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 .

Talk:Tamparuli/GA1

Talk:Tamparuli/GA1 was created by the nominator. I noted this on their talkpage, and suggested either deletion or renomination, but they have not edited since nominating. Two editors have now left separate comments on things that need looking into, so I am now less convinced renomination makes sense. Does it make sense to fail it, so the nominator can fix those problems before renominating when they return? CMD (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who creates the GA page is the one who will get credited as the reviewer, so it would be better to delete it if possible. Perhaps move the comments to the article talk page? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just move it and transclude it to the talk page from the new location. The GA bot won't know the difference between that and a deletion, but we'll get to keep the page history and comments that way. -- asilvering (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meaningfully different from incrementation? I am wary of creating custom page titles, they seem likely to get lost. CMD (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is different as far as the bot is concerned, if that matters. The first instance of the page gets recorded in the bot's history database; when a second version of that page shows up, it will mark the first as superseded, eliminating it from statistics. Incrementing leaves the statistics from the first instance of the page in place. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just subst the newly-created page and then histmerge it to the talk page? That preserves the history and gets rid of the custom subpage. It's not like it's an aggressively active talk page, so it won't mess anything up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good solution to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with defective reviews?

This question is prompted by an issue that arose earlier today, but my question is more general than just that one article, so I won't name it. This was a case of what appeared to be a defective WP:GAN review, i.e. an article was listed as GA when it should not have. I've been involved in a few of those, and it's never clear how to best address the problem. In the past, I've seen some bad reviews simply deleted (under WP:G6 IIRC?). The current feeling seems to be to bring these to WP:GAR, but that process seems a poor fit. Some clearer guidance would be useful. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only reviews that are never really started are G6ed, it has not previously applied to reviews with more effort, whatever their final quality. A common process for a defective review, if it is recent (I don't think we've discussed hard rules on what is recent, but we've managed so far) is to revert the passing of the article and renominate it for a new review. CMD (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination record

This is kind of an unimportant question, but is there a way to register co-nominations? I ask because many years ago, User:Glimmer721 and I worked on the article "Blink (Doctor Who)" together. While Glimmer officially nominated it, we openly saw one another as 'co-nominators'. However, the page isn't listed on this page, and the discrepancy bugs me, heh.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~You can list the co-nominator in the note when nominating an article.~~ The bot only seems to pick up the user who nominated the article. Considering that the co-nominator is only usually listed in the note (a separate parameter for a conom doesn't exist), I don't think that there is a way to fix this. I might be wrong though. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bot doesn't recognise co-nominators. See recently e.g. this discussion. If you search this talkpage's archives for "co-nom"/"co-nominator" you'll find various people asking about it but it's never been a formally recognised part of the GA process. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0 and Caeciliusinhorto: Thanks for the quick responses! That makes sense. Darn!--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 15:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is my review sufficient?

Hoping someone could help a newbie in this space. I have reviewed an article, but is my review sufficient? Is there anything else I need to formally do / submit / complete to be able to call my review "good and done"? Community's guidance will be appreciated. Galileo01 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Galileo01, please read WP:GAN/I#R3, especially the first point. This page may also be helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Contest

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest^{[citation needed]}—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31, and may be of interest for folks watching this page. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. Winners are those who provide "best additive encyclopedic value", judged by the amount of improvement and 'coreness' of articles. Signups are open now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:TAGS" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:TAGS to the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 8 § Wikipedia:TAGS until a consensus is reached. This redirect is heavily used in good article candidate assessments. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]