Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport

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.

Controversial quickfail on Arleta Library Bakery & Cafe

Earlier today I quickfailed the page Arleta Library Bakery & Cafe. I did this as I believe the article requires a significant rewrite to meet the GA criteria. It looked like this at the time of review. The co-nominators strongly disagree with the quickfail and many of the comments I made in the review, and after this discussion they renominated the article. They noted some criticisms of how I went about the quickfail here. I am avoiding closing any nominations until I receive feedback to avoid reproducing possible issues. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Good quickfail, imo. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging TrademarkedTWOrantula and Another_Believer Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

GA reviews are "cheap" -- there's nothing stopping the nominators from re-nominating it immediately, unlike at FAC. I've been on the wrong side of this as a reviewer before, but in general I try not to fail an article without giving the nominator a chance to respond unless there are serious issues that will take an undue amount of work on the reviewer's part to establish when they are addressed: for example, where there are large-scale copyvio problems, or where enough concerns came up on the sourcing that it would need a more thorough check than is reasonable at GAN to establish that things were sorted out. Other reasons under the quickfail criteria are that the article has unaddressed cleanup banners, ongoing edit wars, or outstanding issues from a previous review. In other cases, generally, it's a good idea to give the nominator(s) the chance to reply and make changes.

It does seem like most of the matters of contention in this review were about what counts as notable or important: that's not as clear-cut as (for example) the article containing missed citations, unreliable sources or policy violations, and so would generally be the sort of thing where a bit of discussion is helpful. The quickfail criteria don't advise an immediate failure simply for not meeting the criteria unless it's a long way away from doing so; in future, it might be helpful to explicitly tie the judgement into the criteria (here, I think the issue was mostly 3b), and to be clear why you think, as the quickfail criteria say, it's not reasonably possible to fix the issues in a sensible span of time. However, ultimately it's your decision when you're the reviewer -- as we've seen here, if the nominator(s) disagree, there's no problem with putting the article up again and seeing what happens with a second opinion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that this quickfail was appropriate and within reasonable reviewer discretion, though another reviewer may not have chosen to quickfail. Reviewer time is precious and we should not be expecting reviewers to go above and beyond to salvage articles that are simply not ready. This reads like an advertisement. Honestly, the article doesn't even make any real claim to notability for this restaurant and I'm not sure why it has an article when it needs to clear the higher bar of WP:NCORP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I've read on occasion that notability isn't a requirement under the GA criteria. That doesn't excuse being written like an advertisement with poor-quality sources, though, which often precludes our ability to determine notability... Reconrabbit 13:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

How do deal with a name change with an unstarted GAN

Hi all, I've recently completed a WP:RENAME and I want to update my nomination template on Talk:Parental rights movement without breaking anything on the back end, so I thought I would check here first. Am I good to go ahead and replace the |nominator= section on the talk page or are there other considerations first? I understand the database is maintained by a bot, so I wanted to check first, or to see if there was something I would need to so as to not miss anything. Thanks, and apologies for any inconvenience, this is my first GAN. — Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You can just change the signature in the template on the article talk page. Anything that contains a link to your user page or user talk page will work; I've just made the change for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Question

What should I do if the nominator of an WP:GAN is not the top contributor of the article?

I'm talking about the case with Frieren as I check with Page history tool that User:KjjjKjjj is the 46th in terms of Authorship as the instruction of the nomination is Nominators must have contributed significantly to the article and be familiar with its subject and cited sources

Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Simply remove the nomination template as a driveby nomination if there's no other note about the lack of authorship. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah Okay thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Miminity, it isn't required that the nominator be the top contributor, but a significant contributor. While 46th is unlikely to be significant, if you check the "note" field, this is a co-nomination with User:Xexerss, who is clearly a significant contributor, so the nomination is valid with Xexerss on board. I see that the nomination was removed and subsequently restored, given that Xexerss is co-nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh after I leave a note on his talk page that I removed his GA nomination (as before there is no note as I suspect a driveby nomnation). He/she told me that he/she has a consent with Xexerss and I said to him to put "Co-nominaton with User:Xexerss" on the note field. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick etiquette question before starting

I have an etiquette question before I decide start working on anything. Is it okay to essentially rewrite a low-traffic Start-class article from scratch if I want to try to get to up to GA? Or do I need to try to keep the original content/format in some way? I know I could also try asking on the talk-page, but the articles I was thinking about (RecA and LexA repressor, they kinda go together) have <30 watchers, so I don't think I'd get many replies (also hoping to get a rule of thumb for the future). I don't want to step on anyone's toes though, so if it's frowned upon to change too much without discussion I can just keep an eye out for a stub that interests me instead. (also please let me know if I should move this to a different noticeboard, I just figured more people here would have experience with what's considered rude in terms of GA-rewrites) CambrianCrab (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It's okay to WP:BE BOLD on most articles. If a dispute arises then move to the talkpage, and it can also help to post on the talkpage beforehand, but there's nothing to stop you editing now. There is also no need to retain the original content/format, although obviously it would be a shame to lose good sources if they are useful. I would recommend using edit summaries so the <30 watchers don't see a random large unexplained edits. Best, CMD (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with all of that, and would add that any article is fair game for GAN or FAC so long as you communicate on the talk page, and if necessary make sure that the main contributors are aware of your plans. As well as avoiding conflicts that may lead to you finding someone to work with on the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you both! I think I'll post a notice of some sort on the talk pages before I start implementing anything (and use edit summaries when I actually due implement ofc). It'll probably be a while before I start on anything, I just wanted to double check that there weren't any unspoken rules I didn't know about before I started making any plans CambrianCrab (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It's always worth checking the page history in these cases, to see if the main contributors are still active. Often, they aren't, or they were IPs, so there's no real point in waiting or notifying anyone. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh that's good to know. Do you know of a good rule of thumb for when to consider someone "active"? Should I lean closer to editing within the last year, or go longer? CambrianCrab (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It never hurts to leave a talk page message even if it's been a year or two. But also, for low-traffic p[ages there's no reason not to start editing the page without waiting for a response if you feel you can improve it -- the stricture on getting main contributors to agree only applies to nominating the article for GAN or FAC. If you can see other editors have been working on the article or if it's a relatively high-profile page then a talk page about your plans is polite, of course. But that applies regardless of whether you ever plan to nominate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Got it, I'll lean towards messages regardless but prioritize them more for editors with activity in the last couple years. Definitely going to avoid making any significant edits to high-profile pages for the foreseeable future, but I'll keep that in mind in case that ever changes CambrianCrab (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

as the others said, use your discretion to see if there's been any disputes on the talk page or anything like that, but i've done a few from-scratch rewrites of low-traffic articles that are now GA (or FA) and had no issues! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As someone who's had a low-traffic article of "my own" rewritten from scratch by someone else, I'm willing to bet that most long-term active editors would be really happy to see this happen, honestly. I think it would be weird, if you're going to take something all the way to GA/FA, to not involve anyone still regularly active at all, even if only to ask them what they thought about it. But so long as the edits are genuinely improvements, you're more likely than not to be making people happy. Checking the page history is useful for this, too. Often the kind of ownership behaviour that would indicate someone will be unhappy if you improve an article is really visible in the edit summaries. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

all three of my full rewrites were of articles from 2008-2009 written by a now-indeffed user, someone whose only edit was creating the article, and someone who hasn't edited in nearly 5 years haha. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Biography GA placed without subtopic

I recently passed Reed Timmer as a GA, but since there are no other meteorological biography articles (see category), I didn't know where to put it. Should a new subcategory be created for this or is it okay to leave it in the main meteorology section? Reconrabbit 12:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It's okay to leave it in the main section, unless you feel he fits in weather forecasting. CMD (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. @Tails Wx would probably know better than I if he fits there. Reconrabbit 13:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that’s alright with me. I can’t really think of a better sub-section in the Natural Sciences category for Timmer’s article to fit in, so that’ll be fine! ~ Tails Wx 14:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The nomination of The arts

At under 3000 words of prose, this article would be very short for a vital 1 GA. I think this article could stand to see some expansion before being up for GAN. I'd rather not take on a review of this importance personally, this is just my opinion, wanted to attract interested editors. ForksForks (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts. I was also concerned that most of the article was a merely a list of "arts", rather than a discussion of the concept, and opened a discussion as to whether to keep it as vital 1. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, it's nice to bring this up at the nominator's talk page first instead of coming to a more public noticeboard for these kinds of discussions. Pinging nominator 48JCL in any case. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, several people have tried to have discussions on this user's talk page about their other activities at GA to no avail, including myself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It's easy for me to miss norms like this, so thank you. I see people kind of get "dragged" to WT:GAN occasionally, so I figured mentioning it without naming anyone would be more neutral -- but I can see why that could be seen another way. ForksForks (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

October 2024 backlog drive

When we discussed having more frequent backlog drives, we talked about having some drives that were "themed" instead of, like the backlog drives we've done historically, aimed at zeroing out the backlog as much as possible, focusing on the oldest articles. This past month we did a drive focused on bringing in newbie reviewers. The next drive is coming up in October and the idea for this one is to draw up a list of articles at the start, and aim to completely zero out that list. So, the question is: what should our list be? We could just make a list of all the articles that have been in the nomination queue for >n days. But maybe we want to focus on something else. Topic? Length? GANs by editors with high review-to-GA ratios? GANs by editors with <n GAs? Something else? Let's get some suggestions going in this thread so we can have a list to decide from. -- asilvering (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

We could let any interested editor submit articles they want reviewed to the list. This could include a reasonable amount (say a max of 3) of their own articles, with the understanding that they will participate in the drive themselves. This could help attract people to the drive, if they feel like by participating they are more likely to get a review.

More selfless editors could then nominate older nominations, those with high ratios, ones they think are especially important, etc. to round out the list.

Further, it might make sense to group articles very similar in topic into small batches of about 3-4 articles, with the expectation that a reviewer may experience a learning curve for the topic area and thus be able to close out those nominations relatively quickly ForksForks (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

How to track progress during backlog drives

When we discussed problems with backlog drives, one of the things we talked about was that the progress tracker is vulnerable to new submissions - that is, editors submitting new GANs makes the progress appear to slide backwards, which is really demotivating for backlog drive participants, especially when, like in the January drive, we have so many new submissions that they actually cause the backlog to have a daily increase during the drive. So, during this most recent backlog drive, rather than tracking how many GANs are still outstanding, I tracked how many GANs were reviewed by drive participants. That way, we'd only ever see progress occurring, and we'd see just how much of it we were responsible for.

But there are two problems with that approach:

1. I had to do this counting manually, which was kind of annoying; also, I didn't get to it precisely on time every day, which limits its effect (that's a me problem, though)
2. It turns out a LOT of backlog-reduction is actually the work of people who are not participating in the backlog drive, so the numbers are sad and small.

For #2, it's true that this one was supposed to be a smaller-than-usual backlog drive, and the effect would be different in the big January 2025 drive. I'm not sure by how much. It's also possible that, during the big backlog drive, fewer reviews are conducted by people who aren't participating. For reference, the March backlog drive included 387 reviews - about double the number of the July drive. But I don't know how many reviews were done in March that weren't counted in the drive, since I'm not sure how to find out how many reviews were opened in total in March. A bigger effect, though, also means more trouble from a #1 perspective.

This isn't relevant for the upcoming October drive, since for that one we'll be generating a target list at the beginning, then working from that list. But for the January drive, I think we might be better off just counting the way we've always done it before. -- asilvering (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)