Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations
| Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | FAQ | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
| Reviewing initiatives: | Backlog drives | Mentorship | Review circles | Pledges |
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 FAQ above 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.
 | To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, several other GA talk pages redirect here. |
| 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, 33, 34, 35, 36 |
|
GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Nominations/Instructions: 1 Search archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Subject sweep?
editWould there be interest in getting a few people together to systematically clear out one subject area of nominations? I'm looking at WP:GAN#REC for example where there are eight open nominations, and they're all very short and easy by the looks of it. If four people expressed interest, each could take two reviews and get the whole section done (and more people would be even better!). Just to be clear, this is not a proposal for a formal backlog drive, just something that could be done when there are enough interested people for a given subject. Seeing this sort of quick progress in clearing out an entire section could be motivating, and if there's a lot of interest, then it could be applied to some of the medium-sized subjects as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yesss I would do this IAWW (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I could do one of these. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Me too! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, @DaniloDaysOfOurLives, @It is a wonderful world, and @Thebiguglyalien, if we all do two we can clear the section. I will start my reviews now. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- And just like that every one is under review IAWW (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like Buddy breathing is still untaken. 😉 Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I started the review, it's just taking some time for ChristieBot to update IAWW (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I started the review, it's just taking some time for ChristieBot to update IAWW (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Amazing! Nice work everyone and thanks to TBUA for getting this rolling. Perhaps next we could do Education (6 open nominations since January), Places (6 since February), Royalty, nobility and heraldry (7 since January), Economics and business (8 since February) or Magazines and print journalism (8 since January)? Grnrchst (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- We should pick another once most of the recreation reviews are on hold or completed. If a few more people express interest, we could go for a larger one. WP:GAN#CULTURE has good variety if we could get at least 10 people for 20 nominations. Otherwise magazines and print journalism looks like an easy one for 4–8 people to tackle. Ideally I'd like to avoid ones where it's dominated by one person (don't want to overwhelm them and would prefer to let several nominators have reviewers), and others like royalty are also being maintained and are mostly reviewed already. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have snagged one of the Education articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've been trying to clear that section since I started reviewing almost a year ago. I've got it down to one article twice but never zero. IAWW (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- There's one more unclaimed nomination at education for History of education in Brunei (nom) if anyone wants the bragging rights for taking the final open nomination in a section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'll take it, interesting topic. CMD (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- There's one more unclaimed nomination at education for History of education in Brunei (nom) if anyone wants the bragging rights for taking the final open nomination in a section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've been trying to clear that section since I started reviewing almost a year ago. I've got it down to one article twice but never zero. IAWW (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like Buddy breathing is still untaken. 😉 Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Mathematics and mathematicians is a subject area that only has two unreviewed articles (as of writing this):
- If we could get two reviews from WP:WPM that would help clear it! Gramix13 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'll do the Pythagorean addition; if somebody else takes the graph theory one the Mathematics section will be empty. —Kusma (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's my nomination so I can't help with the reviewing, but I'm at least holding off on additional nominations in that section for now as a way to improve the chances that this happens. And thanks to all the reviewers including Kusma and Gramix13 who have brought it so close to being cleaned out! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'll do the Pythagorean addition; if somebody else takes the graph theory one the Mathematics section will be empty. —Kusma (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- As we're moving toward completion on the Recreation and Education sections, are there at least four people (including myself) interested in tackling the eight nominations in WP:GAN#PRINT next? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I grabbed one article from the Places category listed above. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. I'm grabbing one now, and one is from an inactive nominator, so that leaves Lyon Village, Virginia (start) and Kikwit (start). In the meantime, if anyone wants to start pledging to do two each from Culture, we could optimistically have a list of at least ten people ready to go by the time we're done with the current projects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Gdańsk is such a large article, I’m hesitant to take on any more until I’ve worked my way through what I’ve already committed to. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. I'm grabbing one now, and one is from an inactive nominator, so that leaves Lyon Village, Virginia (start) and Kikwit (start). In the meantime, if anyone wants to start pledging to do two each from Culture, we could optimistically have a list of at least ten people ready to go by the time we're done with the current projects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- There's a couple print media nominations that interest me. I'll see about reviewing them once I'm done with my own open nomination. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Opened reviews for two of the print media nominations. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I could do the Chinese one and perhaps one of the shorter ones. —Kusma (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Whoops! Swiped that one from you, sorry. I found it too interesting not to review. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I grabbed one article from the Places category listed above. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Here's where we're at after 12 days:
- Education: From 1/6 under review to 6/6 under review.
- Magazines and print journalism: From 0/7 under review to 2/7 under review.
- Mathematics: From 1/3 under review to 1/2 under review.
- Places: From 2/6 under review to 4/7 under review.
- Recreation: From 0/8 under review to 3/4 under review.
Recreation was the one we all started with together and quickly got all eight under review in a matter of hours. After that everyone kind of went off in their own direction and it just became regular reviewing. A few of the open reviews have also dragged on a bit longer than the expected one week. If we want to do another section, I suggest waiting until the in-progress sections are mostly resolved, and then getting a few people together in advance before coming to an agreement on a given section. In the meantime, there are currently ten more nominations waiting in the above subjects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have grabbed one in Print and one in Places. —Kusma (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Chenab Rail Bridge
editChenab Rail Bridge was nominated for a GAR in February 2025. While the user Theeverywhereperson indicated an intention to review on 4 August 2025, he/she had not started the review as of date, and has reverted with a might/might not answer when queried on the same. So request to restore the article to the original date as per the list, so that someone else can take it up. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- In the past we have waited a month, although Theeverywhereperson has indicated on the review that they are not free. Have you asked them if they want to withdraw as a reviewer? They can nominate the page for deletion and then all that is needed is to make a small reset to the nomination template. CMD (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis, In my opinion, if the review is ongoing, it is fine if it takes longer. However, if someone has not even started reviewing it after 20+ days, it simply takes the article from the GA backlog, and prevents others from taking it up. As per your suggestion, I have suggested that the user nominate it for deletion. Will reach out in case of further help. Thanks as always! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have deleted the review page. —Kusma (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis, In my opinion, if the review is ongoing, it is fine if it takes longer. However, if someone has not even started reviewing it after 20+ days, it simply takes the article from the GA backlog, and prevents others from taking it up. As per your suggestion, I have suggested that the user nominate it for deletion. Will reach out in case of further help. Thanks as always! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
No theme for October?
editI'd suggest, given the state of the backlog, that the October backlog drive have no theme. The themes are interesting but they complexify the process and may intimidate some reviewers. The focus for October should simplify be on incentivizing as many high quality reviews as possible. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Agree IAWW (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- I also agree with this. Maybe there could be more bonus points than normal for reviewing the oldest nominations. -Riley1012 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
TOC Limit
editEvery "Reassessments" heading at WP:GAN is included in the table of contents and would benefit from a TOC Limit. Pinging Mike Christie. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- In Vector2022 I just see the top-level headings by default, each expandable, so there is no problem with TOC clutter even with reassessments included. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- On one hand this would make navigating the TOC easier, on the other hand since the sections aren't manually editable having them appear in the TOC is the only purpose for their existence. CMD (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- That means the TOC can be used to see which sections have reassessments. —Kusma (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Are archived references a GA requirement?
editTitle sums it up - I've been asked a few times to archive references as part of a GA review, but I'm not sure if that's a requirement or not. EF5 13:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not a requirement, just good practice. —Kusma (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- No. As a reviewer, I will run the article through the archive bot as a courtesy and then just recommend that the author archive the rest, but clarify that it is not a requirement. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- If we want to encourage archiving, should we add the bot to Template:Good article tools? CMD (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea, but the bot doesn't always work - see my run of it at 2011 Flat Rock-Trenton tornado where only about half of the references were successfully archived. EF5 14:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Archiving may or may not be required for FA/FL (at the very least, it's strongly encouraged at FL), but really shouldn't factor as a requirement for GA. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- As long as archiving is not required, I think explicitly including archiving in the Tools template could be easily misunderstood. —Kusma (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea, but the bot doesn't always work - see my run of it at 2011 Flat Rock-Trenton tornado where only about half of the references were successfully archived. EF5 14:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- If we want to encourage archiving, should we add the bot to Template:Good article tools? CMD (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Lots of good ideas are not Good Article requirements. This is one such. It is helpful for GA reviewers to find things that could be improved that are not requirements, but when they do so they should be clear that they are not requirements. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Can someone point me towards how to run the bot? Billsmith60 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Inappropriate GF closure at Talk:It (character)/GA2?
editThat GA review was failed immediately (not stated as a quick fail) without giving me time to fix the concerns the reviewer had. I don't think the person should have immediately failed the GAN - they should have given me some time to fix the issues and/or put it on hold. I personally feel like the concerns that were raised could have easily been fixed within the standard seven day period once I was notified of them.
According to WP:GANI you should put it on hold if you determine that the article could meet the good article criteria if a few issues are fixed and you wish to prescribe an amount of time for these issues to be corrected (generally seven days)
. It also says you should fail the GAN if you determine that the article does not meet the good article criteria
. I'm not quite sure if their assessment justifies an instant failure, seeing as they elaborated on what information they think is lacking in places, but did not give me any time after seeing their comments to actually fill in the gaps before failing the GAN. There's one uncited statement in the article that can be easily removed; otherwise, it was clear to me that they think the article passes criteria 3-6.
The reviewer said they do feel like this article has the potential to reach GA status in the future: I do believe this has what it takes to make GA status in time though, so keep trucking on
. I feel I could have easily addressed them within a week or so if they had given me the time to do so.
Would it be appropriate to undo the failure temporarily and place the nomination on hold so the issues can be addressed?
Tagging the reviewer @Pokelego999. Gommeh 📖/🎮 21:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's not entirely clear which one of the WP:QF criteria the reviewer felt applied to the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say based on what they said, it's most likely QF criteria #1. I'd take an educated guess it's because they saw information as lacking in some places. There aren't any copyvios on the article so it's probably not #2. They may think it needs cleanup banners so IDK about #3. There hasn't been any edit warring so it's obviously not #4. Talk:It (character)/GA1 did fail due to broadness (although IIRC some people disagreed with this and felt it was too harsh, I agreed that it wasn't broad enough) so it could potentially fall under #5. Nevertheless, we should wait and see what Pokelego says. Gommeh 📖/🎮 23:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Gommeh Yes, sorry for being unclear, but #1 was my rationale (While it wasn't one particular criteria, so many were lacking, I felt, that I felt it was warranted). Additionally, I based it off WP:GAN/I#R3, and felt it was unlikely it could be completed in the seven day time frame. However, I am quite fine with re-opening it given how much you're fighting for this to be re-opened. If you believe that you can complete this within the given timeframe, I'm happy for it to be re-opened so you can address what was brought up in the review. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with re-opening GANs, however, so I'd appreciate assistance from someone more experienced on the feasibility of it, in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Depending on what information I can find I may have to actually remove some information instead - like who the Turtle is for example - if it's not relevant enough. I'll have to think about it. And thanks for clarifying - I'll probably get on it sometime tomorrow. Gommeh 📖/🎮 01:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Additionally, you can always choose to put it on hold to give it an extra week. Gommeh 📖/🎮 01:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Depending on what information I can find I may have to actually remove some information instead - like who the Turtle is for example - if it's not relevant enough. I'll have to think about it. And thanks for clarifying - I'll probably get on it sometime tomorrow. Gommeh 📖/🎮 01:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Gommeh Yes, sorry for being unclear, but #1 was my rationale (While it wasn't one particular criteria, so many were lacking, I felt, that I felt it was warranted). Additionally, I based it off WP:GAN/I#R3, and felt it was unlikely it could be completed in the seven day time frame. However, I am quite fine with re-opening it given how much you're fighting for this to be re-opened. If you believe that you can complete this within the given timeframe, I'm happy for it to be re-opened so you can address what was brought up in the review. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with re-opening GANs, however, so I'd appreciate assistance from someone more experienced on the feasibility of it, in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say based on what they said, it's most likely QF criteria #1. I'd take an educated guess it's because they saw information as lacking in some places. There aren't any copyvios on the article so it's probably not #2. They may think it needs cleanup banners so IDK about #3. There hasn't been any edit warring so it's obviously not #4. Talk:It (character)/GA1 did fail due to broadness (although IIRC some people disagreed with this and felt it was too harsh, I agreed that it wasn't broad enough) so it could potentially fall under #5. Nevertheless, we should wait and see what Pokelego says. Gommeh 📖/🎮 23:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)