Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsOctober 2024 Backlog DriveMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport

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.

Number of reviews and GAs

Hi, I just nominated 1, in my signature it says I have 0 reviews, 0 GAs. I seem to recall I might have reviewed an article a long time ago (over a decade). But I also have Talk:Glass/GA3 and previously participated in a GA review (but perhaps doesn't count). Is there a reason the stats are incorrect? Polyamorph (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The nomination of Glass/GA3 is fixed in the database; it should reflect the update on the GAN page the next time the page is updated. Not sure why the bot got that wrong first time but I told it to take another look and it got it right this time. For reviewing, the person who opens the review is the one who gets credit as the reviewer -- there's no facility for crediting coreviewers or those who take over from reviewers who abandon a review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Great,thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I also have the same problem, as the bot states that I have 3 GAs and 22 reviews, when I have 7 GAs and 30-something reviews. Maybe it's because I changed my name earlier this year. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The bot page has instructions for name changes. If you'd like to be credited with the stats from your old name, just let me know the old name and I'll connect them to your new name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes please; my old name is "20 upper". Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Done; the GAN page should show the revised statistics the next time the page is updated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion as nominator

A new-ish editor who hasn't even been around for two weeks, opened and reviewed a Good Article Nomination of mine today. Talk:Rogue (Doctor Who)/GA1 is the specific review page. I found a number of problems with their review, requesting adjustments on things, that if changed, would go against Wikipedia policy and the Good Article criteria, which leads to believe they're not quite ready to be taking on GA reviews right now. I was wondering if someone would mind glancing over it really quick and letting me know their thoughts, or what the next steps would be if others agree with me? TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I had a glance, it's a bit hard to track reference numbers without a fixed oldid, but generally it seems the questions surround source reliability/use. It's possible others will have thoughts on these, but the next step given your reply is to wait for the reviewer to respond. There's no indication this can't be resolved with further collaborative discussion. CMD (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no indication this can't be resolved with further collaborative discussion. Unfortunately, the reviewer resolved the issues by fixing the article themselves and closing the review. Not only did they do this before the nominator above had the chance to see and comment on the changes, they did so before the co-nominator had been able to get involved at all. See the following diffs for the edits: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]; and the closing of the review here: [6]. I'm not sure what is best to do next; I don't think the article is in bad shape, but I also don't think it passed fairly. Looking at the discussion a couple of sections above, it possibly needs an immediate GAR from an uninvolved editor? JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no indication this can't be resolved with further collaborative discussion. I should have tried to do that instead of using point 4 of this to be bold and make that many changes, I realise that now. The co-nominator did make a change, just to be technically clear. I would say it follows the criteria for Good articles and therefore passed fairly despite what I have done. But I'll be fine with the immediate GAR from an uninvolved editor, if that's deemed to be the necessary and right thing. - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

October GAN backlog drive page up

Participants can now sign up for the next backlog drive at Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2024. To quote from the drive page:

The aim for this month is to completely eliminate the backlog in the first list: we want all nominations submitted before 1 October 2024 by editors who are relatively new to GA to be out of the queue by 31 October. If you're an editor with fewer than 10 GAs, get those nominations in before October begins! As a stretch goal, we're also going to try to eliminate the backlog of GANs by all nominators who have reviewed more articles than they've nominated.

If you've got a reviews-to-GAs ratio that's close to even, now's your chance to take on a few extra reviews to make sure your nominations make it into this drive. -- asilvering (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

As always, volunteer co-ordinators gratefully welcomed. @Vaticidalprophet? @Ganesha811? @Vacant0? Anyone else? -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I should be able to help out, count me in as a coordinator. Isn't it a bit early for signups, though? It's not even September yet. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No harm in folks signing up early. Mostly, I wanted to get the page up and the theme settled far enough in advance that interested editors whose GANs would qualify have a chance to submit articles in time for the drive. And (I hate to break it to you, but) September is barely more than a week away. -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help again. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Great! -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I know it's still late August, but considering that new users in the GA process will have to submit articles before the backlog drive starts, when do you think it would be appropriate to start promoting the GAN backlog drive and send out messages to possible participants? Also, when should we start filling in the list of articles? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

(Bringing your comment back here and redirecting the drive talk page so others can weigh in if so inclined.) I'll fill in an "example list" soonish to test out some formatting possibilities, but there's no point in making the actual full list until immediately before the drive. As for promoting the drive to people nominating articles to GAN, I wasn't planning on doing that much at all. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

British Birds Rarities Committee appears to be miscategorized

It's listed under "Biologists", which doesn't sound right, and I'm not sure how to fix this. Rusalkii (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What would be a better placement? CMD (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Unexperienced reviwer looking for some input from more experienced reviwers.

I'm relatively new to reviewing GAN and want to make sure that I'm giving articles the best chance possible. I just finished up a review for Dilaw (song) that was nominated by @Royiswariii. You can see my review at Talk:Dilaw (song)/GA1. There are a couple things I am unsure of in my review. First of all, the article uses Facebook posts and comments as sources. I understand that sometimes there aren't many reliable sources on a topic, but this just feels increadibly unreliable to me. I am also unsure if the "Background" (Dilaw (song)#Background) is appropriately on topic; however, this just may be my lack of knowledge on how articles about songs are written. Lastly, the article does seem to be written from the POV of a fan. This is in no way to criticize the writer here; however, I am not confident in my assessment of the tone and would appreciate others input on the topic. I do feel that this article is a fair bit away from meeting GA criteria; however, my lack of experience with reviewing is leading me to question that conclusion.

Any input is appreciated. Feel free to also edit or add things to my review. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Facebook references, WP:USERGENERATED would appear to apply here: Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are [...] Facebook. Therefore it would appear to fail on criteria 2, as the sources are not reliable. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to me! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Are the Facebook posts from an account confirmed to be owned by the musician, studio, etc? If so, they can be reliable under limited circumstances per WP:ABOUTSELF, although secondary sources are virtually always better. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Some of them are from the musician however the article also cites comments from the facebook posts. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This kind of thing is fine: On April 29, 2024, he further teased the song with a video captioned, "happy crush lang daw pero grabe kiligin???" (They say it's just a happy crush, but why do they feel so giddy???). It's simply a statement that the song was teased, what was said about it, and the date: the facebook link is a fine source for that, from the purpose of verifiability. But that whole section is sourced to social media posts - that is to say, it's WP:OR. There's worse OR out there - this is at least basic and verifiable - but for a GA we want to know what secondary sources said about the topic. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for further clarifying things. The part that was sourced by a facebook comment was "A social media user speculated that Maki would release a new single titled "Dilaw", noting that he had recently performed it in Concepcion, Tarlac." I do agree that there is worse OR out there but my standards are slightly higher since it's a GAN. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

recently listed good articles broken?

The recently listed good articles section on the main page doesn't seem to be getting updated as no new GAs have been placed there for a couple days now. Is there a bug or something? Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Splitting off Brooklyn from Architecture – Buildings of the United States

There's 35-40ish Brooklyn architecture GAs, how do people feel about me boldly splitting them off into their own little subdivision? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Architecture – Buildings of the United States

Well, it's no Manhattan, but 35-40ish is a decent number. CMD (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

And it's not as if Epic's going to stop writing them ;) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

TyphoonAmpil

TyphoonAmpil is currently having his first review, which is not a problem, he's already pretty experienced! But since he got a bit wrong in this review, saying i fix Errors Tomorrow, I just want to ask for an experienced reviewer to help this newcomer to review this article. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The article needs copy-editing before it passes GA 1a. Owing to its short length, this shouldn't be a major issue and could probably be resolved in timely fashion within the review. Looking only at the section mentioned by TyphoonAmpil, I found the following examples. The Guangdong Provincial Meteorological Bureau hoisted a level three emergency response plan, while the Fujian counterpart hoisted level four. Hoist as a verb means to lift an object particularly by ropes and/or pulleys. This is near certainly not the correct verb to use. In ... the residents were also warned for proposed showers and downpours a more natural wording would be either 'of expected' or 'about expected'. A more subtle example is [a] more severe amount .... There is nothing severe or intense about a numerical figure. I would avoid the phrasing entirely for tone, but if retained it should be made clear that the airport experienced severe/intense rain rather than the figure being severe/intense. I also suspect that 'Severe Tropic Storm Lionrock' should be re-titled 'Severe tropical storm Lionrock' following WP:LOWERCASE as the term 'tropical storm' is not a proper noun and doesn't appear to be forming a proper noun when joined to Lionrock – particularly gauging from the lack of capitalization of the term in the Chinese government sources cited. With regard to TyphoonAmpil, whilst I appreciate the productive intent of the editor, I'm afraid that instructions such as Not say letters own find Typo click edit indicate a command of English too limited to properly assess criterion 1a. One last thing, with regard I don't think you should fix the errors; you should spot the errors instead so I can fix it, that how GA reviewing works. Minor issues or errors can be fixed by the reviewer, as specified in the reviewing instructions: [i]n the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

(Replying from my alt) Going to fix the issues, do you mind being the co-reviewer? Jettward (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I can co-review it for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)