Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQBacklog DrivesMentorshipReview 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 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.

Mention source spot-check in the criteria?

I noticed that the reviewing instructions at WP:GAN/I#R3 say every review must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article, but the supplementary footnotes to the official criteria at WP:GACR6 are not so explicit about this expectation. Right now there is a footnote that says this:

Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources that agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in-text attribution if necessary)."

What about revising that to something like the following? (the text formatting in the quote is an update to how that page currently appears.)

Every review must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary). If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means."

That's pretty long, so I think we could also remove the parentheticals, since people can seek full clarification on the linked page. (If we do that, we can probably reduce the bolding too.) I'm hoping that it's non-controversial to unify the GA guidance like this but also wanted to confirm consensus before changing something as central as the criteria page. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- asilvering (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

GA review pass with copyrighted text! 50.100.81.36 (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's actually true; the earwig match is an attributed quote from Planinc in both sources. However, the GA review was not formatted correctly to begin with and did not begin to check any of the criteria, so it should be probably thrown back in the queue for a more proper review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

As the original creator of the article, User:The Emperor of Byzantium really shouldn't be reviewing it for GA, even if they had done a full review rather than what they posted. I have just reverted the review and set up the nomination so it is available for a new reviewer with no loss of seniority. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, that is fine by me! :) While it is correct that he created it, none of the content he added remains. However, I concur that the review process could have been better :) TheUzbek (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @TheUzbek :) ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @BlueMoonset apologies, the edit was not meant to step on anyone's feet, I respect your revert ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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

@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)

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)

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)

In Memory of Elizabeth Howe, Salem, 1692/GA1

The nominator of the aforementioned article has explicitly requested that I abandon the review and refrain from any further interaction with them. Should I fail the nomination, or is there an alternative approach? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It'd make sense to put it up for second opinion. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

+1 Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

Eichmann trial article

Some time ago I translated the Hebrew Wikipedia page for the Eichmann trial which massively expanded on the English article's content. I'm proud of my contributions and want to help the article meet the qualifications for GA. But sadly unlike when I was translating the article, now I do not have the time in my busy work schedule to adapt the article to GA standards myself. So I'd like to ask if there are any editors out there willing to do this for me? The article means a lot to me. Of course I'll still be able to contribute when I can. Thanks! Gommeh (talk/contribs) 15:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)