Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQMay backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport
Good article nominations
Good article nominations
Shortcut

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.

Backlog Drive

[edit]

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]
Bless you guys. I nervously remembered I hadn't done anything to set this up a week or so ago but was buried in other stuff, and was then reminded of it again by the watchlist notification. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that more newbies will sign up for the drive in the coming days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could send talk page messages to invite recent newer reviewers? IAWW (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. However, we'd need a list of reviewers who have less than 6 reviews and were active in lets say past three months. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could provide a list like that, once you're agreed on what the numbers are for those parameters. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Potential reviewers could also be added to the list, that is persons who have nominated an article or two for GA but have no reviews yet. -- Reconrabbit 17:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. We could also notify them. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
less than 6 seems good to me! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oops i meant also to say i agree that 3 months is a good range for activity. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025 is up! Please sign up. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about this until I heard about it through Wikipedia:Discord. Maybe a notification message should go out? -- Reconrabbit 14:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages watchlist message should go out. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll request one now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I had no idea about this until recently IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review did not count

[edit]

Yesterday, I failed the article Life Till Bones. However, it is still showing up on the album nominations page, does not show up in Toolforge, and my review count has not gone up. I reviewed it normally; I hit start review and failed it, following the typical instructions. What is causing this? Locust member (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot isn't updating WP:GAN currently. Cos (X + Z) 20:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the bot's log when I get a moment; tonight, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this edit should fix it; the next time the bot tries to update GAN it should work. The problem was the user signature, which had a user space link to a subpage instead of the main userpage as the first link. EF5, ChristieBot currently can't handle your signature -- you don't have to change it, but if you nominate any other articles, would you change the nominator parameter in the nomination template to a simple link to your user page? I'll take a look at handling this situation a bit more gracefully as soon as I can, but the basic issue is that the bot has to use whatever is in that parameter as the name of the nominator, and it can't always easily tell which of multiple links in a signature is the right one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've now updated the bot so it will not crash when this happens, but it won't correctly identify the nominator. This is what the result would look like if the nominator parameter has this issue: the nomination for EF5 drought gives the nominator incorrectly, which will screw up the stats for users who have this sort of link in the nominator parameter. I'll put this on my list to fix but it will take longer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks for fixing it. Enjoy the drought article. :) — EF5 (questions?) 15:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

It's many years since I nominated a GAN, and I might have made an error. I'm trying to nominate Caerleon pipe burial, and I left the subtopic blank since nothing seemed appropriate, but that seems to have sent it into limbo, can't see it at Miscellaneous or anywhere else. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Miscellaneous now. Sometimes it takes a bit to update. CMD (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, thanks. As I said, it's been a long time since I posted on GAN Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 28 April 2025

[edit]

In my GAN (1992 Flores earthquake and tsunami) in Earth Sciences in Natural Sciences, can someone make it known that I will be self-blocked until May 30 due to school stuff? WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfireupdateman, you can add a note to your nomination under the "|note=" parameter at Talk:1992 Flores earthquake and tsunami. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added a note to the talk page.WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of the copyediting criteria

[edit]

Looking over GAN reviews, many tend to be dominated by long lists of copyediting nitpicks. Under the GA criteria, the only copyediting issues that should be evaluated in a GAN review are:

Excessively detailed copyedits have become a major contributor to scope creep at GAN. It increases the overall time for the reviewer to check the article and the nominator to respond to the reviewer's concerns. If reviewers feel there are copyediting fixes to be made beyond the listed issues above, I encourage them to do so through the normal editing process, to list the other issues they noted separately in the review as "additional suggestions outside of the GA criteria", or even to fix things as they review if they're minor non-controversial changes. I also encourage nominators not to feel like they're obligated to write perfect FA-level prose if the article already meets the listed standards above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second that reviewers should clearly delineate the points not relevant to GA, and encouraging a much more hands on approach. Maybe these should be added to the GA reviewing instructions? However, I find ironing out all the grammar errors is normally one of the biggest if not the biggest time consumer in GAN reviews. Fixing dangling modifiers, WP:CINS mistakes and unclear sentences normally contribute a lot to the "long lists" of prose points. Sure, these could all be fixed directly by the reviewer, but then nominators are more likely to make the same mistakes in the future which leads to even longer review times. I think making articles fully grammatically correct is just a big job a lot of the time, and there is no way to avoid it. IAWW (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To a certain extent I think we're overly-focused at GA on perfect rather than understandable grammar. If the error makes part of an article unclear in some way, it's worth pointing out. Otherwise, I honestly don't know that it matters at the GA (rather than FAC) level whether the commas are perfectly placed (or other minor errors of precision rather than clarity), so long as it's reasonably, well, readable for the reader. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but isn't that just not what the GA criteria says? It says "spelling and grammar are correct", not "spelling and grammar are mostly correct"? IAWW (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new looking at the GA project, so take this as the opinion of a newb. I just got through my first GA review (took a LONG time, largely my fault but there was a few issues that popped up with reviewers) on the article for Technical geography. I was looking at the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and honestly I'm not sure I can tell the difference between what I'd expect from FA and what I experienced with GA review. I'm honestly not sure what the difference is between the article types at this point. Would be nice to see clearer differentiation between them. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GeogSage, if you can't tell the difference, sounds like your GA review was unusually harsh. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want to say that exactly, Talk:Technical geography still has them visible if you'd like to judge. One reviewer got banned mid review, and I had a move/new job that really delayed my response to the second one, so they took FOREVER. That said, looking at the feedback and what I changed, I'm not sure how much a FA review would do differently based on the criteria I read. I'm hesitant to nominate that article until I have more time to dedicate to a project like that though. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at a glance, Talk:Technical geography/GA1 seems unnecessarily nitpicky and time-consuming. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to scroll to reach the end of the table of contents. Hard luck, @GeogSage. This was definitely not normal. -- asilvering (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've said before that we should be screening reviews, especially from new reviewers. That was in the context of them being too light, but perhaps we should also be nudging people who make their reviews too heavy. The former hurts the process in making the ratings less accurate, while the latter hurts the process by making it difficult to go through. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you should sign up for next month's backlog drive! -- asilvering (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How would screening reviews work? Would they ever need individual manual approval (e.g. marking as patrolled) or are you more envisioning a culture of checking in on new reviewers to give feedback? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More the latter; the former has been discussed over the years but was deemed impractical. I urged Mike Christie to make User:ChristieBot/SortableGANoms for this reason, but it doesn't really get used much. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure how I would use it for this purpose. I would want a list of GANs under review and the ability to sort reviewers by number of reviews. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. The hardest part was the losing the first reviewer, and ultimately starting a second review because of that. The page is likely much better because of all the feedback, which is the point and ultimately a good thing. I want to bring the page to FA status at some point, it's a passion project of mine to get looking good, and I hope the reviews make that process smoother. Glad to hear that this isn't the normal thing to expect though, as I'm planning to nominate a few more down the road... I'm looking into trying to learn how to review as well, so good to know that level of detail isn't expected. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GeogSage, the backlog drive next month is a good way to get into GA reviewing - there's a process for having new reviews checked by an experienced reviewer in this one. You should sign up! -- asilvering (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will consider helping. My new job has sucked the free time and energy out of me the past few months, but I have a much lighter load during Summer and would like to help. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second what asilvering said. If you need help with reviewing GANs, you'll get it at the next month's backlog drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly. Drives me batty when reviewers ask for changes that take longer for them to write out than it would for them to fix. -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think some reviewers are (perhaps unnecessarily) afraid to make changes themselves. They may be concerned about crossing the line into being a major contributor and thus too involved to review; I also think some may be worried about stepping on the nominator's toes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TBUA for the reminder, I know I can be guilty of this. I also flagged in a recent review this quote from WP:AGF: Many people misunderstand Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy as meaning "assume another editor performed due diligence" or "assume blind faith" regarding a reference, editor, or content. However, the actual intention is closer to "presume good intent", which does not mean "I do not have access to a source, so I 'assume good faith' about the source's content."
I've seen (and done) this in reviews a few times and it may be helpful to give it broader attention. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it necessarily makes article review take longer, as a reviewer should be reading the article, but c/e concerns do end up as an unnecessary area of focus. I suspect this is due to a couple of reasons. Firstly, it's a really easy area to comment on, and thus perhaps an area a newer reviewer may feel comfortable digging into. Secondly, this sort of nitpicking dominates FACs, so I suspect that bleeds over a bit. Thirdly, as PMC notes, directly editing may not be attractive to a reviewer, so if they see something they feel they would change they want to note it somewhere, so it ends up on the GAN. Lastly, copyediting can mix in with other issues, such as reflecting sources well, so it pops up in discussion of other criteria. Perhaps, as with the occasional overfocus on images, we need to better encourage the notion that in this respect a GA does not have to be perfect, and that a reviewer can pass an article even if they have copyediting concerns. CMD (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. The prose needs to be understandable, but not of a professional standard like for FAs. Therefore, I encourage reviewers to copyedit and fix grammar mistakes in the article, but not to considerably change how the article looks (this should be rather left to the nominator). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older GARs needing participation

[edit]

Posting here to encourage participation in reassessments from more people than the regulars at the GAR page. These are older discussions where improvement is not ongoing and which could use more participation.

Any comments on the above would be useful. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is relevant to note that three out of five of these do not have any cleanup tags or banners? If there is reason to delist an article, it should be possible to make that reason specific enough to tag the article with it. Or maybe if the article does not deserve any such tags, the GAR should be closed as a pass.
This comment was triggered by another recently opened GAR, on an article that had and still has no cleanup tags whatsover (but where those tags could reasonably have been placed): it is better to fix problematic articles before they reach GAR, and cleanup tags are a good way to request those fixes. If cleanup tags languish too long without attention, that may be a sign that GAR is needed. But opening a GAR out of the blue on an article that hitherto has seemed unproblematic (even if it does have hidden problems) can come across as hostile and as a barrier to getting it fixed: fixing one cleanup tag is a task that may be easy or hard, but at least is bounded. Satisfying GAR reviewers can come across as a Sisyphean task where whatever you do they just keep coming back with more and more quibbles until somebody gets exhausted, and why would I want to enter that sort of game when it isn't even my GA nomination in danger of delisting?
So I would like to ask: place cleanup tags first, and then wait a reasonable time before opening the GAR. If you're not willing to put that much effort into trying to rescue the GA, why is it reasonable for you to expect another editor to do even more cleanup work getting the article back into shape? And if you don't want to get articles back into shape and are instead using GAR as a process for delisting as many articles as you can as quickly as you can, you're doing it wrong.
Details deliberately omitted because I don't want this to be about the individual GAR opener but about the GAR process more generally. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is relevant to note that three out of five of these do not have any cleanup tags or banners? If there is reason to delist an article, it should be possible to make that reason specific enough to tag the article with it. Or maybe if the article does not deserve any such tags, the GAR should be closed as a pass. I haven't looked at any of these examples, so no comment there, but in general the fact that an article does not have any {{citation needed}} tags, for example, does not mean that no citations are needed, and nothing in the WP:GAR instructions requires the placing of cleanup tags or banners. It does suggest that before beginning a GAR, one should Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors. Requiring that someone concerned about an article both say "there are issues with citations" on the talkpage, and add a template to the article saying exactly the same thing, seems like bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Further, in theory the GAR itself should say what issues the reassessor noticed. If no valid issues have been raised, or if all the issues raised have been solved, the reassessment should be closed as keep; if valid issues remain unresolved it would be a much better use of everybody's time to address those issues than to argue about which cleanup tags should be placed. If you are genuinely uncertain what the issue is, ask for clarification, but otherwise requiring tagging for the sake of tagging is just obstructionism.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a school of thought that whether an article qualifies to be a GA should not be the main factor in classifying it as a GA. You'll sometimes see people at WP:GAR trying to argue that non-qualifying articles should continue to be classified as GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I have added citation needed templates in the past, I have been accused of being "disruptive". I now only add them when asked, and am happy to do so. Editors can also use scripts like User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages.js to help find potentially uncited statements. Also, @David Eppstein: I am happy to be pinged when there are concerns about my editing. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me put it a different way. I regularly check cleanup tags for GAs and FAs in my area of interest via the cleanup listings generated by bambots, among other reasons in the hope of heading off GARs and FARs. In this process I see some other GAs (not the ones I focus on) that still have decade-old cleanup tags. Surely these are the ones worth focusing on?
If instead people are just going to nominate untagged articles for GAR, without past evidence of neglect of cleanup tags, then it feels like being ambushed. Why should I have had any earlier reason to try to fix the problems that weren't noticed as being problem? If the issues had been properly tagged, earlier, there would have been more time to deal with them, but instead everything is rushed and in the context of a review. That doesn't seem as constructive and as likely to lead to a good outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the sentiment but I at least am hesitant to insert a bunch of cleanup tags into articles; I'm sure that if people went around putting tags on GAs there'd be wailing and gnashing of teeth from a third group of editors regarding WP:TAGBOMBING.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog Farm (talk • contribs) 17:07, May 3, 2025 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I posted concerns on the talk page here and waited 9 days for a reply. There was no reply, nor edits to the article. While some editors monitor cleanup tags, many do not and articles will sit with cleanup tags for years. In fact, 32% of GAs have a cleanup tag on them (although not all clean-up tags highlight a concern that would be contrary to the GA criteria). An article does not need a GAR after it gets clean-up tags: it needs a GAR when it no longer fulfils the GA criteria.
Yes, there are worse articles that need to be cleaned up: I am looking for them and will bring up concerns when I find them. Help would be appreciated. Another way to help is for editors who care about articles in a category to review them before I do. A quick way to review articles for citations is to use User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages.js, while User:Phlsph7/ListUnreferencedParagraphs.js allows editors to check multiple articles for uncited passages. User:Headbomb/unreliable.js Will colour code the references at the bottom of an article by reliability, which is helpful for spotting potentially unreliable sources.
I also do not want to overwhelm one category of GAs, so I try to spread them out amongst many topics. Hence, why last night I nominated at GAR a British TV show, a phylum, a biology debate, a weather phenomenon, a railway line, a math array/table, an American TV show, an American TV show episode, a religious historical event, and an association football article. I try not to nominate articles with similar topics, so even though I have three Family Guy articles that I have noticed, I will not nominate the next one until I Take Thee Quagmire is closed.
GAR is not a hostile attack on an article: its a review. Wikipedia is a volunteer service and no one has to respond to or fix up articles that need work. If any editor chooses to work on an article, that's awesome! I am happy to put any templates in an article when asked. I also encourage editors to avoid waiting for me to respond with templates and tags before fixing up an article. Go find those uncited statements at the end of paragraphs!
So David Eppstein (and everyone else reading this) the short answer is: No, I will not put citation needed templates in an article unless asked, and I will continue to nominate articles to GAR if I think a GAR is necessary. I hope you do not consider this response a deflection and I am happy to answer any specific questions here about how I edit, why I do the actions that I do, and what can be done differently. Z1720 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, can you at least place a maintenance tag on the article? You don't have to go and tag-bomb them at every place where you think it needs a citation, but not ever tagging them for maintenance at all and then going to GAR is nuts. I wouldn't expect any editor to have every GA in their topic area watchlisted. -- asilvering (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a maintenance tag necessary on top of the fact that we already ask people to post on the talk page and then wait a week and then go to GAR? What difference will that make? Will we start asking people to wait a week after the maintenance tag too? There is so much effort devoted to instruction creep for GARs for so little actual increase in preventing articles from losing their GAR status. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the point is to have articles that are good, right? Flagging articles that need attention is a basic, helpful part of how we do that. @David Eppstein has said, above, that he specifically checks articles in his topic areas for maintenance tags. I do, too. What I don't check is talk pages of articles I don't watchlist. Tagbombing is disruptive and I'm not asking anyone to do that. But I can't understand why someone would observe a problem with an article and decide to start a delisting process without flagging it for attention first. The delist process takes effort! Tagging an article with a maintenance tag or two is the work of seconds. -- asilvering (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: In my opinion, editors who care about an article's GA status should do more than wait for another editor to post maintenance tags: they should informally review articles regularly to ensure all necessary text is cited and prose is updated when required. There are lots of GARs where no one responds to the talk page notice or GAR posting. Adding more work for reviewers takes away their valuable wiki-time. At a certain point, competency is required and editors can find the same uncited statements or outdated statements that I do, especially when it is entire paragraphs or sections. If editors look and still can't find the concerns, I am happy to clarify or add cn templates when asked for a specific article. Z1720 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So if you "wouldn't expect any editor to have every GA in their topic area watchlisted", what exactly is it you expect a drive-by tagging to accomplish asilvering? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive tab

[edit]

Could someone update the backlog drive tab to display the current drive like we've done in past years? This isn't something I know how to do. Thanks! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, if I did it correctly Nub098765 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need clarification

[edit]

Hi. I have nominated Rajesh Hamal for GAN but @Real4jyy removed that nomination. I have asked him for reason behind removal but still I didn't get any response from him. Can you please clarify this? Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason they gave in their edit summary was "drive-by nomination". Per the Good Article instructions, nominators are expected to be major contributors to any article they nominate. You have only six edits to that article, none of which are substantive, and none since 2022. I would also recommend self-reverting your nominations of Barsha Siwakoti and Barsha Raut, as they are both far from meeting the Good Article criteria at this time and are likely to be quickfailed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos, Ok I will and It means that I can only nominate those articles for GAN which was created by me. If I have to nominate other users creation then what portion of edits should I need to made. Can I still review GAN nominated articles? Fade258 (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't mean you can only nominate articles you have created. It means you must have contributed significantly to them. The GA instructions I linked have a footnote that explains "The nominator is either the author of at least 10% of the article or is ranked in the top five in authorship". There is no restriction on who can review GA nominations, aside from needing to have an account in order to create the review page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos, Thank You for your time. I clearly understand now. Fade258 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of drive-by in instructions

[edit]

I have moved the efn from the lead of the GA instructions into the main text, because it seems clear that people are (still) not reading it. I have also adjusted the wording and removed an incorrect statement that was added in March. The original efn read like this:

  • If the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, it may be uncontroversially considered a drive-by nomination. You can notify the nominator on their talk page. Reviewers have the discretion to remove any drive-by nominations they come across.

The revised version was trimmed to:

  • The nominator is either the author at least 10% of the article or is ranked in the top five in authorship, and has contributed to the article talk page.

The first portion is fine, but "has contributed to the article talk page" is not an accurate revision of "and there is no post on the article talk page". Merely contributing to the talk page does not make someone a significant contributor or prevent a nomination from being a drive-by. The original intent was that anyone without significant contributions could still nominate an article so long as they made a post on the talk page justifying their nomination, not simply that they have "contributed to the article talk page". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ridiculously curiously low edit count requirement, by the way, also causes... misunderstandings (here and here). I suggest we remove it and increse the % contribution (perhaps to 25%). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that line should certainly be amended to something like "The nominator is the author at least 10% of the article or is ranked in the top five in authorship, OR has posted on the talk page justifying their nomination." -- asilvering (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&oldid=1288627465"