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, 34

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 .

Backlog Drive

May starts in two weeks, and so does our next GAN Backlog Drive. We've already established a theme, so it'll be newbie-oriented. Is anyone willing to coordinate the drive besides me? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to help:) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging our previous coordinators @IntentionallyDense and Ganesha811: to see if they're interested. :) Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traveling next month so I won't be able to coordinate, but I'll probably participate and do a few reviews! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Have fun traveling. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! I'm not great with the technical stuff but I do like helping newbies. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear! We'll do our best. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you guys. I nervously remembered I hadn't done anything to set this up a week or so ago but was buried in other stuff, and was then reminded of it again by the watchlist notification. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that more newbies will sign up for the drive in the coming days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could send talk page messages to invite recent newer reviewers? IAWW (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. However, we'd need a list of reviewers who have less than 6 reviews and were active in lets say past three months. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could provide a list like that, once you're agreed on what the numbers are for those parameters. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential reviewers could also be added to the list, that is persons who have nominated an article or two for GA but have no reviews yet. -- Recon rabbit 17:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. We could also notify them. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

less than 6 seems good to me! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oops i meant also to say i agree that 3 months is a good range for activity. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025 is up! Please sign up. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about this until I heard about it through Wikipedia:Discord. Maybe a notification message should go out? -- Recon rabbit 14:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages watchlist message should go out. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll request one now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had no idea about this until recently IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review did not count

Yesterday, I failed the article Life Till Bones. However, it is still showing up on the album nominations page, does not show up in Toolforge, and my review count has not gone up. I reviewed it normally; I hit start review and failed it, following the typical instructions. What is causing this? Locust member (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot isn't updating WP:GAN currently. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 20:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the bot's log when I get a moment; tonight, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this edit should fix it; the next time the bot tries to update GAN it should work. The problem was the user signature, which had a user space link to a subpage instead of the main userpage as the first link. EF5, ChristieBot currently can't handle your signature -- you don't have to change it, but if you nominate any other articles, would you change the nominator parameter in the nomination template to a simple link to your user page? I'll take a look at handling this situation a bit more gracefully as soon as I can, but the basic issue is that the bot has to use whatever is in that parameter as the name of the nominator, and it can't always easily tell which of multiple links in a signature is the right one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now updated the bot so it will not crash when this happens, but it won't correctly identify the nominator. This is what the result would look like if the nominator parameter has this issue: the nomination for EF5 drought gives the nominator incorrectly, which will screw up the stats for users who have this sort of link in the nominator parameter. I'll put this on my list to fix but it will take longer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks for fixing it. Enjoy the drought article. :) — EF5 ^(questions?) 15:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help

It's many years since I nominated a GAN, and I might have made an error. I'm trying to nominate Caerleon pipe burial, and I left the subtopic blank since nothing seemed appropriate, but that seems to have sent it into limbo, can't see it at Miscellaneous or anywhere else. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Miscellaneous now. Sometimes it takes a bit to update. CMD (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CMD, thanks. As I said, it's been a long time since I posted on GAN Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 28 April 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In my GAN (1992 Flores earthquake and tsunami) in Earth Sciences in Natural Sciences, can someone make it known that I will be self-blocked until May 30 due to school stuff? WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfireupdateman, you can add a note to your nomination under the "|note=" parameter at Talk:1992 Flores earthquake and tsunami. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added a note to the talk page.WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of the copyediting criteria

Looking over GAN reviews, many tend to be dominated by long lists of copyediting nitpicks. Under the GA criteria, the only copyediting issues that should be evaluated in a GAN review are:

Whether there are any parts of the article that are unclear
Whether the article is concise
Whether the article complies with Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable
Whether there are any spelling or grammar errors in the article

Excessively detailed copyedits have become a major contributor to scope creep at GAN. It increases the overall time for the reviewer to check the article and the nominator to respond to the reviewer's concerns. If reviewers feel there are copyediting fixes to be made beyond the listed issues above, I encourage them to do so through the normal editing process, to list the other issues they noted separately in the review as "additional suggestions outside of the GA criteria", or even to fix things as they review if they're minor non-controversial changes. I also encourage nominators not to feel like they're obligated to write perfect FA-level prose if the article already meets the listed standards above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second that reviewers should clearly delineate the points not relevant to GA, and encouraging a much more hands on approach. Maybe these should be added to the GA reviewing instructions? However, I find ironing out all the grammar errors is normally one of the biggest if not the biggest time consumer in GAN reviews. Fixing dangling modifiers, WP:CINS mistakes and unclear sentences normally contribute a lot to the "long lists" of prose points. Sure, these could all be fixed directly by the reviewer, but then nominators are more likely to make the same mistakes in the future which leads to even longer review times. I think making articles fully grammatically correct is just a big job a lot of the time, and there is no way to avoid it. IAWW (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent I think we're overly-focused at GA on perfect rather than understandable grammar. If the error makes part of an article unclear in some way, it's worth pointing out. Otherwise, I honestly don't know that it matters at the GA (rather than FAC) level whether the commas are perfectly placed (or other minor errors of precision rather than clarity), so long as it's reasonably, well, readable for the reader. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but isn't that just not what the GA criteria says? It says "spelling and grammar are correct", not "spelling and grammar are mostly correct"? IAWW (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new looking at the GA project, so take this as the opinion of a newb. I just got through my first GA review (took a LONG time, largely my fault but there was a few issues that popped up with reviewers) on the article for Technical geography. I was looking at the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and honestly I'm not sure I can tell the difference between what I'd expect from FA and what I experienced with GA review. I'm honestly not sure what the difference is between the article types at this point. Would be nice to see clearer differentiation between them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage, if you can't tell the difference, sounds like your GA review was unusually harsh. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to say that exactly, Talk:Technical geography still has them visible if you'd like to judge. One reviewer got banned mid review, and I had a move/new job that really delayed my response to the second one, so they took FOREVER. That said, looking at the feedback and what I changed, I'm not sure how much a FA review would do differently based on the criteria I read. I'm hesitant to nominate that article until I have more time to dedicate to a project like that though. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at a glance, Talk:Technical geography/GA1 seems unnecessarily nitpicky and time-consuming. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to scroll to reach the end of the table of contents. Hard luck, @GeogSage. This was definitely not normal. -- asilvering (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've said before that we should be screening reviews, especially from new reviewers. That was in the context of them being too light, but perhaps we should also be nudging people who make their reviews too heavy. The former hurts the process in making the ratings less accurate, while the latter hurts the process by making it difficult to go through. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you should sign up for next month's backlog drive! -- asilvering (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How would screening reviews work? Would they ever need individual manual approval (e.g. marking as patrolled) or are you more envisioning a culture of checking in on new reviewers to give feedback? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More the latter; the former has been discussed over the years but was deemed impractical. I urged Mike Christie to make User:ChristieBot/SortableGANoms for this reason, but it doesn't really get used much. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how I would use it for this purpose. I would want a list of GANs under review and the ability to sort reviewers by number of reviews. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. The hardest part was the losing the first reviewer, and ultimately starting a second review because of that. The page is likely much better because of all the feedback, which is the point and ultimately a good thing. I want to bring the page to FA status at some point, it's a passion project of mine to get looking good, and I hope the reviews make that process smoother. Glad to hear that this isn't the normal thing to expect though, as I'm planning to nominate a few more down the road... I'm looking into trying to learn how to review as well, so good to know that level of detail isn't expected. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage, the backlog drive next month is a good way to get into GA reviewing - there's a process for having new reviews checked by an experienced reviewer in this one. You should sign up! -- asilvering (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will consider helping. My new job has sucked the free time and energy out of me the past few months, but I have a much lighter load during Summer and would like to help. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second what asilvering said. If you need help with reviewing GANs, you'll get it at the next month's backlog drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wholeheartedly. Drives me batty when reviewers ask for changes that take longer for them to write out than it would for them to fix. -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think some reviewers are (perhaps unnecessarily) afraid to make changes themselves. They may be concerned about crossing the line into being a major contributor and thus too involved to review; I also think some may be worried about stepping on the nominator's toes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TBUA for the reminder, I know I can be guilty of this. I also flagged in a recent review this quote from WP:AGF: Many people misunderstand Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy as meaning "assume another editor performed due diligence" or "assume blind faith" regarding a reference, editor, or content. However, the actual intention is closer to "presume good intent", which does not mean "I do not have access to a source, so I 'assume good faith' about the source's content."

I've seen (and done) this in reviews a few times and it may be helpful to give it broader attention. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it necessarily makes article review take longer, as a reviewer should be reading the article, but c/e concerns do end up as an unnecessary area of focus. I suspect this is due to a couple of reasons. Firstly, it's a really easy area to comment on, and thus perhaps an area a newer reviewer may feel comfortable digging into. Secondly, this sort of nitpicking dominates FACs, so I suspect that bleeds over a bit. Thirdly, as PMC notes, directly editing may not be attractive to a reviewer, so if they see something they feel they would change they want to note it somewhere, so it ends up on the GAN. Lastly, copyediting can mix in with other issues, such as reflecting sources well, so it pops up in discussion of other criteria. Perhaps, as with the occasional overfocus on images, we need to better encourage the notion that in this respect a GA does not have to be perfect, and that a reviewer can pass an article even if they have copyediting concerns. CMD (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. The prose needs to be understandable, but not of a professional standard like for FAs. Therefore, I encourage reviewers to copyedit and fix grammar mistakes in the article, but not to considerably change how the article looks (this should be rather left to the nominator). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]