Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

This is the discussion page of the good article nominations (GAN). To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the New section link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click to show the frequently asked questions below or search the archives below.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Good article nominations

Shortcut

WP:GAFAQ

This is the list of Frequently asked questions about nominating and reviewing Good articles. If you cannot find the answer to your question here, you might want to ask for assistance at the GA nominations discussion page.

Nomination process

The backlog is huge! Is there something we can do to restrict nominations?: There have been complaints about the perceived backlog in reviewing since the Good article status was created in 2006. Generally speaking, we don't want to restrict nominations along their path to GA. In the beginning, as many as 100 nominations were waiting for a reviewer to volunteer. By 2011, each day typically listed 330 nominated articles, of which 260 were waiting. By 2016, 580 were listed, 460 waiting; by 2021, 470 were listed, 300 were waiting. For comparison, today there are currently 610 nominations listed and 520 waiting for a reviewer.; While it may seem overwhelming, a large backlog isn't a bad thing. It shows that many nominators want to use GA as a tool to improve the encyclopedia. It also allows reviewers to choose from a wide selection of articles that interest them. From a nominator's perspective, the main concern is the expected wait time before receiving a review, not the number of articles on the nominations page.
Can't we force nominators to review articles?: Quid pro quo reviewing (editors must review an article before nominating, perhaps after a grace period) was regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to lower quality reviews and fewer nominations from excellent content creators who may not wish to review another person's work.
What order do nominations appear on the Good article nominations page?: One advantage of reviewing articles to help the Wikipedia community is the GAN appearance order: the more articles you have reviewed relative to articles you have nominated, the higher up in the queue your nomination will appear on the GAN page. Note that above this, order preference is given to nominators who are new to GA.
What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic) IP address?: Any editor with significant contributions to the article may nominate an article for GA status (while only registered users may review), so significant-contributor IP nominators are permitted. Non-significant contributors should follow the advice above for editors who have not significantly contributed to the article. Dynamically changing IP nominators may want to clarify to the reviewer that, despite their signature, they remain the same person.
Can I nominate an article I haven't significantly contributed to?: No. Nominations from editors who have not substantially contributed will be removed unless the nomination shows that the article's regular editors were consulted on its talk page alongside a note on the GAN template showing their commitment to the process, e.g., |note=Adopted following extensive improvement by another editor. In the past, many drive-by nominators did not know the article or its sources and did not respond to questions by the reviewer.

Review process

I want to review an article. Do I have to review the oldest unreviewed nomination first?: Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. You may review any nominated article you are not involved in, regardless of the nomination's age or position in the queue.
As a reviewer, I want to help the nominator improve the article, but it already meets the criteria. What am I supposed to do now?: The purpose of a GA review is to determine whether the article meets the GA criteria. Article-improvement discussions are intended to prevent near-misses in nominated articles that almost meet the criteria. If the article already meets the criteria when you first review it, then explain exactly what you've checked in each of the main criteria (e.g., "I have verified there is no original research, copyright violations, plagiarism, unreliable sources, bias, edit wars, or untagged images.") and list it as a Good article. "Quick passes" are as legitimate as quick fails, although they are less common. Please do not make a list of nitpicky details or exceed the written requirements of the Good article criteria in an effort to make the review look rigorous. Instead, thank the nominator for presenting such a polished article, and encourage them to submit another.
Who can respond to the review?: The nominator is expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article, while everyone interested in the article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. Nominators have no special privileges over other editors except that they can withdraw the nomination.
Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't?: The nominator has an interest in seeing the article become GA, so the nominator will likely want to respond to the reviewer to improve the article. In fact, all editors interested in the article are encouraged to respond to reviewers' concerns. However, nobody, including the nominator, is required to. If the reviewer identifies concerns directly related to the Good article criteria and no one addresses the concerns, then no one should be surprised if the reviewer declines to list the article. If the article does not meet the Good article criteria after the reviewer has waited a reasonable amount of time for the nominator to make improvements, the reviewer is sure to fail the nomination. Future article editors may benefit from review comments on how to improve the article.
The nominator disagrees with the reviewer. Can another reviewer take over?: If your GAN experience is not going well or if you are disagreeing with the reviewer's decisions, then you may allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer). If the reviewer has not yet failed the nomination, you may try asking them to ask for a second opinion. Other than these, another reviewer does not normally take over an active review. You might want to read What the Good article criteria are not. To prevent avoidable disputes, reviewers should either not make comments unrelated to the Good article criteria, or they should carefully label those suggestions as optional (e.g., "I know that citation formatting is not required by the Good article criteria, and I will not consider this when making my decision, but if you might send this to Wikipedia:Featured articles later, then that process requires consistent citation formatting").
Does an article have to be on hold for exactly seven days?: No. Whether to place the nomination on hold at all, and the length of any such hold, is for the reviewer to decide. Depending on the quality of the article and the responsiveness of the nominator, a hold may not be necessary. If the reviewer decides that it is, they may choose longer or shorter periods of hold time. The reviewer may even modify the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page to include a "time" parameter, for example, "time=fourteen days", and the {{GANotice}} template used to convey messages to the GA nominator to include a "days" parameter, for example "days=fourteen". Keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GA nominations report page.
What should I do if a review page becomes inactive?: This can happen for a number of reasons. Review pages should only be started by reviewers who are willing to take an active interest in the article and are committed to completing their review of the article in a timely manner. Sometimes another editor (such as the nominator) starts the review page by mistake. A reviewer can fix this by placing their signature after "Reviewer:" towards the top of the review page, but if no reviewer is forthcoming, it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions may be posted at the discussion page. If a new reviewer is truly needed, follow the instructions page under "What to do during a review if it seems abandoned". Do not use this process to void a review you disagree with.
I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified!: That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your comments while independently deciding on their assessment. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and also decline to list the article as GA. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the Good article criteria, you can initiate a reassessment.
How can GA be reliable when a single reviewer decides?: The quality of a Good article is only as reliable as the most recent review and articles may deteriorate if unattended. The GA process deals with both of these issues by allowing repeat reviews by any registered user at any time. The process aims to encourage article improvement and build consensus on quality through multiple reviews—even though a single reviewer makes the decision whether to list the article according to the GA criteria. Any editor may contribute to any review discussion and reassessment is available when the "one reviewer decides" model breaks down.
What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process?: You can bring those concerns to the discussion page to get help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in any dispute that you have.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32

GA help 1 GA help 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Dated archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Quick pass

Hi there, a new user has passed my GA nomination Talk:1961 San Diego Chargers season/GA1 without comment. I'm not sure of the correct procedure with this?--Harper J. Cole (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that this is not a GA review. It should be G6 deleted. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging GAN backlog drive coordinators GhostRiver, Lee Vilenski, Trainsandotherthings, and Usernameunique, since the reviewer, BubbaDaAmogus, is participating in the drive and has listed the article. Indeed, they've done the same with their review of Talk:1990 San Diego Chargers season/GA1, only for 1990 they just passed it, while for 1961 they said they needed help (but passed it anyway). Note that these were both "old" nominations, so if the decision is to revert the passes, they'll need to be reinstated in the drive's old nominations table. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they may be confused, as on the 1961 San Diego Chargers GA1 page, their comments are "This is my first ever review, and I need some help on this." Obviously, they didn't do the review correctly, and someone will need to step in and undo the GA promotions. I'm hoping this was a good faith mistake on the part of BubbaDaAmogus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their conduct at 1990 San Diego Chargers season erases any AGF for me. Their edit summary was "The article has been reviewed and approved for good article status, this discussion is now closed. *gavel bangs*" But no reviewing was done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Harper J. Cole: I've reverted the GA promotions (and made it very clear on the drive's page the "reviews" will not count), but you will need an admin to delete the GAN pages, allowing for another reviewer to take on the reviews. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that drive coordinator Lee Vilenski is an admin, and can hopefully take care of the GAN pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know if I missed anything. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listing the nominator in the default GAN page

Is there a reason why when GAN pages are created they list only the reviewer, and not the nominator? A lot of times when I look at a past GAN it takes me longer than it should to see who the nominator is (because many people commented on the review). Of course, it is listed in the main GAN page, but if one goes from article history, it is unavailable if the GAN has already finished. FLC, FAC and PR list the nominator, why not GAN? Aza24 (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have done this is many of my GA reviews: (1, 2, 3, etc.). I think we'll either need the Legobot to do that, or the reviewer has to manually do that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since Legobot can't be modified (no support for changes), this is something that could perhaps be addressed once a new bot is written (if one ever is), but for now the boilerplate top section of the review page has to be in a format that the bot can read, so we can't add the nominator's name. (I agree that it's useful: sometimes the only way to find the name of the nominator is to check the history of the article's talk page to see the nomination being made or while it was in progress: the nominator's name is in the GA nominee template.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reason for a new bot. Is it time we actually put forward a new bot request to get these things looked at seriously? We seem to be treading water, I'm sure there is someone who can create and test a bot to do the actions we want and replace legobot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point—I've also dug through many talk-page histories to suss out the nominator, and as Aza24 said, it always feels as if it takes longer than it should. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a new bot is a great idea. I also recall the bug where Legobot says an article has failed when it actually passes. I'm sure there are others? Aza24 (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly has been working on a new bot for some time. Vaticidalprophet 06:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeeeess and I really need to finish that off and file its BRFA. It's nearly done, I just need to find time to do the last few bits. Thx for the reminder! firefly ( t · c ) 09:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I did remember we requested one a while back. I assumed it had not been worked on. That's fantastic news Firefly! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested

A review of my GAN Tietze syndrome seems to have been passed way too quickly, in roughly 20 minutes time. The reviewer does not seem to be experienced in GAN, or Wikipedia even. Their account is less than a month old. Not to mention there are a couple of suggestions another user commented on my talk page that I have yet to complete, which you can find here. If anyone would be willing to re-review my article, it would be greatly appreciated. —TheRibinator (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reviewer, User:Sennalen, is a backlog drive participant, and has added the review in the submissions (Special:Diff/1063356511). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone appears to have accidentally removed the backlog diff. I added back in with a note that it won't count, with a courtesy link towards this discussion. Curiously, their other GAN appears to have been more thorough despite it being their first. I am away from my laptop for the next several hours, so other coords will have to jump in. Courtesy ping to Trainsandotherthings, Lee Vilenski, and Usernameunique. — Ghost River 18:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am an experienced wikipedian on a clean start account. I don't commit to a review without having read the article and having an outline of key points in mind. Tietze syndrome was read with the same care as Talk:Tolkien's_style/GA1. This simply does not need rework to meet the standards, which are specific and not a very high bar. I didn't look for content concerns on editors' talk pages, but the main points there were addressed in an edit on Dec 27. There are probably imperfections as in any article, so there's no harm in getting more input. Sennalen (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at the article - there's a couple things that really should be addressed, (such as the over use of quotes, the prose being a bit journalistic), but at least there isn't any copyvio that I found, and everything is sourced. I don't have too many issues about it passing, although I usually request some critical response from a GA Review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add to above comments, I'd like to note that since I've peaked in on the FA process more and more, my standards for GA seem to have decreased. I'm sure the editors who said my reviews were too harsh will appreciate that, but seeing the demands and reasons for those demands at FA, I've come to realize that GA really means "article probably isn't of encyclopedic standard but has everything a layperson will need to know and is at least standardized in format". While FA takes a lot of work to achieve, it really should be the goal for as much of Wikipedia as possible to reach GA. Like, yeah, maybe there's some more tweaks to do, but this isn't FA so if it serves the purpose, well, I'm starting to be less pushy. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly am not opposed to Tietze syndrome becoming GA if others agree that it should be. I am open to any comments on how to improve the article. I just wanted to bring it up because it was a fairly quick review and I hadn't really received much feedback like the review for my last article. --TheRibinator (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

61/90 Chargers Seasons 2O request

I would like to also request a second opinion on the 1961 and 1990 San Diego Chargers Seasons. These are my first reviews of a GAN, so I figured some assistance would be nice. Thanks. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BubbaDaAmogus, your second attempt is still not a GA review and it makes no attempt to evaluate the article based on the criteria. This is becoming a WP:CIR issue. (t · c) buidhe 23:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what do I do? BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either post an actual GA review based on the directions at WP:Reviewing good articles, or paste {{G7}} on the GA review page. (t · c) buidhe 23:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will try to do that, even though I don't understand what G7 will do. If I need help, I will either try to contact you on your talk page or ask someone else for help. Thanks for the advice! BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the best thing you can do right now is to get some more experience editing before you attempt more good article reviews. The process will make a lot more sense when you have more editing experience under your belt. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The G7 tag will bring in an admin to delete the page so another editor can review it. (t · c) buidhe 00:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BubbaDaAmogus, I agree with what Trainsandotherthings has said: you have fewer than fifty edits to Wikipedia articles, and as such it's understandable why you would have so little knowledge of Good Articles and what the criteria actually mean and how to apply them. There are so many things to do on Wikipedia besides reviewing—try doing them for a while. I've found that people with fewer than 500 to 1000 edits rarely make good enough reviewers because they don't have an adequate understanding of Wikipedia and how it works. The best thing would be for you to withdraw from these two reviews; please don't open any more reviews for a while. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't, but I want to know, what is something I can do to help in Wikipedia that rewards me that isn't a good article review drive? Can you tell me about some things I can do here? I am a rookie, so I want to learn as much as possible. Thanks. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just basic editing to get your foot in the door, so to speak. Maybe find an article or two to improve. There's a lot that you can only learn with experience. I was as new as you were just 5 months ago. Everyone starts there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings Wow! You actually joined wikipedia after I did and have accomplished so much. More than me at least, I don’t even have any awards :’). It’s nice to see how someone so passionate about what they do can accomplish so much. --TheRibinator (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRibinator: Check again, I think you have an award now ;) Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Haha, many thanks for that! —TheRibinator (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To reconfirm: BubbaDaAmogus will be withdrawing from these two reopened reviews, and the nominations should be put back into the pool of nominations awaiting a reviewer. Correct? Once we have confirmation, the review pages can be deleted and the nominations reset. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. But, I do want to learn how to do a Good Article review someday. I can always come back every month, so this isn’t the end of the world, that I understand. Go ahead and delete the GANs with my permission, and if you have anything else to say, let me know on my talk page. I check everything daily. Thank you! BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested but no review was done

Talk:Aurochs/GA1 here the reviewer An anonymous username, not my real name requested a second opinion, but as nothing was actually reviewed (or at least nothing mentioned here), maybe the page should be deleted? Artem.G (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very short reviews

In responding to this discussion on the backlog-drive talk page, I came across a few reviews that seem exceptionally short. The first two were quick-passed, and the third passed after three comments.

At least to me (although contrary views are welcomed), these seem to fall short of the requirement that "an in-depth review must be performed to determine whether a nomination passes all of the good article criteria". The third article, too, seems to have potentially serious breadth issues, which were largely passed over in the review. Does anyone have suggestions for how to address these reviews? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could begin with leaving a note to those reviewers, explaining that their reviews fall short (no pun intended) of good article review expectations. About assessing whether or not these actually meet the criteria, in my understanding we can consider reversion and putting them back where they were in the queue. There is some precedent for that practice, although I do not recall when this was done (BlueMoonset might know). — The Most Comfortable Chair 09:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should revert them. Looking at the articles, they do seem like with a little touching up, they would pass. I think a quiet word would be best to say we'd like some improvements suggested, and maybe a bit more analytical thought mentioned. 60 Wall Street for example has little that can be improved, so especially for a newer editor, they probably can't see much to comment. However, if you look, there are things to fix. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than revert completely, it might be best to reopen them, and explain to the reviewer on their own talk page that more work needs to be done, with suggestions on where to start. A further suggestion that they hold off final approval on their reviews until someone has had a chance to be sure they haven't missed things. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy look again and a commit more authoritative feedback/review on that specific article. For other architectural related articles by same primary authors, I've given more critical feedback. This article wasn't one of them for me. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking over abandoned review

Hi all. Kosack hasn't edited since October 3rd. He left Talk:Thomas Tuchel/GA1 unfinished. I am interested in taking it up but am not sure what the procedure is when the previous reviewer is AWOL. Advice? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REDMAN 2019, as long as the nominator (Paul Vaurie), wants to continue, I would say go for it. I would also make sure you familiarize yourself with the comments made during Kosack's review, so that you can ensure that both them, and your own comments, are addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@REDMAN 2019 and Usernameunique: Is there anything I can do to help facilitate the transition? Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have left initial comments on the GAR page. I'll have a look over Kosack's comments over the next few days, although Paul seems to have covered them pretty well so far. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asiatic cheetah

Article was promoted immediately, even there are several unsourced statements, citation overkill and citations at the lead. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:3DC2:ED5C:21B0:A6 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this does not look like a thorough GA review and should be undone. Kpddg you may not promote to GA any article with active cleanup tags (in this case multiple ^{[citation needed]}) (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested: Golden Retriever

Could another editor please take a look at Talk:Golden Retriever/GA1? The nomination was speedily failed without any chance given to rectify any of the issues raised. The reviewer, Kpddg (talk · contribs), has been the subject of several threads here already including the one above, WT:Good article nominations/Archive 25#Another new reviewer causing problems and WT:Good article nominations/Archive 25#Second opinion. I have attempted to engage with them on their TP [1] but they have not acknowledged my message despite editing elsewhere. Cavalryman (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

That does look like an improper fail to me. The issues identified could easily be corrected in less than a week. I see Kpddg said on his talk page "There were many issues with the prose of the article. Hence, I decided to fail it. All reasons have been mentioned on the GA page. I highlighted all points of improvement in the article. Thank You." At this point we may need to take some sort of action. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say, I think we're coming up to a point where a GAN topic ban should be suggested for Kpddg, considering they have already been given several warnings on the matter and continue to enact both improper GA passes and fails. — Ghost River 15:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is not long ago that I told them same when they failed my GAN, and they agreed to "keep [that] in mind". That has not been done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I thought it looked a little off. As Kavyansh.Singh did at Talk:George H. W. Bush broccoli comments/GA1, I would like to reopen the first nomination and allow an experienced editor to have a look. Looking at the history I agree about a topic ban, multiple editors have reached out to this user, I suppose ANI is the correct venue to make the request. Cavalryman (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Bot malfunction

Hi, guys & gals, I have placed GA icon on Stjepan Vukčić Kosača manually - there was some confusion about the reviews of that article in the first and second attempts, it is very possible that the editors who tried to review (1st and 2nd time) handled templates and its set-up incorrectly. The review was done properly in the third and last attempt. Now, in order to avoid new confusions, and possibly some problems with the manual placement of GA icon by me since I was the nominator, I would like someone to confirm that I acted correctly and within the constraints of our guidelines - I found under the Instructions that this is possibility when bot is malfunctioning for some reason(s). Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99°

The bot doesn't handle diacritic markings particularly well. You did the right thing by manually adding the icon. — Ghost River 17:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three nominations which did not appear on nominations page

As a heads up, three nominations—of Out of This Club (nominated 26 March, 2021), Lie About Us (nominated 30 March, 2021), and Nokia Lumia 800 (nominated 5 January, 2022)—were incorrectly formatted on their talk page, and thus did not show up on the nominations page. The problem was that the {{GA nominee}} templates were placed within the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} templates: see the example here. The first two, now nearly a year old, were nominated by MrHyacinth, who has not edited since October. The third—which was nominated with the subtopic "It has decent writing, good references too!" (and so still does not show up on the nominations page)—was nominated by Yodas henchman, who has not made a single edit to the article. For these reasons among others, I'll remove the nominations.

This should resolve some, and perhaps all, of the discrepancy between the numbers in Category:Good article nominees awaiting review (which displays at the top of the nominations page) and the numbers in WP:Good article nominations/Report—which is why I was looking at the talk pages of articles in that category in the first place. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, good catch! (t · c) buidhe 04:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User Nominating bunch of articles

Q28 has been nominating bunch of articles without a single contribution on those. 180.194.213.114 (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted by yours truly and the IP as out of process (t · c) buidhe 06:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:But some of the articles I nominated don't have much problem. Why can't they be nominated?--Q28 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Q28 If you are not a major contributor, it is expected to consult on the talk page before deciding to nominate the article. You must also have access to the sources cited in the articles. (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason, I'd be inclined to remove the nomination of 2021 Belgian Grand Prix. It was nominated by RemoteMyBeloved, a new editor who hasn't edited the article. I'd just go ahead and do it, but it was already reverted by an IP (edit summary: "didn't contribute to the article + user inactive"), and then that revert was itself reverted by SSSB, because "They don't need to have contributed (it's recommened, but not a condition)". That's technically true, but given the circumstances I think it would make more sense for RemoteMyBeloved to work on an article for some time, get the handle of things, and then nominate it. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do expect, at the very least that major contributors are informed before the nomination is made. That can just be a talk page message. Perhaps we should actually add this to our criteria? I've been pretty annoyed in the past when I've had an article almost complete, and someone came around and nominated it, without even editing the article. It's like breaking down the door to get into a cafe one minute before it opens. If an article is inactively being edited, or if contributors are happy with it being nommed (not everyone wants to do the GA process themselves), then everything is ok. Don't just go around nominating articles without asking. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about Peano axioms? I see you did ask for it on the talk (which is fine). The article itself already passed an A-Class review, which is higher than a GA class anyway, so I think that's a bit of a waste of time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is also quite unproductive to spend the time looking through a nomination, only for it to turn out to have been a drive-by from someone not invested in the article who then does not get involved in the review. For new editors, it's probably in part a misunderstanding of what the GA process is, as it's often an interactive review rather than a simple grading. CMD (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The A-class review of Peano axioms was in 2007. A-class is long-obsolete (at least for mathematics articles), so calling it higher than GA is dubious. I don't think the current version would pass more modern GA sourcing requirements. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Reviews”

After each article title there is a total for reviews in brackets. Surely this should be “views”?? Am I missing something obvious?

If there is some reason it should be “reviews” could we add some sort of key or explanatory note? Mark83 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's the number of reviews the nominator has conducted. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that means…? Sorry, not trying to be difficult. I just think it isn’t clear at all and other readers would benefit from clarity. Mark83 (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to review each nomination for it to pass. We highlight the number of reviews because it gives a sign of experience with the GA process and shows that the editor has been contributing to the process by reviewing other nominations. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer requested for Affine symmetric group

Just as it seemed we were finally finishing up the review, another user active in WP:MATH,(not the nominator, who I must say in this context has been nothing but helpful and cooperative these past two months), chose to be hostile and confrontational with me to the point that I no longer feel comfortable continuing the review as it has become impossible for me to do so if I have to interact with this editor as I now have great difficulty assuming his participation in this review is in good faith.

Can it be flagged as needing a new reviewer? (It's not just "second opinion") We were so close to finishing it up that it really wouldn't be fair to the nominator to have to fail it/withdraw the nom and make him have to put it through the whole process again (although with the current backlog elimination drive that probably won't take too long, but it should be said that I took the review on in late October when no one had touched it since April, so it has already been the better part of a year here). But if that's the only way to separate myself from this review then I absolutely will ... someone else can deal with this guy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 161: / Line 161: @@
 :Someone has to ''review'' each nomination for it to pass. We highlight the number of reviews because it gives a sign of experience with the GA process and shows that the editor has been contributing to the process by reviewing other nominations. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 05:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
+== New reviewer requested for [[Affine symmetric group]] ==
+Just as it seemed we were finally finishing up the review, another user active in [[WP:MATH]],(''not'' [[User:JayBeeEll|the nominator]], who I must say in this context has been nothing but helpful and cooperative these past two months), chose to be hostile and confrontational with me to the point that I no longer feel comfortable continuing the review as it has become impossible for me to do so if I have to interact with this editor as I now have great difficulty assuming his participation in this review is in [[WP:AGF|good faith]].
+Can it be flagged as needing a new reviewer? (It's not just "second opinion") We were so close to finishing it up that it really wouldn't be fair to the nominator to have to fail it/withdraw the nom and make him have to put it through the whole process again (although with the current backlog elimination drive that probably won't take too long, but it should be said that I took the review on in late October when no one had touched it since April, so it has already been the better part of a year here). But if that's the only way to separate myself from this review then ''I absolutely will'' ... someone else can deal with this guy. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 06:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)