patient and grateful. Perhaps, they could meanwhile clean "their" other articles of close paraphrasing and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Former GA

Is there a list of all delisted GAs by when they were delisted? I want to see the newly delisted articles. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you want new ones you could watchlist Category:Delisted good articles. CMD (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think most of the GARs since the change to remove the individual GAR option end up getting logged in the reassessment archives, although I can't guarantee that those are fully comprehensive. Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Archive 82 is the most recent one; the ones delisted from that are Joseph Franklin Rutherford, USS Texas (BB-35), Forbes Field, United States constitutional criminal procedure, Melbourne Airport, 1997–98 Manchester United F.C. season, Tristan da Cunha, Temper (film), 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song), Anuel AA, National Register of Historic Places, Fantastic Four in film, Mitch Daniels, Portland Monthly, UConn Huskies women's basketball, and Teleological argument. You can also check the various topical subpages of WP:GA and look in the page history, although anything by FACBot to "update good article list" is an GA being promoted to FA, not a delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 05:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation style in GAN

I haven't found an in-depth conversation about this so I'm going to be the one to ask. Is a consistent citation style required for GAN? I ask because MOS:LAYOUT requires it per "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." However footnote 3 on Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria says "Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied so that the reviewer is able to identify the source.".

I always assumed that the actual criteria itself would outweigh the footnote but I'm not sure. I've never personally failed an article over inconsistent citation style, however I do bring it up or fix it myself when I see it. Is there situations where it would be appropriate to request people use a consistent citation style? Welcoming anyone more experienced than me here. IntentionallyDense 17:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't got more expirence than you but will provide my opinion regardless. The way I see it is that: an article should use a conaistent formatting style, but it is not something that you should fail or hold up a GA nomination for. SSSB (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The baseline for GAN as I understand it has always been that the footnotes provide sufficient information to accurately identify sources, for example urls needing access dates and long sources sometimes needing page numbers. I wouldn't look at the dotting i's and crossing t's though, that's more FA. CMD (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That's totally fair. Would it be appropriate to bring up in a review regardless (as in "hey this is a minor issue"). IntentionallyDense 18:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It is best practice to emphasise when reviewer suggestions are optional and not part of the GA criteria (but I sometimes forget to be explicit about it). —Kusma (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this makes sense and while I was under the impression that consistant citation style was needed (still unclear) I will take this approach moving forward. Thank you. IntentionallyDense 18:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree, GA should be a light-weight process. When you edit an existing article, it's very time consuming to get all the citations you keep in the same format without much benefit to our readers. The GA criteria should trump MOS:LAYOUT. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

IntentionallyDense, you say you're still unclear -- it's definitely the case that GA does not require a consistent citation style. Any mixture is fine at GAN. You're free to mention to the nominator that it would be beneficial to regularize the citations, but promotion should never be held up for it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying! To be clear I’ve never failed a nomination for it in the past but I have mentioned it before. I’ll make sure to mention it as optional from now on though! IntentionallyDense 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

no, a consistent citation style is not strictly required at GAN - it's required at FAC. as CMD said, it's really more about having citations that are clear and have enough information to identify the source. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Although the GA criteria require complying with MOS:LAYOUT, inconsistent but functional citations shouldn't be the sole reason to fail a GAN. However, you ask " there situations where it would be appropriate to request people use a consistent citation style?" – yes, in my opinion, if the inconsistency is so bad that it becomes difficult to verify content. For instance, if the inconsistency in ordering and formatting of citation elements (author, title, publisher; or various dates) leads to confusion about which is which. Toadspike 10:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Curry/GA2

I do have concern over the article, especially the editor is only 3 months, they suspiciously reviewed thos big article and think the article is almost to be promoted when there are visible issues. 2001:4455:389:2700:68AF:4149:23D4:B384 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to reiterate what I said on the review page, so other people get a balanced view- it's a good review, and it's on hold, not "near passing". If they read and understood the instructions properly, which they seem to have done, then there being new is not a big issue (also, politely- you are an ip? how do you know what a newer editor can or cannot do?). Nothing suspicious about reviewing big articles- they might like the topic or want more bonus points at the backlog drive or for whatever reason they like. And there are not "visible issues", the issues are actually quite small for an article of this size, and they seem to have mentioned most of them. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, this seems like a perfectly well-conducted review. The points you bring up aren't part of the GA criteria or are entirely up to personal taste. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think your definition of "spotchecking" is different from everyone else's. As a hint, WP:GANI states "a spot-check of a sample of the sources" (emphasis mine). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

(remove the G in GANI, and that is where the IP should be sent to) 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd also note that contra what the IP claims at Talk:Stephen Curry/GA2, the inclusion of citations in the lead is not a problem. WP:CITELEAD explicitly says that citations are not prohibited in the lead, and notes various cases in which citations in the lead may actively be desirable or even required. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, everything seems to be in order in the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)