Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Good article nominations

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 FAQ above 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.

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 .

Cat intelligence

Cat intelligence im looking make it a good article. i know i have work to do. but any feedback or pointers ? Astropulse (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Astropulse, no comment on that article in particular, but are you aware of WP:PR? -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.. ill try that Astropulse (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Astropulse: You have edited that page for the first time this month and uploaded a video which may or may not be representative of the intelligence of a domesticated cat—as the domesticated cat has barely been domesticated, in contrast say to the domesticated dog or the domesticated horse—and placed it in the lead. Thereafter, you have made a flurry of recent edits to the article, the largest percentage in the lead. Common courtesy would require you to post on that article's talk page, either ping or post on the user talk pages of editors who have been editing the page for much longer, and ask them if the page is even ready for a good article nomination. Your edits to the lead are jargon-ridden in contrast to the simple summary there was before. You have added the remarkable second sentence to the lead, "Structurally, a cat’s brain shares similarities with the human brain,[1] containing around 250 million neurons in the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for complex processing.[2]" where 1 is Richard Gross's Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour and [2] is a conference paper from 2010 in High-Performance Computing. Do your sources bespeak due weight? For example, there is no reference in your additions to Dennis Turner and Patrick Bateson edited much read, much loved, and much-revised volume on the domesticated cat. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS Perhaps you should ping user:LittleJerry, whom my fading human brain remembers from somewhere in FAC Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i only summarized the contents of the article that was there before and used associated references. i didn't add any new references. if references are incorrect, then it was incorrect before. I will double check references later. Nothing in there is factually incorrect. Astropulse (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to Report of Old Nominations

For those who read the Report, what do you think of a change from listing Old nominations over 30 days to over 90 days? This would change just that one section from a list of 500 nominations that were added 30 days ago or longer to a list of just over 100 nominations that were added 90 days ago or longer, helping the Report considerably; people can't manage more than that. Prhartcom (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of think 30 days is a sensible ambition, no matter how distant. I'd prefer to create "Very old nominations", "Ancient nominations", etc. to split it up rather than exclude everything younger than 90 days. CMD (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. -- asilvering (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't that long ago that 30 days was a realistic amount of time to wait for a review, especially for those who do lots of reviews. I can't remember the last time I had one that was less than three months get reviewed. I wonder if there is not a better way to encourage the amount down, rather than change the goalposts. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost article

What do you think about a collaboration amongst experienced reviewers for a Signpost article about why and how you should review good articles? It may slightly increase reviewer participation. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are the whys we could write about? I suppose for me, if I review an article, I learn something new. Building a similar level of knowledge to when I am working on an article myself, but without the actual hassle of working on an article myself. (Reviewing does take time, but not as much as writing!) CMD (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If any of us had nominated a good article, we could write about how long it took to get reviewed, if that makes sense. For instance, when I nominated my GA, it took about a month or so before it was reviewed, and I was very grateful when it finally was. So something about how it feels good to know that other nominators don't have to wait any longer. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment submission of one's own GA

Hey all. From what I've seen, nominations for GA reassessment tend to come externally from people that notice an article no longer meets GA criteria. I'm not sure I've seen any reassessments requested by people for their own prior GA nominations, but I wanted to know if this was something that could/should be done in some cases. I ask because since my 2023 nomination of Virginia Bolten, Steve J. Shone has published a book chapter about her that is not only more in depth but clears up some historical inaccuracies that have made their way into the article. At some point in the near future, I intend to integrate Shone's work into the article and hopefully correct the mistakes in there, so I wanted to know if such a large change would require I submit it for a GA reassessment. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, GAR seems like the wrong approach for articles for which the sources have changed since promotion—as opposed to those that have deteriorated in quality, or were effectively first promoted in a state below present standards. Remsense ‥ 论 14:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you're fine. I suppose you could start a reassessment, argue that the article was terrible and refuse to bring it up to standard, get it delisted, then improve it and resubmit it for GAN... but if you do that, I'm coming after you with a cartload of trouts. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely won't be overloading the process by doing anything like that. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have submitted their own GAs for reassessment. Just be aware that if there are no obvious problems, they usually end up with few comments, as no-one can find obvious problems. If you do want a fresh opinion, it might be more worthwhile to reach out to trusted wikifriends for informal reviews. CMD (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! I'll see if anyone else fancies giving it a look-over once it's updated. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting the "Film" text

Launchballer copyedited the "Film" section. This was immediately undone by the bot. If I remember correctly, any changes made to the page will be undone the next time the bot runs so the bot's code is what needs to be updated if we want to change something. I think the copyedit was an improvement that should be rather uncontroversial. Ping Mike Christie who runs the bot. TompaDompa (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that boilerplate is in the bot's code. I'll make the copyedit, but how about setting up those text chunks as templates? Then the bot could subst them in each edit, and they would be editable without changing code. If we like that idea, if someone could create the relevant templates I'll change the bot to use them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The copyedit has been made; it should update the next time the bot updates the page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAR

There are 80 reassessments currently open, of which about half have been open for the minimum month. I don't have time tonight, but the older ones could really use attention from those familiar with the GA process to start moving some of these towards a consensus. Hog Farm _talk 03:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a huge burden on the already seriously-strained resources available here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something is up with the transclusion. Kempegowda International Airport is at the top for me, despite being an old one and already closed. CMD (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It happens when a reassessment is reopened after closure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed 29 reassessments; hopefully we can get more eyes on the remainder. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hitting a wall with things that look ready for closure but have not quite hit their 1 month timeline yet. I'll try to poke some assessments along this weekend. Unfortunately this is an inevitable side-effect of mandating a 1 month waiting time. I hate to ask people to nominate things less, because that's obviously not a good answer, but we only have a handful of people closing things (and I do acknowledge I haven't been as active at GAR as I'd like to be). But anyone can weigh in on a nomination or try to improve articles. That only requires basic editing knowledge and really helps with forming a consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a very useful job. It's not obvious how we can work with a shorter timescale given the general staffing shortage here; we could I guess have a "SNOW CLOSE" feature to our policy, i.e. permit early closure if it's totally obvious that everyone agrees on a keep or whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done IAR closes before one month if there's a clear consensus to keep; if the issues have been fixed I see no point to keep it wrapped up in red tape for weeks. Hog Farm _talk 20:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weightlifting section

Current there are three weightlifters, namely: Tham Nguyen, Zoe Smith, and Solfrid Koanda, who are GAs. They are listed in the "Sport miscellanea" section. Would it be more apt to make another section for weightlifting/Olympic weightlifting? Arconning (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For only three entries, I don't think that's worthwhile. I don't know the exact number I'd say merits its own section, but it's definitely higher than three. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA statistics tool broken?

FYI: I tried to use the GA statistics tool located on the GA Review Circles page, but got an error message. Clicking on the tool popped-up URL https://ganfilter.toolforge.org/g_editor_query/?editor_name=Noleander in my web browser, but the display was "Internal Server Error" (and no statistics). It could be a configuration issue with my computer or browser, I suppose. I don't need to run the tool, but I thought the GA gurus would want to know. Noleander (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traveling at the moment but will take a look when I get home. It probably just needs to be restarted; I think I recall this happening before. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]