Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Good article nominations

WT:GAN

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.

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, 33

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 .

Other sports Split

Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Other sports currently has 115 items in it, with 14 collapsed as the nominator has too many nominations. Is this too many? The continued large number of Olympics GANs could be its own section, or more general divisions of events or athletes may be more appropriate. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 10:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question of how permanent the Olympic flow will be. The country delegation x year is a limited set, and further limited as the nominations tend to be those of very small delegations. The event x year articles may be more plentiful, however. CMD (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the surge of Olympics article being quite a recent phenonomen by a small number of editors (at the end of September there were two articles directly about the olympics, although I am sure that there were articles about several individuals who had competed at the Olympics) I think a split of sports biographies would be a better move. Or alternatively, split off sports events. SSSB (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with splitting Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Other sports, and also we should consider splitting Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Politics and government, the next-largest sub-category. It is our responsibility to keep the sub-category queue sizes from growing too large. Perhaps:

Other sports (115)

split into:

Baseball, basketball

Cricket, hockey, pro wrestling, cue sports

Other sports

Politics and government (58)

split into:

Politicians

Politics and government

This would require buy-in from Mike Christie, creator of ChristieBot. Prhartcom (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting GA nominations list, viewing existing reviews

Hello. First question: On the GA nominations list, between each article listed for review or reassessment and the person nominating it there brackets with a pair of numbers, eg. (14 reviews, 9 GAs). Do these numbers refer to the articles - e.g. how many times the article has been reviewed, how many votes it has for GA status? Or do they refer to the user, and if so what do they mean?

Second question: How can I see if an article listed for review has existing reviews? Where would they show up? Before I review, I'd want to make sure I'm not giving feedback that has already been given. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"X reviews" means the total number of GA nominations that specific user has reviewed (regardless if approved or failed). "Y GAs" is the number of good articles that person has written and that were approved successfully. You can see if an article has previous reviews listed at the talk page itself. For example, Talk:United States has the section/template "United States was one of the Geography and places good articles...". There it is displayed its article milestones. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 07:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Sonnyvalentino (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Drive

May starts in two weeks, and so does our next GAN Backlog Drive. We've already established a theme, so it'll be newbie-oriented. Is anyone willing to coordinate the drive besides me? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to help:) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging our previous coordinators @IntentionallyDense and Ganesha811: to see if they're interested. :) Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traveling next month so I won't be able to coordinate, but I'll probably participate and do a few reviews! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Have fun traveling. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! I'm not great with the technical stuff but I do like helping newbies. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear! We'll do our best. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Mead GA

English footballer (born 1995), Good article review

Unfortunately I'm unable to finish this GA, so if there is anyone able to help with completing it it'd be much appreciated. For reference I've completely early life and most of the early career, from there the quality of the article appears to be much better (sort of as you'd expect). Also pinging Kingsif incase they are able to step in. Thanks to anyone that can help. CNC (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sams Creek mining

I have nominated this article and for reasons explained on its talk page, the article is in draft space. That challenges Christiebot a bit, but I hope it's ok for the reviewer who takes this on. Schwede 66 03:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, the bot is not coping at all with draft space. Can you think of a hack to overcome that? Schwede 66 06:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a couple of possible things you could try.

If you can find someone in a relevant WikiProject or someone who's worked on similar articles who is willing to work with you on the article, they could move the article to article space, and nominate it; you could still assist with resolving any review questions.
I'm not clear on the exact nature of the COI, but unless it's stronger than it appears you might decide that it's not strong enough to prevent you from working on the article. On a couple of occasions I've edited articles about people whom I know personally; I've declared the relationship on the articles' talk pages and I don't think it was inappropriate for me to make those edits. You say you could not make any edits at all once the article is out of draft space; if the COI is minor then that might not be true, in which case you could simply move the article from draft space yourself, or wait for someone at AfC to do so, and carry on with the COI declared. If it's truly the case that you cannot make any edits at all to the article in mainspace, then I don't think you should be nominating it at GA -- a nominator must be in a position to respond to the review.
Technically, I can think of an option that might work given the draft-space approach you are taking, but I don't recommend it and I think we should hear from others before you try this. I think that if you were to create the talk page for the article, but not the article page, the nomination procedure would work. As far as I can recall, the bot does not require the existence of the article page, because it doesn't edit it at all until it tries to apply the GA star if the article is promoted. This would look weird on the GAN page since there would be a redlink for the article, but you could add a note explaining why that is. However, the orphaned talk page would presumably be subject to deletion by admins performing housekeeping. I'm not an admin and am not sure if this approach would break any rules, but it would certainly break some norms, and I doubt it's the right answer.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66, articles have to be in mainspace to be eligible for GAN; I have deleted the nomination from the article's talk page because it's in Draftspace. Hacks like moving Draftspace articles temporarily into mainspace to nominate them don't work, and frankly shouldn't be done, while other hacks like creating a talk page for an article that doesn't exist should not be allowed. If the COI is so severe as to prevent mainspace editing of an article, then GAN is, unfortunately, probably not an appropriate process if other editors are not in a position to edit it after the article's move to mainspace and subsequent nomination. Out of curiosity, why has no COI been declared yet on the Draft article? If a conflict exists, it does from the moment the article is initiated. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had a look through the GAN rules and couldn’t find anything about mainspace. Can you please point me to where it says so, BlueMoonset? Now that you say it, you are right that I should have written the COI declaration already. I'll do so.

Thanks for your considered response, Mike Christie. That’s much appreciated. Schwede 66 18:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not WP:Good article-specific, but WP:What is an article? explicitly states that drafts are not counted as articles. TompaDompa (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TompaDompa! Schwede 66 19:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Draft talk:Sams Creek mining#Good article nomination procedure

– Schwede 66 02:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10 Hygiea

Can somebody just unilaterally delist a good article without discussion. Only ask because that's what happened at 10 Hygiea. Nrco0e decided it shouldn't be one, a just delisted it (apparently without any discussion at all). Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they can't. I've reverted that part of those edits Billsmith60 (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on the GAN Review of Santi Romano

Following on from this discussion, I'd like to get some feedback on the GAN review process and how we can move forward. The review was handled by Pbritti, who took it over in October 2024 but was largely absent for several months, so that the actual review took place over a period of eight days, from 11 to 19 April. During this time, I made significant improvements to the article, often in response to the reviewer's feedback. However, the review was quickly closed with a failure, citing issues that I believe are unfounded or had already been addressed and resolved (see the linked discussion for details).

I find it frustrating that the assessment was made so abruptly, after a long delay caused by the reviewer's unavailability, and on grounds that I consider to be inconsistent and specious. I suspect that the reviewer had little time to devote to the task and, as a result, interrupted a process that was delivering good results. So I'd like to know if this review met the expectations of the GAN process and, most importantly, if another reviewer might be willing to reopen and complete the review. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed this at length on Talk:Santi Romano, but I will repeat this here: describing me as absent from a review when I handed it off to a second opinion months ago is false—during that time, it was no longer my review. When I got the chance to provide a review earlier this month, I discovered that the article had been submitted with numerous verifiability and copyright issues. At this point, my only regret in this review is that I did not provide the closure afforded by a quick fail in October. To anyone interested in reviewing this article, understand that Gitz's response to me failing the article on egregious issues was to repeatedly accuse me of incompetence. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look-over; personally, I think much of the alleged close paragraphasing (such as this) doesn't come close, and most (not all, but most) of this earwig link is indeed repetitions of non-creative expression, which is fine. Still, quickfailing based on verifiability concerns comes under the discretion of the GA reviewer: in this case, I would just move on and put the article up for another review per WP:GAN/I#N5. Best of luck, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @AirshipJungleman29. Pbritti, however, did not fail the review based on verifiability concerns. As you can see from their final opinion, they mentioned portions of the lead ... unsupported by the body (which is undoubtedly mistaken), close paraphrasing (which is questionable and, in my opinion, also mistaken) and instability of the article (which arose entirely from Pbritti's suggestions and my willingness to implement them). There's simply nothing about verifiability.

Some verifiability concerns were raised during the review, but these were either demonstrably unfounded (see The publication date of Principii and its potentially incorrect Italian name, The paragraph on the Marshal position, no attribution of who is speaking in this quote, attempt to moderate its more extreme tendencies and relatively detached and uncommitted public profile) or quickly addressed (namely, two "citation needed" tags). For this reason, Pbritti's final opinion contains no mention of verifiability issues: there are none.

However, after I raised my concerns about Pbritti's rushed and incomplete review, they began to claim that This article was submitted with multiple unsourced statements, several failed Vs and (in their comment here above) numerous verifiability ... issues – claims that I believe to be completely false and specious. Santi Romano is fully verifiable.

@Pbritti Re Gitz's response ... was to repeatedly accuse me of incompetence, I did not accuse you of incompetence, but I asked you to substantiate your judgement so that others could assess your competence (here) and I claimed that you had delivered an incompetent review (here). I understand this may be upsetting, but I'm not interested at all in evaluating your competence as a reviewer but rather in understanding whether your review was OK and, if not, what should be done about it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC); edited 10:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz6666, AirshipJungleman29 is right that the best response is just to submit it to GAN again. I haven't gone through the review to see whether I agree with Pbritti's assessment, but it wouldn't matter unless they were simply not using the GA criteria -- the reviewer gets to decide the outcome of the review, per the instructions. That's both a strength and (occasionally) a weakness of the GA process. If I were to look at the article and decide it should have passed GA, I'd still say your next step would be to renominate. I agree that waiting eight months for this is frustrating, but that's why we have backlog drives -- see further up this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, please correct me if I'm wrong: WP:GAN/I#N5 encourages editors to seek additional input if they feel they haven't received an adequate review. Arguably, this input would be meaningless if the only option were to resubmit the article to GAN. So, if a review appears inadequate — for example, if it mentions the GA criteria but misapplies them — it would not be consistent with WP:GAN/I#N5 to start the process from scratch. On the adequacy of this review, please see my comment here.

Note that Pbritti asked for a second opinion months ago, but unfortunately their request was never acted upon; an editor offered to step in, but ultimately nothing came of it. In my view, the best outcome here would be for an experienced editor to provide the second opinion that was requested but never materialised. My practical concern is that if I were to start the process all over again, I might lose touch with the subject and its many complex sources over the next few months. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have received "additional input" which suggests that the review, while harsh, was adequate. Failing a review with reference to the criteria is the prerogative of the reviewer. There have been many other requests for input at this page which have concluded that the review was inadequate and should be reopened. That is not the case here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will need to add to add a nomination note that the reviewer needs to speak Italian, otherwise the concerns of the previous review will not be able to be addressed. Specific foreign language speaking GA reviewers are pretty hard to come by, which is probably why the second opinion request took so long to answer. Consider reaching out to someone who could review via talk pages, though I'm not sure if this would violate Wikipedia:Canvassing or another policy? IAWW (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's only canvassing if the notification is non-neutral and/or implies there's an expectation that the person being messaged will pass the article no matter what. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@It is a wonderful world, you're right, verifying citations from Italian sources can be tricky. I understand that, and I've also taken WP:NONENG into account, but about half of the sources are in Italian and the article would be significantly worse without them. However, I can provide verbatim quotes and English translations for almost all of them, as I've already done whenever a verification concern has been raised (1, 2, 3, 4). I'd do my best to make the second reviewer's task as easy and productive as possible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review box behaviour

New topics are being added to GA Review box on Talk:Wordle (see this and this). What's missing? Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template on the GAN wasn't closed, I've added a closing template. CMD (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]