Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport

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.

Mark Zuckerberg

Would anyone be willing to review the aforementioned article? I assure the community here that this is not a drive-by nomination. I am the article's second-highest editor and the fifth-largest author. Furthermore, the four authors ranking above me in terms of authorship have been inactive for a long time. Victor Trevor last made an edit on English Wikipedia in October 2023, Soulparadox in April 2018, Light Show in March 2024 (though he has made only 37 edits to English Wikipedia since November 2021 and none to Zuckerberg's since March 2017), and Likeanechointheforest since May 2023. Hence, I look forward to someone taking it up for GA-class assessment. I will most willingly respond to any comments made on the GA Review talk page so that the article can be improved to GA-class. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You should be aware that GA nominations may take a long time to be reviewed, usually many months, and there's no order or predictable timetable to it. You'll just have to be patient. In the meantime, why don't you review someone else's article? It is not required, but you can benefit your own nomination by just reducing the number of open nominations awaiting review. That way, when a new potential reviewer shows up, there would be a higher chance that yours will be the one selected. Cambalachero (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not discrediting your work here, but fifth-largest author is a fairly generous phasing when it's 2.5% of the prose. I understand that the other authors are not active, but some things are just not reasonable to GA when no single author has contributed to that degree. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

MSincccc's attempts to persuade people that he is lead author or editor, when he has a tiny proportion of the authorship are well known, and frankly getting tiring by now, particularly when they have been told several times. " I have 14.7% authorship whereas you, Keivan, have 8.5% authorship", "I am the second highest author", "I have 4.2% of the article attributed", It was a mistake on my part that I claimed to be a significant contributor to Sherlock Holmes' article", "I have made the ssecond largest number of edits to the article and further rank among the top 15 in authorship"... in all these cases, they are either only technically a ranking author in number of bytes or characters, never, that I could find, in actual prose additions, or anything else that persuades me through demonstration that they understand the material. And when the sheer number of discussions and editors becomes disruptive, well. ——Serial Number 54129 17:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; I want to assume good faith here, but taking an article mainly written by others and doing a couple tweaks before submitting it to GAN seems pretty firmly against the spirit of things here. When other people have done far more for the article, even if they're inactive, they're the one who deserve the recognition, not the final person to add a couple finishing touches. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Remember that the GA process is about the article, not the editor. The rules about the "main" editor are only meant to prevent clashes over who gets to decide if the article is ready for nomination, to answer the points that may be made during the discussion, and other tasks related to the process. It's not meant to be an award. If a user finds a decent but abandoned article and nobody else minds if he does so, he may nominate it and manage the discussion as if he had written it himself. Cambalachero (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree. If Stephen Hawking wrote the best article Wikipedia has ever seen and forgot to nominate it for GA/FA, I wouldn't insist that it remain B-class forever just because he's dead and no one could hope to improve it. MSinccc has posted an appropriate message on the talk page, and if the nomination is successful, I don't think anyone would mind one of the original editprs putting a GA badge on their userpage if they return. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I did leave a message on the article talk page. To note all facts, all the authors above me are presently inactive as I have previously mentioned. In that case, the article will never come to GA-class status. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Please understand that I'm still learning and growing, being a kid. I've dedicated considerable time and energy to contribute significantly to all the successful GA promotions attributed to me. My sincere desire was to elevate the aforementioned article to GA-class, and I've diligently worked towards that goal. I eagerly await feedback from others. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've made numerous prose additions to the articles of William and Catherine. I've never run a bot on those articles (the ones I ran had to be reverted as they were from Google Books). Furthermore, I've given up my claims of authorship on the Sherlock Holmes article. Also, I did contribute significantly to Philip's article to make it GA-worthy. Regards and yours faithfully. MSincccc (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 and @Generalissima I'm not sure why Serial Number 54129 is questioning my genuine claims of authorship in the articles I've contributed to over the last two and a half years. MSincccc (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Because you have consistently misrepresented your contributions at the expense of others. Because you have repeatedly been told your approach is wearing. Because you seem to regard GAs as a right. And because you have never attempted to change your approach even when being called out on being wrong (see discussions passim, cf. Sherlock, cited above). ——Serial Number 54129 18:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The Sherlock Holmes article and its drive-by nomination have become a strawman by now. I have apologised and not repeated my offence. I am open to suggestions to improve my work here, and I have kept my word. Regarding this article, I have contributed to it over the last two-plus years and am quite familiar with its content. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It might come across better if you framed any future posts in this vein along the lines of explaining the work you have done on the article, your familiarity with the sources, etc, as opposed to just saying "I have such-and-such authorship percentage." The first is substantive, the second is merely a statistic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/MSincccc/0/Catherine,%20Princess%20of%20Wales
• https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/MSincccc/0/William,_Prince_of_Wales
• https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/MSincccc/0/David_Cameron
• https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/MSincccc/0/Mark_Zuckerberg
• https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/MSincccc/0/Bill_Gates

MSincccc (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That's practically the opposite of what I suggested. Do you understand what I mean when I say "explaining the work you have done on the article, your familiarity with the sources"? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos Apologies for any confusion. I'm well-versed in the events to be covered in Catherine and William's articles, the appropriate sources to cite, and the preferred wording. I've extensively worked on citation parameters and articles using British English. Currently, I'm focused on articles about David Cameron and Liz Truss, two former British prime ministers. In the future, I aim to bring articles on William, Catherine, and Bill Gates to FAC once I find relevant book sources and more high-quality content to support the nominations. Being a child, I'm open to suggestions and would appreciate mentorship, especially regarding GA nominations like this one for Zuckerberg. Wishing you all a great day ahead (though it's already evening here). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There you go. That's the kind of post you should be making when you're preparing to bring these articles to GA. Don't highlight authorship percentages, highlight the substantive work you've done. You'll get much less pushback. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to note that Liz Truss was promoted to FA last October, and the FA nominee is still active as a steward on the article. I’m not sure it needs any additional work done on it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

If someone genuinely wanted to get Mark Zuckerberg to GA, I assume they'd do the basics and at least sort out the WP:LEAD, which is full of novel information. Lawyering about authorship when the basics haven't been done is not promising. If it is not withdrawn I am inclined to quickfail it. CMD (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if a reviewer could provide some comments that I can then endeavour to address. I would be glad if a reviewer left some comments which I will try to follow. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I gave a specific comment above. At any rate, GAN is not meant to be peer review. CMD (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis I meant that instead of quick failing the nomination, it would be helpful if the reviewer who eventually assesses the article leaves constructive comments that I can address to improve the chances of the article becoming a successful GA. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you planning to address the comment I left above? CMD (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. @Chipmunkdavis. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis I've condensed the lead section and relocated all citations except for the Forbes references, which pertains to net worth, to the article body. I'm proceeding in good faith and welcome any feedback that could enhance the article's chances of becoming a GA. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is his net worth and Times Person of the Year accolade not relevant for the body? CMD (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It could be integrated into the article body, and I'm prepared to do so. However, if we opt for this approach, it would need to be applied consistently for all billionaires whose net worth is sourced from either Bloomberg or Forbes and deemed relevant for inclusion on Wikipedia. This includes figures like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jensen Huang, among others.

Additional comment: @Chipmunkdavis, Could you please review the article and provide feedback there? This way, I can address the comments and work towards the article achieving GA status. It's just a request. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this, but I, for one, find it extremely irritating when GA nominators nominate obviously-subpar articles, without a clue why they are subpar, and then expect reviewers to hold their hand as they go step by step through a rewrite of the article. That is not what reviewers are for. If you are going to nominate an article, you should (1) understand the GA criteria, at the level of being able to conduct a competent review, (2) review the article you are about to nominate, yourself, and find the points where it might not meet the criteria, and (3) fix the article, on your own, to clean up the problems you found in your self-review.

What you seem to be expecting instead is that someone else does all of the work in finding problems, and all of the work in describing step-by-step how to fix those problems, and then you get all the credit for the GA for being their typist. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't wish to claim credit for a GA if the article is being improved based on the reviewer's feedback. CMD suggested removing the Forbes citations related to Zuckerberg's net worth from the article lead. My response was that if we remove them, it should be done consistently for other billionaires' articles as well. Currently, the article is well-written with no cleanup tags, unreliable sources, and clear and consistent prose. I've been working on the article for over two years. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the article in question, as well as others you mention, adhere to WP:LEAD. Such adherence is per WP:GACR a component of being "well-written". CMD (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis I have moved the Forbes and Time references to the article body under the "Recognition" section. Thanks for your advice. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Blackpink/GA1

This nomination was opened for review by Garethphua on 18 April but the actual review was never conducted; today, 750h+ failed the review, writing, I am failling this nomination as the reviewer is an unexperienced user with only 15 edits. Unfortunately, this is not the proper process—the nomination should not have been failed, but either the review unwound or deleted—and 750+'s advice to nominator Nkon21, you may renominate the article, would have lost the nomination over six months of seniority in one fell swoop, since it dated back to 4 October 2023.

I have removed the inappropriate failure (in the form of a FailedGA template) from the article talk page and reinstated the original GA nominee template with page=2 and the 4 October 2023 date. Apologies to Nkon21 for the inconvenience. I hope that a more experienced reviewer ultimately selects your article to review. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, my apologies for this. The Sydney Morning Herald 16:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The page was blanked, then restored, and is currently the subject of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Blackpink/GA1. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, i didnt understand how the GA review system works, i accidentaly opened the review and didnt know how to close it.

i didnt find the review instructions clear, i suggest those who know how to edit the instructions to do so. Thanks in advance and apologies for the inconvenience. Garethphua (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Garethphua, it is not much of an inconvenience. Could you clarify which part of the review instructions you found unclear? Or perhaps missing? This would help us in refining. Best, CMD (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I kinda forgot what was unclear, but could you add how to remove a nominatiom, i couldnt find the button or source to edit for it. Garethphua (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Garethphua, that depends what you mean by "remove a nomination". If you mean to take the nomination entirely off the list, you would remove the template from the article talkpage, but that's not an expected process for new reviewers. If you mean how to close a review once you have started it, the instructions state to contact the nominator or to leave a note here. I'll add a wikilink for that second part if that helps. CMD (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

GAN count of GAs now includes GAs that are now FAs or have been delisted

Per this discussion I've changed ChristieBot to assign a GA promotion count to an editor by counting all GAs that were promoted, regardless of whether they are still GAs. There are a couple of pros and cons to this change:

• SDZeroBot (which maintains the count used up to now) does not include any articles that are no longer GAs.
• SDZeroBot does not include counts for editors whose name includes an apostrophe, though for Tim O'Doherty the maintainer did a manual update. I think Tim is the only editor active at GAN with an apostrophe in their name, so this was not a current problem.
• ChristieBot does not include any GAs that predate the use of subpages for GAs (i.e. "/GA1" as part of the page name). SDZeroBot does include these. There are several hundred GAs like this but there are no active editors with more than a handful of GAs that old, so I hope this will have no noticeable effect on the counts.

Please let me know if anyone sees a problem with the new numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Crusading movement: several cases of plagiarism

As the nominator (Norfolkbigfish) has failed to detect several cases of plagiarism in the article crusading movement for three weeks, I think the reassessment process can be closed, and the article should be delisted. The article should as soon as possible be restored into the redirect page it used to be before Norfolkbigfish filled the article with texts copied from copyrighted material. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The article has now been listed at WP:CPN, which will handle the question of whether the article needs to be revdelled/redirected. If the copyright clerks decide yes, than the GAR close will be procedural. I suggest waiting for that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

GAN statistics tool now shows current state of the article

Per a suggestion from Bilorv, the GAN statistics tool has been updated to add a column that indicates if the article is currently a GA, FA, or neither. This has significantly slowed the tool down, so I may add a checkbox to make it optional to report this. By "slow", I mean it takes about a second for every ten GA reviews + nominations to be reported on. The most prolific GA reviewer/nominator has nearly two thousand articles to display, which means it will take their page about two or three minutes to refresh. For most people it should respond in under twenty seconds.

The tool looks for the strings "{{featured article}}" and "{{good article}}" in the article text, and assumes that anything that doesn't have either is either delisted or was not promoted. As usual, let me know of any issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, works for me on smaller accounts well, but time adds up fast as you note. Any chance checking for a category on the talkpage would be faster? CMD (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so -- the slowness is caused by having to open each of the GAs as a Wikipedia page, and doing that for the talk page probably wouldn't be faster. I just realized I could probably open the various GA listing pages and check for those, however, and similarly for the FAs. That could be faster. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I just tried that change and reverted it; it was unreliable because so many GAs are still in the GA pages under names that are now redirects. I'll see if I can think of another way to do it, perhaps with categories. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That shouldn't be the case. Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches lists only four. Sometimes it gets backlogged up to the 20s, but shouldn't be a noticeable percentage of GAs. CMD (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I will take another look; perhaps I misinterpreted the results I got. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I've rewritten the code to use the GA lists and it is a little faster, though it still takes about two minutes for the most prolific users. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Very nice! Do you need to check the article text or would it be enough to check whether the talk page is in Category:Wikipedia featured articles etc? Also, I am confused how my GA/FA for Anna Blackburne ended up in the "Physics and astronomy" subtopic; I don't think it belongs there. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The subtopic codes are a bit haphazard; "natsci" is presented as the "primary keyword" for all Natural sciences, but actually codes for the physics and astronomy subtopic. I have changed it to "biology". CMD (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Super, thank you! —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Crosspost: Complex copyright issue

I'd be particularly interested in input from participants here at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Complex_copyright_issue since it involves a current GA. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Older GARs needing comments

Posting here to encourage participation in reassessments from more people than the regulars at the GAR page. These are older discussions where improvement is not ongoing and which could use more participation.

• Patrick Omameh, (link to reassessment) – American football player (born 1989)
• Louie Caporusso, (link to reassessment) – Canadian ice hockey player
• Crusading movement, (link to reassessment) – Framework of Christian holy war
• Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion, (link to reassessment) – Fictional entities in the anime television series Neon Genesis Evangelion
• Muhammad in Islam, (link to reassessment) – Role of Muhammad in the Islamic religion
• Citroën C3 Picasso, (link to reassessment) – Mini multi-purpose vehicle
• Giant Schnauzer, (link to reassessment) – dog breedPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback

Any comments on the above would be useful. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Dazed and Confused (film)/GA1

I couldn't help but notice the lack of activity in this GAN page: neither the nominator nor the reviewer has touched the review page since it was created. Can someone intervene? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I have left an inquiry on the reviewer's talkpage. CMD (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

@Mike Christie: I've passed the article Aishwarya Rai Bachchan as GA earlier today and even updated the article's talk page as well as the Good Article nominations page. While ChristieBot has added the good article icon to the article, it is yet to leave a message on the nominator's talk page. Furthermore, the GA statistics tool recently created by you also shows the article as "Under review" at the time of writing. Would you please look into the matter? It would be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)