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.

Rule of thumb for blank review CSDing

There are some long-outstanding review pages that don't have any real activity on them at all. Normally, another editor will come in and check up on them, and eventually they get CSD'd when there's no response from the reviewer. Here is one where Thebiguglyalien just came through to do just that. But in the interests of not dragging out this procedure unnecessarily, could we perhaps institute a general guideline for when we should simply nominate these for CSD without further discussion? How about one month? To be clear, I'm talking only about reviews that have not been started at all, beyond the usual "I'll take this review" opening comment. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I took a page from BlueMoonset's book (as it's mostly just them doing it) and nudged some of the inactive reviews, but I didn't give more specific instructions specifically because we don't have an agreed upon procedure like this. Anything like this should also apply where the reviewer has set up a template or headings but didn't fill them in with a review. For the ones where there was activity, we might also consider talking about second opinions, because right now the second opinion system is kind of useless. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to imply you'd done anything out of the ordinary, I just grabbed that one as a good example of what I mean by a blank review. I'm just suggesting that we make a guideline to cut down on this extra "are you still here" "[silence]" "nominator, what do you want to do?" in the process. -- asilvering (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think having a general procedure to point to is a great idea. I'd suggest a week. If you open a review but make no comment in a week, the review can be closed and the nomination returned to the queue. No penalty or particular shame, it's just a politeness to the nominator, so that the nomination has the chance to be picked up by a reviewer who has the time to dedicate to the review at the moment. Ajpolino (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

My initial thought was that a week was much too short, but on reflection, automatically clearing out reviews that are still blank a week after they were opened would probably cut down on the number of reviews that get stretched out over several months. == asilvering (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to recommend deleting without nudging, and also feel a week after opening is a bit short. Reviews can take time, and that time might only be possible on weekends or similar. That said, a week after nudging seems pretty harmless. If there is a consensus that nudging is not required, I would recommend multiple weeks, maybe 3-4, for CSD. There should be no prejudice of course to the same reviewer restarting the review page if they come back to it. CMD (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you think about "nudge at one week, CSD after a week of no response"? -- asilvering (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I could be convinced so long as the response can just be a brief "I am working on this", although it still feels a short timeframe for a nudge. As a general thought, the same principles being discussed here should not only apply to empty reviews but to partial ones, just with a different resulting process (CSD for empty, archiving and resetting for partial except in the few circumstances 2O may be useful). CMD (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I deliberately restricted this thought to blank reviews only, since I think partial reviews should be handled on a more case-by-case basis. There are lots of reasons why a review might have stalled out. Reviews that are simply blank, however, are all basically the same "case". -- asilvering (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was thinking of past nudging of months-old reviews, but appreciate the value of maintaining a narrow proposal here. CMD (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of applying this to stalled reviews of any stripe (of course, as CMD said, we would archive rather than delete stalled partial reviews). The reviewer could always start the review again at any time. No one is being penalized. Asilvering's suggestion of one week til nudge, another week til close, sounds good to me. If the reviewer responds in any way that would reset the clock. The idea is just to return nominations to the queue if the reviewer truly doesn't have time to complete the review. Ajpolino (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything the bot could do that would help? E.g. a "stalled review" section at the end of the GAN page, listing open reviews with no edits for more than N days? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would be excellent. In a perfect world, I assume we would want a blank review that gets removed (possibly even an incomplete "stalled review"?) to also be removed from the bot's count of an editor's GA reviews. Not a huge deal either way, of course. Ajpolino (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

If a review is deleted and another review is later done with the same page number, the prior review is no longer included in an editor's GA review count, though if the later review never happens the earlier one won't get removed from the stats. If the review is just marked as failed and the page number is incremented, the reviewer does get credit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, no edits for more than n days would be helpful. If it could check "no edits to article OR to GA review page" that would probably be the most helpful way to list them. N = 7? No one's suggested a time shorter than 7 days for any of the hypotheticals we've been discussing. -- asilvering (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this some time this weekend if I get time. I think what you're asking for should be possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, I'd like to get agreement on exactly what we'd want to see in a section called "Stalled reviews". Suppose the reviewer opens the review by posting a full review with their first edit -- that's not a stalled review, so is there a way to avoid including those? Some reviewers post an empty reviewing template as their first review; if they never edit it again that counts as stalled, but how could the bot tell those apart? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Aren't they both "stalled" if there's no motion after n days? -- asilvering (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I think an automatic list is only going to be helpful if the entries mean that someone needs to look at the review. If the review were to be deleted, it would disappear from the list, but if the list includes reviews that aren't blank and aren't going to be deleted then it won't be possible to tell if someone has already taken action. I could remove anything from the list if someone else posts to that page -- i.e. someone not the nominator or reviewer. Would that work? CMD, any thoughts? Since you were dubious below about the process to deal with non-blank stalled reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

My first idea for the bot would be to place a talkpage reminders for reviews which were opened but have had no edits since. This would miss say a review where someone writes "Will get to this soon" and doesn't, but on the other hand it would have no false positives. I would not put a section on the GAN page itself, that feels a very public sort of reprimand. We already have Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report, which gives an indicator of what is stalled even if it doesn't state the time of last edit. CMD (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think we should have automated talk page reminders for this! I thought we were talking about a line on the Report page you mention here. Reading back up, I see I misunderstood Mike Christie's initial comment, where he said "at the end of the GAN page". I don't think that's a good idea either - I was thinking about the Report page. -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I did mean on the main GAN page, in a section at the end, but if it would be perceived as a reprimand I agree that might be a bad idea. The way the FAC nominations viewer does it is to have "Inactive for N days/weeks" after each entry. Something like that might be possible; it doesn't single anyone out. That would not be easy to convert into "I need to go look at this particular review", though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I do think it could be perceived as a reprimand. The Report page, less so, I think, since barely anyone uses it. I've gone through the longest-running open reviews before both this backlog drive and the last one, and found in most of the cases that no other uninvolved editor had popped in to check on the reviews. For that reason, I don't think it would lead to significantly more people being hassled if there was a "no edits for n days" listing on the report page. I do think that having that list on the report page would allow stalled reviews to be noticed much earlier than they are now, which seems to be a timeframe of at least a couple of months. -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the speedy deletion of incomplete reviews is rather controversial whenever it gets brought up at MfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. No need to CSD incomplete "stalled" reviews. They can just be closed and the nom returned to the queue. The same could be said of blank reviews of course. I don't have a strong preference on CSD vs. close-and-ignore for truly blank review pages. Ajpolino (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, no intention of applying a CSD rule-of-thumb to incompletes, just the ones with no review whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was referring to @Ajpolino and Asilvering: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Blackpink/GA1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not talking about this kind of review. That's a complete review. It's a poor one, but it's complete, not blank. -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The current Talk:Blackpink/GA1 was not the one that was the subject of a MfD, the MfD was about the previous version which was essentially blank. That said, it was an MfD complicated by a new user engaging in procedurally questionable actions rather that added to the page history, so that particular case is an outlier. (The current Talk:Blackpink/GA1, being as you note poor but not empty, was invalidated and the counter incremented.) CMD (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I and the MfD were discussing the original review which was deleted Asilvering. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I suppose my confusion here is an argument in favour of not CSDing these pages... but I do strongly agree with you and jpxg in that discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Request Help with Abrupt GA Delist at Florida State University (Main article)

We are 3 days within the 7 days to contest an abrupt GA delist, so I am requesting additional editors and assistance today to resolve this delist while I simultaneously try to persuade the delisting editor to reverse their action. Another editor and I were in the middle of an appropriate GAR of the Florida State University main article. The cooperating editor and I were waiting for a subject matter expert to weigh into non-free materials assessment. All other matters were style and minor. A third editor enters and without establishing collaboration or consenus and abrupting delists the article, which has had GA status for years. Kindly help me resolve this matter. Sirberus (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Florida State University, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Florida State University/1. CMD (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The GAR was closed after two weeks of no activity on the reassessment page, and a week of no edits to the article, with copyright issues still unresolved. Closing the reassessment as delist in this situation does not seem problematic to me. That said, the reassessment has now been reopened – is there anything else that needs to be done here? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree—I have left comments at the reassessment, and will close it myself if there aren't arguments against. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Questionable reviews

Please see User_talk:TheNuggeteer#GA_on_Philippines_at_the_1924_Summer_Olympics, and also Talk:Jorge Choquetarqui, where I followed a suggestion by User:750h+ and undid the status change. Wait--I see this is part of a contest. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I've commented at the GA review; I think it needs to be speedy deleted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Also Talk:Giado concentration camp, where the editor didn't know what blockquotes were. Drmies (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is worth noting that these reviews are ineligible under the contest, which has specific recommendations for review length. I have dropped a note to the coordinators about making it more explicit. CMD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Talk:Giado concentration camp/GA1 doesn't hint to me that the so-called reviewer checked that any of the citations are of texts that actually say what they're presented as saying. Come to think of it, I don't see any evidence that the reviewer even read the article, let alone read a sample of what it appears to be based on. If I were the nominator, I'd take this "review" as an insult. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I was very surprised at the speed and commentlessness of my two GA passes—I assumed it was an experienced editor, but the blockquote thing should have tipped me off. Let’s be light on this editor, whose profile indicates he is gen alpha, so around 14 years old at most. It’s easy to misunderstand how involved a GAR is supposed to be, for those who aren’t familiar. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Age discrimination is not a helpful rectifying action here. We are meant to be non-bitey to all editors. CMD (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm all for sweetness to every soul. Just, a 38 year-old might take his mess-up being discussed in a certain way very differently from a 14 year-old. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I repeat my comment about pre-emptive discrimination. CMD (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I breakdance beautifully before you and we shake hands? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've tagged the remaining reviews (Sikidy, Giado concentration camp, and Jorge Choquetarqui) for CSD and restored their nominations on their respective talk pages. I'm not sure what if anything needs to be done with the transcluded reviews or the good article topicons, so I haven't touched them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the topicons should go; not sure about the transclusions ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Whoops

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2024 § Whoops

Hi. I did my first review and closed it as passed without realizing that I needed an experienced reviewer to check it. So, could anyone take a look? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• User:CanonNi, I didn't know you had to get this checked. I looked over the review and it seems like you addressed all the salient points, and it looks like you took it seriously. I glanced over the article, and the parts I looked at had no obvious prose problems, they had secondary citations, etc. So at least at a cursory glance I don't see any trouble. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Drmies, for the purposes of the backlog drive, we're making sure that every newbie reviewer has some degree of oversight from a more experienced reviewer. If you'd like to help out with that part, I'd encourage you to sign up for the backlog drive! -- asilvering (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    • asilvering, haha, I thought it said "backlog drivel". I appreciate it but I'm way too random for that--although I did run into a GA problem here; see the section above. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

      Well, I hope we don't have too much drivel in the backlog, but it does happen... -- asilvering (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing new nominators

We've had multiple discussions about whether nominations from editors with no GAs deserve to be reviewed earlier than other nominations, but I'd like to make a different case: reviewing nominations from these editors as soon as possible is beneficial for GAN.

I've done a lot of first-time-nominator reviewing, and my observations would include:

• They are more likely to fail
• They are more likely to be ill-prepared
• The nominators are usually (but not always) enthusiastic about the process and keen to fix any issues
• They also, more often than not, are clearly delighted by success in a way that those of us jaded by ten or more GAs have probably forgotten.

The two most important observations, though, are:

• The first review is a great way to show them how a review should be done -- detailed spotchecks, verification of sources, no complaining about aspects of the MoS that aren't part of GACR, and -- a key point -- how communication works between the nominator and the reviewer.
• The first promotion is the perfect time to encourage them to review. They've seen how reviews work, and they're successful so their skill is validated. If they've already done a review, I sometimes post a note on their talk page after promotion telling them that that's why I picked their GA to review, and saying we always need reviewers.

I think first-time nominators are the pool from which we should be hoping to draw the innumerable reviewers we need to keep GAN going. If you review first-time nominators, you will see more than your share of editors who (currently) lack the skills to put a GA-quality article together, but you'll also be helping to attract new reviewers, more effectively than any other method I can think of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

well-said :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

indeed! -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about a review: Taj Mahal

Hi! I want to bring to notice that the review done for Taj Mahal seems to be done by a reviewer in a haste with the review not done as per all the GA criteria.

Background: The article was a GA for many years (2006-2021) and it was de-listed. The article has gone through multiple reviews (eight GA/FA/peer reviews/reassessments to be precise), with three previous assessments retaining it as a GA. The concerns raised in the previous review where it was de-listed (gallery, citation tags, expansion of certain sections), have been fairly addressed. The article is fairly expansive, was a GA and has gone through improvements to address the issues.

In the current review, the reviewer seems to have taken up a few random citations and has found contentious reasons (e.g. "It is not available in Google Books", "it is rather vague", "Author's meaning is different") for discrediting them, quickly failing the GA on the same. Ironically, some of these sources discredited are reliable, verifiable, and have been there for years through all these reviews.

As an editor, I would have been happy to provide clarifications if this was discussed and would work on improving the article if constructive comments have been provided. As comments provided previously have been addressed adequately, the current review adds little value as to what needs to be done. Would request clarity on the below points:

Book citations have been rejected simply because it is not accessible on Google Books or it requires paid access. As per WP:CITEHOW and WP:RS, onus is on providing the required details and not that the book should be available for free or in Google books, I presume. This is of concern as majority sources quoted here are journal sources with paid access and books. There has been no concern raised on this over the years through multiple assessments as well. I request for clarity on verifiability of books not accessible through Google Books and paid journals with respect to the GA.

While there are quick criteria for the failure of GA, in my opinion, the review has not done justice to the article and certainly is not a case for quick failure. Would request further comments or second opinion on this as to how to proceed. Thanks!

Tagging co-nominators as well: The Herald and DreamRimmer.

Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

As co nominator, I agree with MM. The review seemed to have been done hastily for a former GA and former FAC. Also, it would be better for an experienced GA reviewer to take up an article like Taj. It is definitely not in a quick fail criteria and can always be improved upon. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I gave a full reply on the review, but to me this is overstating the prominence of "inability to access sources" in the review, and it doesn't mention some fundamental issues with OR and failed verification. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien To me, your revert seem to be only justifying what has been done and does nothing to address any of the concerns. Please let me be clear here. The intention is to productively work on the comments/issues, so that it can be addressed and I do not want to simply waste our times in engaging in a fruitless dispute just for the sake of it with no real clarity at the end as to what to do. Whether it is a GA fail or a pass, a GA review should be fair enough to do justice to the editor(s), who put in effort and nominate the article. I will state in certain terms that this review at best throws some clarity requirements for a few statements and does not provide much to help in improving the article further.

Your comments also conveniently fail to sufficiently address any of the questions or clarifications raised here. So it would be helpful if these are addressed point by point. I am repeating this, as this was the whole pointing of raising this here as this would again help in getting clarity on these issues, so that they can be worked upon.

1. It has not addressed the basic question of why book/journal sources were simply considered not verifiable because somebody was not able to access it. Shouldn't a clarification be sought from the editor in the first place? Are book sources not available in Google Books prohibited as per WP:RS? Does the GA criteria say that if the source is not available in Google Books or requires a subscription, it has to be considered unverifiable and quick failed?

2. There was no comprehensive review on all the criteria. The page has gone through iterations and if it is quick failed with few suspect comments (which in my opinion is nowhere close to the criteria for quick fail), another reviewer might do the same for another paragraph and GA reviews will roll on forever. Unless there is a comprehensive review with comments and some kind of consistency, I do not see a point of having a GA framework.

3. In my opinion, for vague or rather unclear statements, an editor's response has to be sought. It might at best be a minor edit if there is a disagreement and the entire statement does not certainly become unverifiable because the interpretation of particular word(s) were different (your answer to one of these issues seem to be suggesting exact copyvio from the source).

As a last request, let me know from your experience as to what should be done as an editor here based on the comments, so that I will proceed accordingly with the page concerned.

Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Books and journals do not have to be accessible to the reviewer as you state (although the nominator should be familiar with them).

2. There does not have to be a comprehensive review of all criteria if there are sufficient issues identified for any one part. It is not expected that as part of the process significant issues will be found and given time to be addressed, articles should be as ready as possible before nomination.

3. I am not sure what this is asking, but disagreements can be handled by discussion.

What should be done as an editor is to edit the article in question and ensure the sources back up the information they are citing. From the examples provided, there are improvements that can be made in this regard. CMD (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Or, if you think there are no improvements that can be made, you can simply renominate the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, as reviewer I've provided answers to the points raised by Magentic Manifestations at Talk:Taj Mahal/GA1#Response to Magentic Manifestations. I stand by my decision to quick-fail the article because the sample of six spot-checks clearly indicate the failure of citations to directly support material, as required by WP:V. I therefore consider the article to be, per WP:GAFAIL, a long way from meeting the requirements of criteria#2, which includes WP:V. The spot-checks have also revealed breaches of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Happy to discuss further. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@CMD, Thanks for giving clarity on the points. I do agree that there are clarifications needed + improvements that can be made and I am happy to do it. My whole point was that this could have been resolved through a simple discussion if the reviewer was willing to do it in the first place and it certainly did not satisfy the criteria for a quick fail (hence my request for a comprehensive review!).

@AirshipJungleman29, I will sort these out and re-nominate it for a proper review.

The user PearlyGigs is engaging in unnecessary and irrelevant discussions/mudslinging on the GA page, bringing out my past reviews/edits. This does not reek of someone who wants to engage on a constructive conversation.

@PearlyGigs A discussion is what you ought to have done before. Request you to stop engaging in discussion not related to the subject at hand and not to go on a WP:Witch hunt, which is against the basic rule of civility. Keep the discussion to the relevant subject at hand. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Magentic Manifestations, I had walked away from this to concentrate on Leon Leuty (GAN backlog) and Charles the Bold (GOCE backlog). How you are handling a current GA review is entirely relevant to your criticisms of myself and Thebiguglyalien in respect of WP:GAFAIL and the way to use verification spot-checks, because it underlines your evident misunderstanding of the approved process.

As for "mudslinging", I think accusing me of feigning ignorance and suggesting that Thebiguglyalien endorses COPYVIO would qualify for that. Your being the victim of a witch hunt is rather an exaggeration considering that I have merely explained, albeit at length, my rationale for the GAFAIL, which includes noting that your objections indicate a failure to understand and comply with WP:GAN/I#R3. Your approach to the Ken Anderson review seems to confirm this and I think it is a learning point for you. I am not interested in any of your "past reviews/edits". Ken Anderson is a current review, now on hold, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to pass it without getting confirmation that an offline source in your spot-check sample directly supports its material?

Perhaps, as you are obviously so offended by the failure of the Taj Mahal review and so certain that I am entirely in the wrong, you should take your issues to WP:ANI? I will be happy to discuss the matter there if you are not prepared to WP:JUSTDROPIT. PearlyGigs (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@PearlyGigs How I handle my GA reviews is irrelevant to the GA review of the page discussed here. If there is an issue with such specific review, the respective nominator can address that and you are neither his/her voice nor the ultimate judge of things here. FYI, I have not failed the article for GA with dubious reasons for the sake of not spending enough time.

As for you cannot provide relevant reasons for the questions raised, you seem to be hell bent on dragging things irrelevant to the GA process at hand and proving that I am right. You seem to be offended as the issue was brought here and have added a larger retort bringing in a whole plethora of unnecessary jargon. As clarified by CMD here, try and understand the how the citations work and engage in a proper discussion next time, which could solve most of the issues and save time for everyone. Also, as two users have pointed out in the review page, try and familiarize yourself with the GA process by taking shorter, less traffic articles next time.

I have as such mentioned that the discussion on that particular GA is going nowhere and has dropped it. So please stay within the ambit of what is discussed and stay out of other discussions in which I am involved unless you have a due cause/constructive contribution or this is definitely going to go to ANI. Ciao! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:DISENGAGE is one of the site's wiser policies. If anyone who reads this discussion should wish to ask me anything, or offer any useful advice, please go to my talk page. Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is List of Smallville characters a GA?

Shouldn't it be a Featured list? I think it's still good shape-wise; I don't keep up with this show, so I don't know if it's up-to-date. Spinixster (trout me!) 10:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The article seems to have been named "Characters of Smallville" when it was originally a GAN, which was fine then, but it later got moved in a RM to the current title. It should likely be either removed as a GA (as an ineligible list) or assessed for FL status. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

While it has been renamed to a 'list of' format, it is absolutely not a list article. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, comparing it to a similar Featured List article, say, List of The Mandalorian characters or List of Millennium characters, it's quite similar. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic, but boy does that Mando list badly need a revamp. The minor characters section is almost entirely unsourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Assist

I went and did a part of a GA assessment of Aoi Koga earlier today, can someone used to the GA process check if it is good? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@AlphaBetaGamma, you can list this on the backlog drive page as well, to increase the likelihood someone picks it up soon. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

2023 nominations

We're now half way through the year 2024, but there are still over a dozen nominations from 2023 that never got reviewed. If you're not sure what to work on, consider reviewing one of these:

• McLaren MCL60 (start)
• Jews in the civil rights movement (nom)
• Infant school (start)
• Murali Vijay (start)
• Barry Sheene (start)
• 2022 North Lanarkshire Council election (start)
• Josef Hoop (nom)
• Rodolfo Calle (start)
• King Manor (start)
• Dual-threat quarterback (start)
• Satti Majid (start)
• Mafeje affair (start)
• Makwerekwere (start)
• September 1983 Laws (start)

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Correction

The original review for 2022 City of Edinburgh Council election was messed up by a now blocked editor. The nomination was passed earlier today but, when updating this page, the bot hasn't recorded it as my 12th GA. Is there a way to correct that? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The GA numbers are usually updated overnight, but there have been a couple of discrepancies recently so I just ran the update manually. The database now shows it as a pass, so the next time the GAN page updates your numbers should be up to date. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Godzilla Minus One/GA1

@Broc and Eiga-Kevin2: Hi, I was about to nominate this newly-promoted GA for WP:DYK and found an interesting factoid in the Critical response subsection, until I spotted close paraphrasing on a few texts in that section:

Article	Source
Tokyo-based film critic and journalist Mark Schilling wrote that Japanese critics frequently rebuke the films of writer-director Takashi Yamazaki, partly because "most are left-leaning" and view a few of his films, most notably the war drama The Eternal Zero (2013), as "nationalistic if not outright jingoistic". Schilling also mentioned that critic and historian Inuhiko Yomota was critical of Godzilla Minus One, calling it "dangerous".	Japanese critics, though, have long been hard on Yamazaki, one reason being that most are left-leaning and they see some of his films, especially his 2013 action drama “The Eternal Zero,” about WWII tokkōtai (kamikaze) pilots and based on a novel by rightist author Naoki Hyakuta, as nationalistic if not outright jingoistic. Even “Godzilla Minus One,” in which a plucky band of civilians, including a disgraced former tokkōtai pilot, band together to save Japan from Godzilla, was called a “dangerous movie” by essayist and film historian Inuhiko Yomota in a Facebook post.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, American critics praised its drama, low-budgeted visual effects, and usage of kaiju as a metaphor for social commentary, with many favoring it over recent Hollywood productions.	U.S. critics have unanimously praised the film for the remarkable visual mileage Yamazaki got out of the project’s relatively small budget, as well as the story’s moving human drama and canonical use of the kaiju as a metaphor for social critique. [...] Godzilla Minus One seems to be earning especially favorable comparisons to Hollywood’s recent output of franchise sequels —
According to Dana Stevens, Ryunosuke Kamiki's performance is memorable because of his ability to convey the protagonist's vulnerability and emotional distress.	Kamiki’s anguished, vulnerable performance is one crucial part of what makes this protagonist so memorable,

Broc, were you able to examine thoroughly the prose for close paraphrasing issues? Because there could be more in this section and elsewhere. The examples above are just from English-language sources, I think the Japanese ones should be examined further. If it turned out that the article contains even more CLOP issues, then it may need to undergo a GA reassessment. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy thanks for pointing it out. I did run Earwig while doing the GA review and did not find major copyvio issues.

Regarding the close paraphrasing you pointed out here:

For the first sentence, I don't see the substantial similarity between the left and right column. The article uses direct quotes when needed and provides attribution to the author in-text.

The other two sentences also provide clear attribution, in-text ("according to...") and with an in-line reference. However, I agree that they look rather similar to the original and could use direct quotes instead.

Per WP:CLOP, Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism however, in all three cases you raised there is clear in-text attribution. If these are the only copyright issues, I don't see the need for GA reassessment. Broc (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Broc: Ah, okay. I thought the texts and those of the sources looked nearly identical in structure and flow; missed that one CLOP policy. And I assume you checked the Japanese sources as well? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy all I did was reading the policy, don't consider me a copyright expert. If you think the issue needs expert judgment, please raise it at WP:CP.

I did check a few Japanese sources as spot check; however, I don't speak Japanese myself, and the machine translation is often unreliable. Broc (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks. I apologize for this inconvenience. I think that'll be all. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)