Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wirenote (talk | contribs) at 21:06, 14 June 2014 (→Talk:Ransomware (malware) and Ransomware: Yes.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport

Shortcut

Bot reverting

Usually, several times per week a newbie will make an edit directly to WP:GAN and be reverted by Legobot. I will often notify that person and tell them to go back and follow the instructions like this. The bot should do this. Usually, people are trying to make a nomination. Sometimes they are trying to tinker with an existing nomination by adding a note or noting that it is on hold. Can we have the bot leave a message when it makes such a reversion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legoktm, can you comment here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the warning to editors is 4 lines:
  • Attention! This page is automatically maintained by a bot. Updating this page is unnecessary.
  1. To add or update a nomination, follow the GA nomination instructions.
  2. To withdraw a nomination, remove the {{GA nominee}} template from the article talk page.
  3. To fail a nomination or list it as GA, follow the GA reviewing instructions and replace the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page.
Can we add a line to the warning about adding notes or requesting second opinions to a the nomination page. Also, we could clarify the second line to state that updating includes adding a note or a 2nd opinion request as well as placing an article on hold.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes optional?

I have never heard of infoboxes being optional. However, at Talk:Sergei Prokofiev/GA1, I am getting resistance toward including one. Are these really optional now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When were they ever required? Granted they are extremely common, and I think articles should include them where possible, but as far as I know, nothing has ever actually required their use. Imzadi 1979 → 23:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are there to summarize the article's key info. iv'e seen members have personal agendas against infoboxes. Lucia Black (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read the links to our style guidelines and they do technically say that infoboxes are optional. However, it is generally recognized that it is an improvement to have one. While I have no policy-based-backing, IMO it is common sense that it should have one before being GA-ranked. The argument against it seems to be more of a technicality, from my perspective. CorporateM (Talk) 23:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the weird world of Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers the odd ball of Wikiprojects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes will explain more. The group has had many GA and FA pass without the infobox despite the norm to use them. In the pass this topic has lead to lots of edit wars but should not change the GA review....as in the article does not need a box to be a good article. For a list of all the talks see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Major discussions and arbitration case as for our rule see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles -- Moxy (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are optional, however depending on what information ins't stressed in the lead that normally doesn't would make it more necessary. I personally believe Biography articles vary much more between the lead and the infobox because the lead focuses on different things than the infobox (for biographies) Lucia Black (talk)
  • Just a reminder: the issue is contentious enough to have reached Arbcom. I personally wouldn't force it. Some articles work better with infoboxes, some don't. Some editors prefer using them, some don't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - there is long-running consensus that there is no consensus for infoboxes on composers. Best left with the status quo whatever that may be :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we be archiving the review?

I noticed we don't have a template and archiving process for our review pages. Not professional, not cool! I formulated a working example from the FA side. Something like this; maybe?—John Cline (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quickfailing unreleased media

I brought this up specifically for video games at the project talk page and I'm moving it here as the better venue: Template:Blockquotetop Videoball (nom) does not have a release date, but the article includes all coverage of the game from development to hands-on prerelease reviews. Its GAN was quickfailed by virtue that it could not pass 3a or 5 (see WP:GACR) until it is released. Since this is a recurring concern (I've brought up a variant before), I'd like outside and informal input from the project.

My position is that a review is done on the sourcing available at the time, not off of what it could be. I recently passed Automonopoli (nom), which didn't have sections like development or even a very thick reception, but it used the sources available—and under the same logic, Videoball used all of the sources available and shouldn't be penalized for want of sources that don't exist. Likewise, we've been discussing the need for a development section in F-Zero Climax (nom) when none of us can find such coverage. (I'd review the article otherwise, but this is a gray area.) Thoughts? czar ♔ 20:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You go with the sources possible, and I agree with you on Automonopoli that it doesn't fail 3a just because development info doesn't exist, but it is certainly standard practice to fail unreleased media articles that are not vaporware (DukeNukemForever) on criteria 5- they are not stable. When the game comes out, the whole article has to be majorly rewritten- a reception section needs to be created/drastically changed, gameplay generally gets a drastic overhaul since so much more information becomes available, Plot generally does the same thing (not applicable in this case), and development typically expands as well. Even assuming that the game does not drastically change from pre-release to release (which is not a given for any game, and certainly outside our ability to know/predict), the article post-release is a very, very different thing than the article pre-release, which is the definition of unstable. People have previously proposed that we allow GAs for unreleased media and require a re-review when it's released, but that was considered unworkable; instead, they just aren't passed in the first place. If you want to change this, I'd recommend bringing it up at WP:GA, since it would really encompass movies and books and such as well. --PresN 20:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what PresN said, just because he beat me to it. NathanWubs (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Template:Blockquotebottom[reply]

My question is whether quickfailing a GAN for being unreleased goes against the idea of assessment based on the sources available at the time. In the case of Videoball above, all usual aspects of video game breadth (gameplay, development, reception) are covered with the full range of sources available. The reality is that (especially with no set release date) it would be presumptuous to say the article will definitely change when it is stable and complete as of now. As for how the article would change post-release, I see it changing as much as media that receives a new edition several years later or Barack Obama doing whatever he does next after leaving office. If circumstances were to change, it should be subjected to the same GAR treatment that any article receives, but for now, I don't see how we can preemptively quickfail GANs for breadth and stability when they meet the criteria at the time and for the near future. Thoughts? czar ♔ 21:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm sketchy on the whole idea of dedicating pages to unreleased games as it stands, let alone GAN promotion. I feel the whole process of featuring an unreleased title skirts into promotional territory. It's one thing when an upcoming game is mentioned as part of a series, and that higher level page is nominated (eg, The Sims and The Sims 4). I would say the same thing about any kind of unpublished media being discussed. BcRIPster (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how an article on a work of any unreleased media—game, book, movie, music album, etc.—can possibly meet GA criterion 3a. for broad coverage of the many aspects of a work in that medium: actual plot and/or tracks, success/failure in the marketplace, reception from reviewers, etc. If 3a is now deemed to be insufficient, then I would urge that the loophole (for that's what it is) be closed: anything that does not yet exist except in reports has an aspect of WP:CRYSTAL to it: a lot can change between early reports and the actual item that is ultimately sold. Because of this, such articles should not be eligible to become GAs. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having created, developed and promoted video game articles to GA status, I can honestly say that there is a massive structural difference between pre-release and post-release titles. That being said, it is safe to leave the policy as is, due to the general tendency of articles essentially becoming new articles after release. I understand the concerns of the Czar, as I was frustrated when my first GAN received a quick fail. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 00:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I want to make sure we're talking about quickfailing of unreleased titles that, from all possible standpoints, still appears to be on track to be released. It is completely possible for a title to garner enough information while unreleased and then fail to be released or otherwise cancelled; at that stage, the article on the cancelled title is completely fair game for GA since we expect no new information it. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's an appropriate condition. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 00:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it would be ridiculous for example to quick fail something like Star Fox 2 which was cancelled almost 19 years ago.--69.157.253.74 (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my $0.02. From WP:VG/GL#Essential content; "A "Reception" section. This shows the impact that the subject had on the game industry: commercially, artistically, and technologically." Such paramaters cannot be assessed for a game that has not been released (unless it becomes a notable example of vaporware), hence my reasoning for Videoball's quick-fail. Because Videoball lacks reviews based on final copies of the game, it's entirely reasonable that no consensus as to the game's actual quality can be assessed until it's shipped/embargoes are lifted. Also to develop on BlueMoonset's point, we can't consider an article complete if the game is unreleased, because there's no way we can confirm that every announced feature will end up in the game until it comes out. Have a look into Peter Molyneux's history of promoting Fable, for example. Now, an article covering an unreleased game may be good, but I hold that it can't yet reach 3a and 5 of the criteria, so it's best to hold off and wait (maybe a month-ish) for all the sources to calm down and write up something that's accurate and unchanging. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CR4ZE, for what it's worth, the Videoball sources were from February and April and the content isn't changing. czar ♔ 21:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure that we are on the same page, something like Star Fox 2 would qualify for GA since the fact that it was meant to be released in the summer of 1995 would mean that it meets the vaporware requirement you mentioned?--69.157.253.74 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, video game articles on games that were canned are fair game. See Pirates of the Caribbean: Armada of the Damned or Sam & Max: Freelance Police which are both featured. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers who edit the articles they are reviewing

I have several GA candidates awaiting or currently being reviewed (Esophagus, Cervix, Parathyroid gland). One article, Cervix, has received significant edits to structure, lead and style during the review from a user who is also a reviewer (Snowmanradio), who has also advised another user on Parathyroid gland "There is no reason why you could not edit the page and also take part in the GA review; however, sometimes it might be simpler not to work on the page" ([1]). This is very frustrating. See Talk:Cervix/GA2#Stop for more information. Reviewers should not be making significant edits to articles during the review for a number reasons:

  1. It is a conflict of interest
  2. There is less opportunity for nominees to disagree, as many will want their articles passed
  3. A large number of edits impact an article's stability, which is a GARC
  4. The review will need to keep pace with changes, particularly to the validity of sources and copyedits
  5. If the article changes significantly in ways not related to the comments of a reviewer, then the review itself may be void and have to start again

How much should a reviewer edit? Is this documented somewhere? --LT910001 (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it may be acceptable if the changes are minor or trivial, things that nobody would reasonably disagree with, such as grammar or spelling mistakes or small wikify issues. Cambalachero (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled reassessment to be handled with some care.

Hi. I have been asked to close an ongoing GA reassessment. The original editor asking the reassessment seems to have left editing in April; moreover if you look at her user page, you'll notice that she is not exactly neutral with respect to one of the main editors of the article (which has been herself recently the subject of a painful, even if warranted, editor review), so I feel uneasy in directly asking her or having her close the assessment. However it seems that reassessments are always in the hands of the editor requesting assessment. This I find weird, since I feel closure should come from some uninvolved party, but I have little knowledge of the GA process/intricacies. Can someone advise me what to do? Thanks! --cyclopiaspeak! 10:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dumbly forgot to link the article to be reassessed. It is Gastrotricha. --cyclopiaspeak! 22:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who asked Cyclopia to draw this reassessment to a close. What is the proper procedure for doing this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this a few days ago and was wondering about it. It seems to me that if there is no formal procedure for this and no resolution is likely, then a close per WP:IAR would not be out of place, with a note that if anyone wants to reopen the issue, then community reassessment would probably be best. Sunrise (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the reassessments

Can someone close the older nominations at the reassessment page? And why aren't they listed chronologically? Is there some malfunction with the bot?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is going to look at sorting these out could they look at Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2 which doesn't appear on the reassessment page - but I don't know why. I believe the issues identified have been addressed and I've not had any response to my messages on the talk page of the editor who nominated it for review.— Rod talk 20:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing nom

I started the review of Talk:4th Army (Yugoslavia)/GA1, but it's dropped off the GAN page for some reason. Can someone fix this, please?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing subtopic

Hi, I've just nominated Ayscoghe Boucherett and placed him in the Politics and Government section; however, the nominations page states that only living politicians can go there (the instructions page doesn't say so). How do I move him to the History sub-topic? Thanks, Noswall59 (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I've just changed the subtopic to "World history". For future reference, all you need to do is modify the "GA nominee" template on the article's talk page by changing the subtopic field from one subtopic to another. Make sure to retain the exact orthography when you do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll remember that :) Noswall59 (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Misuse of Good article

What procedures exist for detection and handling of cases where {{good article}} has been applied to a page that never went through WP:GAN, as here? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Redrose64. I noticed your comment regarding misuse of the good article template. Perhaps the template code should check for the page itself, as in: 

{{#ifexist:Talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}/GA1|  
{{Top icon
| imagename    = symbol support vote.svg
| wikilink     = Wikipedia:Good articles
| description  = This is a good article. Click here for more information.
| id           = good-star
| maincat      = [[Category:Good articles]]
}}
|}}

This would preclude it from posting the top icon unless the page exists.—John Cline (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, but it wouldn't remove the icon if the GAN had failed, nor if there were subsequent events that mean that the page is not a good article. What we need to find is that: the most recent GAN passed (even if it was /GA2, /GA3 etc.); there has been no subsequent successful FAC; and no subsequent WP:GAR which resulted in delisting. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I thought it was too easy.—John Cline (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This report will show up articles with that template (or in Category:Good articles) which don't fully implement articlehistory on the talkpage and/or don't actually have GA status. I think. Currently ~35 entries, some of which may be false positives. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Incidentally, I think most of these cases are well-meaning errors - people copy over article header templates without realising what this one does among all the other code) Andrew Gray (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25 cleared - ten difficult cases left. I'll see if I can figure out what's going on with these. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After removing all the ones which had no GA review, we're left with:
Andrew Gray (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only three left - thanks all! Andrew Gray (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the last three. Adabow (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait time

Is there any written rule that once you expand an article significantly from its previous version from sandbox merging, you have to wait a week before nominating it for GA? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a specific time amount really, but articles like Grand Theft Auto V failed stability when first nominated as it was too soon and was in the process of expansion. I figured a week would be good settling time, but could be wrong- maybe articles can be considered stable in cases where they were just substantially expanded before nomination. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@XXSNUGGUMSXX: An article that has been expanded and then nominated for GA does not qualify for being unstable. An article that is in the midst of major expansion during a GA nomination would definitely qualify for being unstable. @IndianBio: There is not. — Status (talk · contribs) 18:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, will keep this in mind for the future. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if stuff is changed mid review, it's okay if the nominator doesn't mind. I have stability failed maybe two GA review out of 50, and both occasions there were large scale reverts going back and forth, with a nice dollop of "you don't know what you're talking about" on the talk page. If you're not at that stage, I wouldn't quickfail, as it does annoy people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, Ritchie. Your review of GTA V was one of the most unstable nominations I've seen. Other big stability issues I've seen include GAN's for Justin Bieber and Grand Theft Auto IV (the latter of which was also first nominated for GA shortly after its release). I have failed nominations before where stability was an issue, but not quickfails without going into any other detail. The initial nominator for GTA V also wasn't even a significant contributor, yet didn't withdraw nomination before you quickfailed it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ransomware (malware) and Ransomware

So I came across List of Good Articles by length and noticed that in their shortest section that four articles were merged into other pages. I removed three of these redirects of their GA statuses but when I saw Talk:Ransomware (malware), it seemed that all that happened was that the article's name was changed to Ransomware. Does that mean Ransomware is a Good Article? GamerPro64 05:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Why would it not? wirenote (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Establishin Notability as part of the criteria

i think we should establish it in the criteria. it may seem like its common knowledge but i actually seen a few GA articles get deleted in the past. and i think looking for notability will be the safest to make sure they dont get deleted. Lucia Black (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not the same, really. Hurricanes are prone to that as well. Sometimes the project or community moves the bar a little, but the bar for creation of an article doesn't usually move that much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its pretty much the same. the articke wont exist, the content will be moved back. But beside all that, does it even matter? GAs should at least be notable and there is large ammount of room where they can meet the current criteria and not be notable. so with that said. Why are you so against notability to being part of the criteria? Lucia Black (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are already (implicitly) part of the criteria. The mergers that Czar points out had people who supported keeping the articles, as well as people who supported merging the articles. The "notability" of the articles wasn't clear, and it wasn't objective, and is therefore not fair to force on a single reviewer in such close cases. The hurricane mergers were, I believe, part of a project-wide shift in the guidelines for such storms (please correct me if I'm wrong). This affected not only GAs, but also FAs, and was not something that could have been predicted at the time of the GA nominations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reviewed articles at GAC which I've failed (partly) on the grounds that the topics do not seem notable. Ed, Edd n Eddy's Boo Haw Haw and Outcast (Warriors), for instance, still exist as separate articles, but they probably shouldn't. It's technically not in the criteria- I think it may actually be a good addition which would serve to codify something that is (and should be) happening anyway. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good article must be factually accurate and verifiable per section 2 of the criteria. If the article's subject is not notable, then by definition, no suitable sources will exist for it and it cannot possibly pass. I don't think we need to add this to the criteria, it's just red tape. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP opened up the review for Romance (Luis Miguel album)

An IP has opened up a review page for Romance (Luis Miguel album). Given the IP's contributions and warnings it received, I doubt I would get an adequate review (but I have informed the IP's talk page just in case). Could someone please delete the review page? Thanks, Erick (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence (2014 TV series)

As the first season of this show has not even finished airing I believe it is too soon for a good article status. However, others may disagree which is why I come here. What is protocol here? wirenote (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to wait until the final episode of the season has been aired, and the article has settled down. Any article about an ongoing TV series attracts fan editing, which may or may not be constructive. In particular, consider WP:GACR item 1b "it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation" - the part about fiction; item 2c "it contains no original research"; item 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)"; item 5[7] where it says "Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold." --Redrose64 (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination and improvements from a topic banned editor

I reviewed Pharnavaz I of Iberia, and then found out that the editor who nominated the article, User:Jaqeli, was topic banned from articles that deal with Georgia and Armenia together. I requested an outside opinion from users involved with the topic ban of Jaqeli, and while I waited for that, the Jaqeli edited the article to satisfy the problems that I found during the review process. Because of this editing, Jaqeli has been blocked for two weeks. But Pharnavaz I of Iberia now satisfies the criteria for GA. How should I proceed? May I promote an article for GA even though the editor who nominated it and brought it up to snuff is topic banned?--¿3family6 contribs 14:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&oldid=612934961"