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.

Kzyx is a relatively new editor and hasn't been editing since 24 June. The page itself isn't yet at GA standards. What shall I do with the review? (Talk:Fu Wuji/GA1) ¹⁴¹Pr -_\contribs/- 20:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fail it if you don't feel the article doesn't meet the criteria and there is no improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Breonna Taylor just got nominated for GA and then quickpassed. Both users here are relatively new editors; those being Nickscoby, the nominator, and DeadlyRampage26, the reviewer.

Obviously, we need more GANs and GANs reviewers and I'm happy when new people get into it - but there's certain articles that need more care with the review, especially for controversial or complex subjects; and we need very experienced reviewers for a nominator's first time approaching a GA and vice versa. There is, notably, no evidence that there was a source spot check of any sort performed.

The article is certainly in a good shape for a topic like this, but I feel like this is one really need experienced folks to peer over before we can count this as a proper GA. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at DR26's user talk page. I agree the review had some problems, as does the article (at which I'm involved, btw). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm happy to address problems that you see with the article. Thanks. Nickscoby (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Talk:Breonna Taylor/GA1, no OR/copyvio source checks. (I am surprised this is a separate article, but that is not a GA issue.) CMD (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK I understand. I am new to this and was matching what I saw with the criteria but I think that if you think a more in depth review is required that does make sense DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DeadlyRampage26, thanks for your review. I actually appreciated how you went through each criteria, the issue here is more interpretation than depth. On the source issue mentioned on your talkpage, there are a number of unsourced areas in the body (ie. not the WP:LEAD), which we would generally pick up. Regarding what I mentioned above, GACR2 cannot be met without seeing if the sources do actually support the article and there isn't any copying. Now, it is definitely not necessary to go through and check every source, but reviewers should spot check a few to make sure. For example, the first sentence of Adult life is "In 2011, Taylor attended the University of Kentucky (Lexington) as a first-generation college student and returned to Louisville after one year", supported by this source. That source does support attendance at the University of Kentucky in 2011, but does not seem to support the claim of being a first-generation student or a return to Louisville. CMD (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article review circles is still promising, but I notice that its coordinator User:GMH Melbourne has been less active lately. If I can make a suggestion, we should probably add one or two more coordinators, and then maybe add a link to it somewhere so people familiar with both nominating and reviewing can find it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had been thinking about opening a discussion here as well. I think the process has gotten off to a great start: 12 nominees received reviews in the past month as part of the three "test runs". I support integrating it into the wider GAN process and adding links to it where relevant. As for additional coordinators, PCN02WPS has shown some interest on the talk page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support integration into the GAN process as a whole. I'm happy to hop on as another coordinator to help ease things along if people are good with that. Might go ahead and start up another circle soon to keep the number of waiting articles on the lower side. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS you have my endorsement at least to boldly add yourself to the coordinators list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check my review for Communism in the Philippines, any help will be appreciated! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheNuggeteer This is a pretty good review, but I think you didn't need to fail it; unless it'd be require a complete rewrite of the article or something very difficult to reasonably do in a few days, it's best to put it on hold and then fail it after 7 days if the changes haven't been made. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, I fixed the problem. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheNuggeteer, just as a note that you may want to refer to sources with something a bit easier to identify than "Source NUMBER", as a slight copyediting of the article or the addition or removal of sources will throw that right off. Alternatively, you can add a specific article version ID to the review so that the numbers will all be the same. On images, do check the licences. (It appears all four are public domain in this case.) Best, CMD (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both Generalissima and Chipmunkdavis for your response, CMD, I have added a note stating the revision. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the nomination was a drive-by one, with FloridaMan21 adding a little, what should I do in this case? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really in this case. Drive by nominations are not necessairly a bad thing if the reviewer is familiar with the sourcing - the problem is, they usually aren't. 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check another review for 2022 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar election, any help will be appreciated! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important note TheNuggeteer, the WP:LEAD does not need its own sources. What is important for the lead is that it is a summary of the body (ie. not have anything significant that isn't in the body), the citations should appear in the body for said information. CMD (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the 'lead' part, thank you for your response! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer, that's two unnecessary fails you've done now in short order. Quickfails are really intended for articles that are badly beneath the GACR, not just articles that are merely imperfect. Significantly, articles are not expected to be comprehensive at the GA level, just "broad". You defend your fail of the above article by arguing that it's missing a section on campaigning, but it's not required to have this section (and doubly so if the sourcing doesn't support having such a section). I would recommend holding off and waiting for responses rather than failing nominations so quickly in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why you're treating GA reviewing as if you're grinding a video game, TheNuggeteer. In the past day, you have started three GA reviews and taken a pretty slapdash approach to completing them. Perhaps you have not read the reviewing instructions? If you have, I would recommend rereading WP:GAN/I#R3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate guidance about this review. I'm happy to re-nominate, I'm just unsure of the correct way forward. I've sorted most of the comments that I can but there were a few things that I disagreed with and would have preferred the opportunity to respond rather than having it failed. I have left comments on the review page about the points raised. Tagging the review so they are aware (TheNuggeteer). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some feedback on the recent review I completed of MidCity SmashedBurger before I start another GA review. I am quite nervous I am going beyond the scope of GA, and would appreciate some line drawing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]