Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsOctober 2024 Backlog DriveMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport

Good article nominations

This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN) and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

TyphoonAmpil

TyphoonAmpil is currently having his first review, which is not a problem, he's already pretty experienced! But since he got a bit wrong in this review, saying i fix Errors Tomorrow, I just want to ask for an experienced reviewer to help this newcomer to review this article. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The article needs copy-editing before it passes GA 1a. Owing to its short length, this shouldn't be a major issue and could probably be resolved in timely fashion within the review. Looking only at the section mentioned by TyphoonAmpil, I found the following examples. The Guangdong Provincial Meteorological Bureau hoisted a level three emergency response plan, while the Fujian counterpart hoisted level four. Hoist as a verb means to lift an object particularly by ropes and/or pulleys. This is near certainly not the correct verb to use. In ... the residents were also warned for proposed showers and downpours a more natural wording would be either 'of expected' or 'about expected'. A more subtle example is [a] more severe amount .... There is nothing severe or intense about a numerical figure. I would avoid the phrasing entirely for tone, but if retained it should be made clear that the airport experienced severe/intense rain rather than the figure being severe/intense. I also suspect that 'Severe Tropic Storm Lionrock' should be re-titled 'Severe tropical storm Lionrock' following WP:LOWERCASE as the term 'tropical storm' is not a proper noun and doesn't appear to be forming a proper noun when joined to Lionrock – particularly gauging from the lack of capitalization of the term in the Chinese government sources cited. With regard to TyphoonAmpil, whilst I appreciate the productive intent of the editor, I'm afraid that instructions such as Not say letters own find Typo click edit indicate a command of English too limited to properly assess criterion 1a. One last thing, with regard I don't think you should fix the errors; you should spot the errors instead so I can fix it, that how GA reviewing works. Minor issues or errors can be fixed by the reviewer, as specified in the reviewing instructions: [i]n the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

(Replying from my alt) Going to fix the issues, do you mind being the co-reviewer? Jettward (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I can co-review it for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

HurricaneEdgar was also picked as a co-reviewer, making three reviewers for the single GA nom. Jettward (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the issues. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I G6ed that review and Liz has speedily deleted it because the comments made by TyphoonAmpil were incomprehensible. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

GA categories

While going through the list of good articles, I noticed that there were some categories that are quite large. As more articles get promoted, some of these categories might benefit by being split up. This will help readers navigate these pages to find good articles.

Listed below are my suggestions for splitting some categories. The goal was for each categories to have under 300 articles, an arbitrary number I picked because most categories at WP:FA are below that number. I chose not to split some categories (Warships of Germany, American football people) because I could not think of a place to split them that would make sense with the other categories in their grouping. Each suggested category is listed in separate brackets.

• Road infrastructure: Midwestern United States: (Road infrastructure: Michigan highways) (Road infrastructure: Other Midwestern United States highways)
• Historical figures: politicians: (Historical figures: pre-1900s politicians) (Historical figures: 1900s and 2000s politicians). Another option is to separate by geograhpic location.
• Historical figures: other: (Historical figures: pre-1900s miscellaneous), (Historical figures: 1900s and 2000s miscellaneous). Another option is to separate by geographic location
• European history: (Eastern European history) (Western European history). Other option is (British Isles and Irish history) and (Mainland-European history)
• Monarchs: (Monarchs: Europe), (Monarchs: other). Another option is to separate by timeframe.
• Royalty and nobility: (Royalty and nobility: Europe), (Royalty and nobility: other)
• Actors, directors, models, performers, and celebrities: (Actors, models, performers, and celebrities) (Directors)
• Performers, groups, composers, and other music-related people: (Duos, trios, and groups) (Performers, composers, and other music-related people)
• Political figures: (Political figures: North America) (Political figures: Europe) (Political figures: other). If others want it, we can have each region listed (South America, Africa, Asia, Oceania) though this might create small categories.
• Association football teams, events, and concepts: (Association football teams, seasons, and stadiums) (Association football events, matches, and concepts). Some stadiums are also listed in Stadiums, public parks, and amusements, so I am not sure if the community wants to keep these separated or find another solution.

In addition, there are some television series that have their own categories, even with only one entry, while multiple episodes of a series will be listed in Other episodes and specials. How many episodes should be the minimum for a category in this section?

Would editors be OK with initiating these splits? Should these names be used, or other ones? Should 300 be the target number in each category, or should another maximum number be used? Are the suggested divisions the best places to split these categories? Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

imo, European history being separated into "British Isles" and "Continental Europe" will probably be easier than Eastern/Western. The borders of what is east and west are arguable. Whether something is in the British Isles or not is more clear-cut. -- asilvering (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Id probably change the split to Association football teams, events, and concepts: (Association football teams and stadiums) (Association football seasons, events, matches, and concepts)

The main reason is that there is quite a bit of overlap between the seasons and events. These tend to be about the matches that the teams have had. Teams and stadium articles are much more higher level concepts and would fit neatly into one section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

We've had some discussion on how to split historical/royal biographies and events before, but haven't found something that's convenient. Proposed split of Midwestern United States sounds practical and within current practice. For the proposed split of political figures, continental divisions get weird around the edges and they're not political, so I'm wondering if pulling out one or two countries would be better (also open to say, political groupings like the EU). For Media and Music, those do some broad categories that could be split, assuming there are no very half-half director actors or similar. Lee Vilenski's split on Association football seems sound, might have to take a closer look at stadiums. On the broad question of numbers, I generally look at it with an eye for somewhere between 20/25 (where it forms a clear paragraph-length chunk that shows it is a topic with clear work) and around 200 (where, depending on the length of individual entries, the block starts to get longer than laptop screen lengths). CMD (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd support the Historical figures and Political figures splits and would prefer both of them to be grouped by location (NA, Eu, Other). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both Vacant0 and CMD that "EU" is a better term than "Europe". Again, seems more clear cut. Unless someone can come up with some hypothetical edge cases that seem messier that way? -- asilvering (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on which is better, but "EU political figures" is potentially a much narrower scope than "European political figures": for example, the former would arguably only include British political figures who were active between 1973 and 2020, whereas the latter would presumably include any British political figures ever. I can think of edge-cases for both options (are Turkish and/or Russian politicians European political figures vs. is someone like Mary Docherty, who retired from active politics before Britain joined the EU, but lived for nearly 30 years after, an EU political figure? What about someone like Anthony Eden, who was still in the House of Lords until he died in 1977, but was essentially politically irrelevant after he resigned as prime minister in 1957?) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public, I thought of Eden's case (not him specifically, but that kind of person), but isn't he supposed to be in "Historical figures - politicians" anyway? -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There's certainly a grey area as to where the line is drawn between "Political figures" and "Historical figures: politicians", but for what it's worth I see a few nineteenth century figures in the former category (e.g. James Dillon Armstrong) – and at least one eighteenth-century figure, John Mathews (American pioneer). Of course, it may be the case that they ought to be recategorised entirely. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not sure my concern about EU being more clear-cut is relevant anyway, since GAN doesn't really end up having acrimonious disputes about which categories ought to exist and what ought to be in them, at least not as far as I've seen. I do still prefer "British Isles" vs "Continental Europe" over Eastern/Western Europe, though. -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The line per the existing hidden notes is BLP, living people go into Political figures, dead people go into Historical figures. CMD (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I might go through the list and make sure people are in the correct spots. If the split happens, I can do this at the same time. Z1720 (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

(ec) The EU doesn't include Switzerland, Norway, the UK, and some Balkan and eastern European countries, though that list will probably change over the next few years. I think geographical categories make more sense than political ones, as they are more stable. No strong opinion on UK/Ireland vs. continental Europe or Western vs. Eastern Europe, but I suspect the former is going to be easier to manage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I did not mean the European Union, but instead Europe as a whole. This would mean including countries from this list: List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Some countries on that list also appear on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. CMD (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Precisely the confusion I intended to avoid by suggesting "EU" instead. But if we simply accept that placing a relevant article in either category is fine, I think we can just choose not to have the problem in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"British Isles" will of course get us into other problems :) CMD (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If someone created an article on something Turkey (nation) related and it's placed in either Europe or Asia, the article will be reviewed swiftly either way. On the other hand, as someone *not* interested in English/Irish/Isle related articles, I would be happy to more easily find the other articles. The goal of these categories shouldn’t be to find perfect ontologies but to make sure more niche content doesn’t get drowned among the most popular candidates. I frequently check Business Economics, and Society related categories since my topics of interest frequently fit both. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "British Isles" by itself is a problematic name, especially to the Irish community. Some options could be "British Isles: England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland" or "England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland". EU is not a great idea because the countries in the EU are constantly changing, while the borders of Europe are pretty static. Also, EU politicians in the news are often still identified from the country they are from, and involved in that country's politics before, during and after being part of the EU. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

A geographical option is "Great Britain and Ireland"; "United Kingdom and Eire" could work as well, with "Continental Europe" probably the simplest option for the rest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

If using Èire, make sure to write it as I have. Also, I recommend not using the term 'British Isles': Great Britain and Ireland will offend no one Billsmith60 (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh indeed. I have no particular love for "British Isles" as the name of the category; my intent was simply to suggest that the continental divide is probably an easier and more relevant one to use than eastern/western. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely! Billsmith60 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's one way to describe the Manx. CMD (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Éire – duhh! Billsmith60 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

the borders of Europe are pretty static is definitely not true. The concept of Europe has historically crept east, as it continues to do today. CMD (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up

After reading the above, I think there are some areas of consensus and some areas where additional comments might be helpful. I have split the discussions into level 3 headings for organisation purposes. Comments on all the discussions would be appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Road infrastructure and music performers

There was no objection to splitting "Road infrastructure: Midwestern United States" and "Performers, groups, composers, and other music-related people" in the way proposed above. I think this split can happen, and any help would be appreciated to make this split. If someone objects to splitting the above as described, please post below. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Target number in each category

In the above, I proposed splits for categories over 300 articles. Another editor suggested 200. What is the ideal number in each category? Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with considering splits at 200, if there is a logical division available, but perhaps we could make 300 the hard line. (Maybe the bot could be made to auto-post here to remind us to split?) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

+1 ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Historical figures: other

Based on my reading of the discussion above, I think editors are more favourable to splitting "Historical figures: other" by geographic location, not time period. Is this accurate? Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my read is that we were only talking about geographical splits of "European history" not "historical figures". Given the disparities in coverage of global figures, going by date is probably easier to manage without further splits. Whether that's the most important criterion, I don't know that I have any opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Europe and EU

For various categories, there was discussion on how Europe should be defined for the interest of categories. What countries should be included in a "Europe" category? Should a list of EU countries be used instead? For categories where the British Isles are separated from other European nations, what should the other European countries be referred to: Continental Europe, Mainland Europe, or something else? Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

On splitting Europe, there isn't a need to label the rest of Europe something else. We can put the British Isles (and other future splits) as a subheader of the Europe header. CMD (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

agreed^ ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Actors, directors, models, performers, and celebrities

Some biographies have overlap between the proposed split to "Actors, models, performers, and celebrities" and "Directors". Should this split continue like this, or should this be split another way (or not split at all)? Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

What's "actors, models, performers, directors" and "other celebrities" look like? Useful, or? -- asilvering (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Stadiums

Consensus seemed to be to put stadiums into "Association football events, matches, and concepts". There are still some stadiums listed in "Stadiums, public parks, and amusements". Should the status quo remain, where articles are listed in two different places, or should the stadiums be listed together? If listed together, where should they be listed? Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

regardless of which category they're put in (i'd probably prefer putting them in with parks &c. but if there was consensus for putting them in with football articles then so be it), it should be consistent and they should all be together. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I think it's weird to put them in with sports and not public places, but I don't edit this kind of article so feel free to disregard my opinion on this. -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

British Isles, Great Britain, Ireland, Èire

It seems like editors did not want to split along Eastern/Western Europe and instead split out the countries of Britain, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, and smaller surrounding islands into their own category. What name should this category use? Some suggestions included: "Great Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Èire". Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland is probably the most neutral (as opposed to "British Isles") and more COMMONNAME-y than "United Kingdom and Éire". ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about a new GA review circles coordinator

I was going to post this here on @PCN02WPS's talk page at first, but having read through it, I think it should be posted somewhere with greater visibility. I may be pinging @GMH Melbourne too many times today now, but I'll do so as a courtesy since GARC is also something you've primarily organized.

Hi there, I don't want to come off as discourteous, but I have concerns that make me believe @TheNuggeteer should step down from being a coordinator for the time being (at least until he is able to demonstrate better understanding of the GAN process). I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest he needs additional experience with Wikipedia and the GAN process to become a coordinator for GARC.

Many of his recent GANs have had significant concerns brought up by editors:

• Talk:Sonny Matula/GA1 (June 27) — quickfailed for being far outside the GAN standards
• Talk:Marcelino Libanan/GA1 (July 5) — quickfailed for being far outside the GAN standards
• Talk:Piñon, Colorado/GA1 (July 8) — quickfailed for failing to meet the minimum level of contribution
• Talk:Afrique Victime/GA1 (July 8) — failed nomination where @Drmies states that he probably shouldn't be submitting and reviewing for GA and @PerfectSoundWhatever tells him I don't think you have a grasp of what is required for a GA.

In addition to his GA reviews:

• His reviews at Talk:Giado concentration camp/GA1, Talk:Jorge Choquetarqui/GA1, Talk:Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics/GA1, and Talk:Sikidy/GA1 were all speedily deleted after Dmries brought up concerns with his reviews here
• @TechnoSquirrel69 wrote on his talk page on July 1 that his reviews may not meet community expectations.

As coordinator, his circles have also had significantly less scrutiny than the ones organized by other coordinators. To provide one example of contrast, one coordinator previously left a message on @IntentionallyDense's talk page advising him that he would need additional experience reviewing articles before participating in the GARC process. However, TheNuggeteer's GA review circles have included editors with dramatically less experience, which you can see here (such as one editor with 153 edits). Most recently, a circle had to be re-organized after he failed to follow step four of the coordinator instructions.

To TheNuggeteer, I want to say I really hope you don't take this badly; I'm only saying that I believe you need to learn more about the GAN/article-writing process first before taking on a role like this. I also think for the benefit of GARC, proposed coordinators should have greater scrutiny (with clear minimum requirements) in the future, before being added. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Freedom4U Hmm, seems like a good option, since I could actually use more time to make more GA's.

But anyway, I don't feel like those quickfailed noms are recent (for me), and after, I have eight other successful reviews and 2 GAs, so I probably don't know. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Your more recent nominations don't inspire much confidence in me either. Your nomination of Typhoon Chanthu (2010) five days ago had to be reverted as a drive-by nomination and after your nomination at Talk:.tv/GA1 failed, you immediately nominated it again without making changes. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This may not be the best place to put this but since I was tagged here and it’s somewhat related to the topic I think it may be a good idea to put some restrictions in place at GARC to avoid newer editors from getting overwhelmed. When I first applied to be apart of the GARC I had only done 3 GARs and I’m really glad the coordinator suggested I got more experience first as I did need it. My proposal would be requiring people who are entering the GARC to have reviewed at least 5 GAs beforehand. 5 is kind of a random number so if anyone has other suggestions please let me know but I do feel implementing some form of restrictions may help with the future of GARCs. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Although it's not common, there are people who don't write much content but still have a good grasp of how to evaluate the GA criteria and review an article. I would have no issue with someone putting their first ever GAN up at GARC if they're already proven themselves a capable reviewer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t have an issue with this either however I do think they should demonstrate they know how to do a review which I don’t know how else that could be demonstrated unless they’ve done a review in the past. We could also say either reviewed or nominated 5 GAs that way people who haven’t done a review but have nominated enough GAs to show they understand could participate. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that. I think any combination of five successful GANs and GA reviews (that were not quickfails; e.g. 2 successful nominations and 3 well-done reviews) is a reasonable standard to participate, so long as there aren't any other pressing issues. Imo coordinators should also scrutinize at least one of these to make sure they're good, but I also don't want to force volunteers to do more work if it's just going to create a backlog (it looks to me that both coordinators aren't as active as they used to be). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I would also be happy with this however I do agree that coordinators having to look over others reviews may add to the workload. I think it’s fair to just look over the users talk page to see if any concerns have been brought up. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense: I really like this idea. I will add requirements for users wanting to participate and see how it goes. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't like saying this, but I don't think the editor should be reviewing GAs, and I have doubts about at least one of their articles that were promoted to GA. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I have to agree. I have seen a marked improvement in their quality of reviews, but I did spend some time co-reviewing a few articles [1], [2] after I saw them comment I think that after "a personal friend of Klein", the comma should be a dot instead, and the next word will be capitalized. on this text:

Directed by Véras Fawaz, a personal friend of Klein, the music video for "Europapa" was premiered live on De Avondshow met Arjen Lubach at 16:45 CET, followed by a release on the Eurovision Song Contest channel on YouTube ten minutes later.

I like TheNuggeteer, and honestly think they've done good work with GACR, but I don't think they're able to evaluate 1a of the Good article criteria just yet. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to comment on TheNuggeteer's reviews later, but in the meantime, would I be able to take over the coordinator position? I don't think I'm an exceptional reviewer by any means and don't have any GAs, but I have done a fair amount of reviews.

In terms of my approach to GARC, I think to make them work at increasing the number of reviews, they should be frequent. I don't think newer reviewers should be excluded, as long as they are mentored in some way, i e. with a second pair of eyes looking over the review, which helps them with understanding what they should be looking for in a review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave Of course! Just as the others accept, I honestly don't want to be a coord anymore (hope the other coords don't take it badly). You have multitudes of experience reviewing GAN's, so you seem like a good candidate. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think requiring experience in GARC is for the best. WP:Good article mentorship is a good program for mentoring new users. I think the process currently compromises on review quality, which is something that this project was setup to try and avoid. Adding requirements should hopefully solve this. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the process currently compromises on review quality. Still, we need more people reviewing, and this is a good incentive to try a first review. If they've got a mentor who will ensure a standard of quality, as an exception to the requirements, then I don't see why they should be excluded. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that is fair, I have added this note on the page. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

TheNuggeteer, you are also simultaneously reviewing five different GANs right now, four of which you have not finished. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this, which still needs to be addressed. It's been said above that TheNuggeteer probably needs to hold off on reviewing for a while and take GAN more slowly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I can leave comments on these to finish these reviews, except Talk:Tumor necrosis factor/GA1 which should probably be deleted. I don't think they have picked up any reviews since this was brought up here so I'm unsure if there remains an issue of needing to slow down. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m willing to review the TNF article as it’s in my scope of interest. What’s the protocol for taking over a review? IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

1a and 3a in Reception sections with isolated reviewers

In some GANs (looking at books, in particular), the Reception sections are written with dedicated paragraphs summarizing each reviewer in isolation, often with heavy quoting, and little to no attempt to connect themes with other reviews. Sometimes this is by necessity, say, if there are only three reviewers and there is little connection to the other reviews. But most often there are plenty of reviews and opportunities to engage with the guidance in Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, weaving reviewers together for a general audience to understand the holistic reception. The latter, to me, is the minimum quality bar for the "well-written" (1a) and "breadth" (3a) GA criteria. In my experience, this also reduces heavy quoting, which pushes the boundaries of fair use paraphrase, even when attributed. It also requires more effort.

For some examples of the variance, see The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey#Critical reception or A History of English Food#Reception for separate paragraphs per reviewer, and Sappho: A New Translation#Reception or How the Red Sun Rose#Reception for combined paragraphs across reviewers.

What is our general working expectation for GANs? Is it sufficient for GAN breadth and writing quality to plop summaries of each review without connection, or are editors expected to connect the reviews for a general audience when available? czar 02:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this needs more attention, and I consider an unorganized assortment of opinions and quotes to fail the GA criteria. The majority of the time when reviewing an article about some piece of media, I have to ask the nominator to fix the reception section because it's a list of quotes. In this case, I usually consider it a criterion 2 failure in relation to copyright and failing to properly paraphrase the source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I certainly don't like quote-plopping, but I see enough people saying things like "any suitably sourced and reasonably complete article can be a GA" that I wonder if requiring "weaving" is overly ambitious for GA. -- asilvering (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that quotes should be used sparingly in reception sections and overuse of quotes in a reception section should be considered both an issue of copyright and poor prose. Even if there are few quotes, reception sections should also be somewhat organized or they risk not being clear (e.g. by academic/non-academic reviewers, by views on certain aspects of the book, or by positive/negative reviewers) ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 12:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The best way to summarize the critical reception will vary from case to case. There are several dimensions to this. The number of reviews, the length of each individual review, the relative prominence of each reviewer in the relevant field, the type of work (e.g. fiction versus non-fiction), and whether the reviewers broadly agree, disagree, or cover separate ground altogether are all factors that determine this. When there is a fairly large number of relatively lengthy reviews that all largely agree on the main points, summarizing by theme is likely to be the best approach. Conversely, a low number of relatively brief reviews that focus on different aspects may be better summarized separately in the body (though the much briefer summary in the WP:LEAD might still be best presented thematically). I have used both approaches in different articles based on what seemed the most fitting to me in each case. We must remember that summarizing different reviewers' viewpoints collectively can also result in WP:Improper editorial synthesis by making stronger or broader claims than is justified by the overall contents of all relevant sources. For this reason, I favour a comparatively conservative approach to doing so. This is an area where our different WP:Policies and guidelines exist to some extent in tension with each other and we have to exercise judgment in finding an appropriate compromise approach that does not go too far in one direction or the other. Reasonable people can disagree about the best course of action in any particular case. TompaDompa (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Seeking second opinions on a review I'm doing.

I started a review for the page Louis Edward Curdes a couple weeks ago and I honestly just need a fresh set of eyes here. So far my review has been a lot of back and forth between me and the nominator. My biggest concern here is that some of the citations aren't placed by the information they support which makes source reviweing very hard. I've done most of the source review, and just started on the prose review. I've found a lot of issues with prose as well but I'm not sure if that is just me being overly nitpicky. I'm also a little bit unsure of how to feel about the amount of technical information there is in the article. I don't know if this is the standard amount of technical info in a military article or if it needs to be toned down a bit here.

Page: Louis Edward Curdes

My review thusfar: Talk:Louis Edward Curdes/GA1

Nominator: User:98.97.46.82, currently seems to be using the account User:98.97.34.56. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with the review, the nominator seems responsive to your questions and suggestions. If the sources are out of place you could mention that, it is easy enough to duplicate them if needed. If you're feeling overly nitpicky, you can make minor spelling/grammar changes yourself, perhaps alert the IP of this if you do so. On technical information, it is best if the article is as accessible as possible, but it is not a problem for the GACR if some parts remain technical so long as it is relevant, and it's not that long an article. Perhaps look to make sure the lead is not technical. CMD (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we allow GA nominations from unregistered users. How can their contributions be measured to ensure they're not 'drive by? Billsmith60 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked into this and apperantly unregistered users can nominate articles for GAs. I also was not aware that drive by noms were a thing/aren't allowed until after I started my review. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Creating a GAN is all talkpage editing, so there isn't a technical mechanism to prevent IP nominations. As for the specific article, it was mostly written by an IP, so it might be the same individual. CMD (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Money in the Bank (2018)/GA1

I unintentionally seem to have started reviewing the article I nominated to make a GA myself (I just noticed its because I wrote below the reviewer's comments). Can anyone help undo this please? Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated it for speedy deletion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Older GARs needing comments

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.

• History of Poland during the Piast dynasty, (link to reassessment) – Period of Polish history from 960 to 1370
• Afrobeats, (link to reassessment) – Umbrella term for contemporary West African pop music, distinct from Afrobeat
• Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson, (link to reassessment) – Mixed martial arts rivalries
• Key Biscayne, (link to reassessment) – Island in Florida, United States

Any comments on the above would be useful. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Bot crashing

ChristieBot is crashing, I think because of this edit, but I am about to go to work and won't be able to look at it till this evening. If someone can figure out what was intended and fix it that would be great, otherwise I'll fix it this evening if I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

A review did not even take place. I've reverted their edits on Born in the U.S.A.. Someone should also have a look at Insomniac (Green Day album) (the nominator was also the "reviewer", see Talk:Insomniac (Green Day album)/GA1). That GA review should be deleted asap. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ernie Pike

After compelling evidence to close Ernie Pike as fail, I don't know what to do. Since reviewing, I have found multiple issues, and I don't know if I have to close this as a fail. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

based off a quick look at the article it seems like there are several unsourced portions which means that it would qualify as a quick fail.

however in the future if you are on the fence about failing something vs putting it on hold so improvements can be made i usually look at the nominators activity and history. if the nominator is very active, replies to your reviews and such then i’d lean more towards putting an article on hold. but if a nominator isn’t super active, has a history of not being receptive to criticism etc. then i’d lean more towards fail. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where people get the idea that only passing reviews is worthwhile from. A successful review is a complete review—pass or fail, both help to improve the encyclopedia. It is not necessary to seek "community consensus" to do a basic element of the GA process. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)