Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN) and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

See the Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, several other GA talk pages redirect here.

Archives

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

GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4 Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 GA help: 1, 2 Nominations/Instructions: 1 Search archives

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

It's listed under "Biologists", which doesn't sound right, and I'm not sure how to fix this. Rusalkii (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a better placement? CMD (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively new to reviewing GAN and want to make sure that I'm giving articles the best chance possible. I just finished up a review for Dilaw (song) that was nominated by @Royiswariii. You can see my review at Talk:Dilaw (song)/GA1. There are a couple things I am unsure of in my review. First of all, the article uses Facebook posts and comments as sources. I understand that sometimes there aren't many reliable sources on a topic, but this just feels increadibly unreliable to me. I am also unsure if the "Background" (Dilaw (song)#Background) is appropriately on topic; however, this just may be my lack of knowledge on how articles about songs are written. Lastly, the article does seem to be written from the POV of a fan. This is in no way to criticize the writer here; however, I am not confident in my assessment of the tone and would appreciate others input on the topic. I do feel that this article is a fair bit away from meeting GA criteria; however, my lack of experience with reviewing is leading me to question that conclusion.

Any input is appreciated. Feel free to also edit or add things to my review. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Facebook references, WP:USERGENERATED would appear to apply here: Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are [...] Facebook. Therefore it would appear to fail on criteria 2, as the sources are not reliable. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out to me! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Facebook posts from an account confirmed to be owned by the musician, studio, etc? If so, they can be reliable under limited circumstances per WP:ABOUTSELF, although secondary sources are virtually always better. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are from the musician however the article also cites comments from the facebook posts. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of thing is fine: On April 29, 2024, he further teased the song with a video captioned, "happy crush lang daw pero grabe kiligin???" (They say it's just a happy crush, but why do they feel so giddy???). It's simply a statement that the song was teased, what was said about it, and the date: the facebook link is a fine source for that, from the purpose of verifiability. But that whole section is sourced to social media posts - that is to say, it's WP:OR. There's worse OR out there - this is at least basic and verifiable - but for a GA we want to know what secondary sources said about the topic. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for further clarifying things. The part that was sourced by a facebook comment was "A social media user speculated that Maki would release a new single titled "Dilaw", noting that he had recently performed it in Concepcion, Tarlac." I do agree that there is worse OR out there but my standards are slightly higher since it's a GAN. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recently listed good articles section on the main page doesn't seem to be getting updated as no new GAs have been placed there for a couple days now. Is there a bug or something? Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's 35-40ish Brooklyn architecture GAs, how do people feel about me boldly splitting them off into their own little subdivision? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Architecture – Buildings of the United States

Well, it's no Manhattan, but 35-40ish is a decent number. CMD (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not as if Epic's going to stop writing them ;) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos I split off the UK Buildings, I'd say to be bold with the subcategories. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate them being raised here, we currently have subcategories so small they can be reduced to 0 by GARs. CMD (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TyphoonAmpil is currently having his first review, which is not a problem, he's already pretty experienced! But since he got a bit wrong in this review, saying i fix Errors Tomorrow, I just want to ask for an experienced reviewer to help this newcomer to review this article. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs copy-editing before it passes GA 1a. Owing to its short length, this shouldn't be a major issue and could probably be resolved in timely fashion within the review. Looking only at the section mentioned by TyphoonAmpil, I found the following examples. The Guangdong Provincial Meteorological Bureau hoisted a level three emergency response plan, while the Fujian counterpart hoisted level four. Hoist as a verb means to lift an object particularly by ropes and/or pulleys. This is near certainly not the correct verb to use. In ... the residents were also warned for proposed showers and downpours a more natural wording would be either 'of expected' or 'about expected'. A more subtle example is [a] more severe amount .... There is nothing severe or intense about a numerical figure. I would avoid the phrasing entirely for tone, but if retained it should be made clear that the airport experienced severe/intense rain rather than the figure being severe/intense. I also suspect that 'Severe Tropic Storm Lionrock' should be re-titled 'Severe tropical storm Lionrock' following WP:LOWERCASE as the term 'tropical storm' is not a proper noun and doesn't appear to be forming a proper noun when joined to Lionrock – particularly gauging from the lack of capitalization of the term in the Chinese government sources cited. With regard to TyphoonAmpil, whilst I appreciate the productive intent of the editor, I'm afraid that instructions such as Not say letters own find Typo click edit indicate a command of English too limited to properly assess criterion 1a. One last thing, with regard I don't think you should fix the errors; you should spot the errors instead so I can fix it, that how GA reviewing works. Minor issues or errors can be fixed by the reviewer, as specified in the reviewing instructions: [i]n the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying from my alt) Going to fix the issues, do you mind being the co-reviewer? Jettward (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can co-review it for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HurricaneEdgar was also picked as a co-reviewer, making three reviewers for the single GA nom. Jettward (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the issues. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite getting passed earlier, Bazaruto Island isn't showing the GA badge, and the bot keeps adding a "Bazaruto Island/GA2" template. I'm confused. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GAN template was not replaced properly so the bot thought it was still a nomination. This seems to have fixed it, but I edited it a bit further. Probably not an issue that needs fixing, but courtesy ping Mike Christie in case the behaviour is odd. CMD (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was too optimistic. Given it is still listed at GAN, I've created Talk:Bazaruto Island/GA2 in the meantime, it should be deleted when this is solved. CMD (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

huh CMD (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's a good good article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was caused by the GAR for Flag of Ecuador. To report GARs on the GAN page the bot looks back at the history of all GAs, back to 2006, which I extracted in order to be able to do historical reporting. It turns out that for about 150 of those historical records the nominator's username was not correctly extracted, so when the bot tried to build the GAR entry it couldn't find the user. I've fixed the database for that GAR; the bot should run again shortly and I *think* it will be fine this time round. I'll fix the other bad records and that should prevent a recurrence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I, what?? CMD (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry? What's the question? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More an expression of surprise that the GAR for the Flag of Ecuador article was causing weird bugs with the GAN for the Bazaruto Island article. CMD (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was two independent bugs. The database had the nominator for the flag article as "Zscout370 [[..." instead of just "Zscout370", and when the bot tried to pull up the user information for user "Zscout370 [[..." it caused a crash. The GARs are processed late in the bot run, so the Bazaruto Island issue which you fixed was visible because the bot had not yet crashed. I haven't looked to see what happened there -- it's harder to trace if the bug is not still happening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the fix worked. CMD (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While going through the list of good articles, I noticed that there were some categories that are quite large. As more articles get promoted, some of these categories might benefit by being split up. This will help readers navigate these pages to find good articles.

Listed below are my suggestions for splitting some categories. The goal was for each categories to have under 300 articles, an arbitrary number I picked because most categories at WP:FA are below that number. I chose not to split some categories (Warships of Germany, American football people) because I could not think of a place to split them that would make sense with the other categories in their grouping. Each suggested category is listed in separate brackets.

• Road infrastructure: Midwestern United States: (Road infrastructure: Michigan highways) (Road infrastructure: Other Midwestern United States highways)
• Historical figures: politicians: (Historical figures: pre-1900s politicians) (Historical figures: 1900s and 2000s politicians). Another option is to separate by geograhpic location.
• Historical figures: other: (Historical figures: pre-1900s miscellaneous), (Historical figures: 1900s and 2000s miscellaneous). Another option is to separate by geographic location
• European history: (Eastern European history) (Western European history). Other option is (British Isles and Irish history) and (Mainland-European history)
• Monarchs: (Monarchs: Europe), (Monarchs: other). Another option is to separate by timeframe.
• Royalty and nobility: (Royalty and nobility: Europe), (Royalty and nobility: other)
• Actors, directors, models, performers, and celebrities: (Actors, models, performers, and celebrities) (Directors)
• Performers, groups, composers, and other music-related people: (Duos, trios, and groups) (Performers, composers, and other music-related people)
• Political figures: (Political figures: North America) (Political figures: Europe) (Political figures: other). If others want it, we can have each region listed (South America, Africa, Asia, Oceania) though this might create small categories.
• Association football teams, events, and concepts: (Association football teams, seasons, and stadiums) (Association football events, matches, and concepts). Some stadiums are also listed in Stadiums, public parks, and amusements, so I am not sure if the community wants to keep these separated or find another solution.

In addition, there are some television series that have their own categories, even with only one entry, while multiple episodes of a series will be listed in Other episodes and specials. How many episodes should be the minimum for a category in this section?

Would editors be OK with initiating these splits? Should these names be used, or other ones? Should 300 be the target number in each category, or should another maximum number be used? Are the suggested divisions the best places to split these categories? Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

imo, European history being separated into "British Isles" and "Continental Europe" will probably be easier than Eastern/Western. The borders of what is east and west are arguable. Whether something is in the British Isles or not is more clear-cut. -- asilvering (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Id probably change the split to Association football teams, events, and concepts: (Association football teams and stadiums) (Association football seasons, events, matches, and concepts)

The main reason is that there is quite a bit of overlap between the seasons and events. These tend to be about the matches that the teams have had. Teams and stadium articles are much more higher level concepts and would fit neatly into one section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've had some discussion on how to split historical/royal biographies and events before, but haven't found something that's convenient. Proposed split of Midwestern United States sounds practical and within current practice. For the proposed split of political figures, continental divisions get weird around the edges and they're not political, so I'm wondering if pulling out one or two countries would be better (also open to say, political groupings like the EU). For Media and Music, those do some broad categories that could be split, assuming there are no very half-half director actors or similar. Lee Vilenski's split on Association football seems sound, might have to take a closer look at stadiums. On the broad question of numbers, I generally look at it with an eye for somewhere between 20/25 (where it forms a clear paragraph-length chunk that shows it is a topic with clear work) and around 200 (where, depending on the length of individual entries, the block starts to get longer than laptop screen lengths). CMD (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the Historical figures and Political figures splits and would prefer both of them to be grouped by location (NA, Eu, Other). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both Vacant0 and CMD that "EU" is a better term than "Europe". Again, seems more clear cut. Unless someone can come up with some hypothetical edge cases that seem messier that way? -- asilvering (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion on which is better, but "EU political figures" is potentially a much narrower scope than "European political figures": for example, the former would arguably only include British political figures who were active between 1973 and 2020, whereas the latter would presumably include any British political figures ever. I can think of edge-cases for both options (are Turkish and/or Russian politicians European political figures vs. is someone like Mary Docherty, who retired from active politics before Britain joined the EU, but lived for nearly 30 years after, an EU political figure? What about someone like Anthony Eden, who was still in the House of Lords until he died in 1977, but was essentially politically irrelevant after he resigned as prime minister in 1957?) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public, I thought of Eden's case (not him specifically, but that kind of person), but isn't he supposed to be in "Historical figures - politicians" anyway? -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly a grey area as to where the line is drawn between "Political figures" and "Historical figures: politicians", but for what it's worth I see a few nineteenth century figures in the former category (e.g. James Dillon Armstrong) – and at least one eighteenth-century figure, John Mathews (American pioneer). Of course, it may be the case that they ought to be recategorised entirely. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I'm not sure my concern about EU being more clear-cut is relevant anyway, since GAN doesn't really end up having acrimonious disputes about which categories ought to exist and what ought to be in them, at least not as far as I've seen. I do still prefer "British Isles" vs "Continental Europe" over Eastern/Western Europe, though. -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The line per the existing hidden notes is BLP, living people go into Political figures, dead people go into Historical figures. CMD (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The EU doesn't include Switzerland, Norway, the UK, and some Balkan and eastern European countries, though that list will probably change over the next few years. I think geographical categories make more sense than political ones, as they are more stable. No strong opinion on UK/Ireland vs. continental Europe or Western vs. Eastern Europe, but I suspect the former is going to be easier to manage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]