This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

It's a thorny issue that I would welcome some outside perspective on - need outside opinions as to the usage of President/president within this article. Please respond at Talk:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln/GA1 in the ->>>Outside opinions regarding President/president section. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 02:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has been passed to a GA but I would still welcome information on President/president, King/king, Jobtitle/jobtitle vs Person|Proper nouns, etc. I suspect this is an issue that comes up in Wikipedia articles somewhat frequently. I think I understand WP's guidelines & policies on this?... but maybe I don't. Thanks in advance, Shearonink ( talk) 16:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I enjoy tracking which articles I've worked on that have been promoted as quality content at other Wikipedia language projects. For example, Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall has also been promoted at Spanish Wikipedia ( es:Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall).

Is there a way to request that a promoted article at English Wikipedia be translated and promoted at other Wikipedias, too? So, for instance, could I request the translation and promotion of Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall at French Wikipedia? I'm not seeing something like this in any of the translation-related pages, but it would be nice if multilingual folks could more easily promote content based on already-promoted content here or elsewhere.

Just a thought, and wondering if anyone else might have other thoughts. Thanks! --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 22:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I recently promoted Louis B. Seltzer to GA status, however, the icon has not appeared on the page, nor has the automated template notification posted to Bobnorwal's talk page. Did I miss a step? DarjeelingTea ( talk) 07:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The icon is not appearing on Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, too. -- Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@ BlueMoonset: Can you address this, please? -- Mhhossein ^talk 18:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

DarjeelingTea, Mhhossein, if the bot didn't add the icon at the time—it has problems that haven't been addressed for a long time, including the notification problem and occasional false failure notifications, but it looks like someone new will be taking over the bot in the near future—you'll probably want to add it yourself. Just add the {{good article}} template to the article, and the icon will appear in the usual place up top. You're also free to add your own message about the passage to the editor's talk page; nothing wrong with a personal message of congratulations instead of a bot-formatted one. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, BlueMoonset; I've manually added it per your advice. DarjeelingTea ( talk) 05:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to request aGA reassessment of Al-Shorta SC. I thought I did it right by creating Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Shorta SC/1, but then felt I screwed things up and created Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Shorta SC/2. I think the latter is the correct way it should have been done per the instructions given for community reassessment on the main page, but I'm not sure. I'm also not sure what to do with the first page I created. Can I just request speedy deletion or should it be redirected? FWIW, the editor who reviewed the article and passed it through to GA and who also commented on the first subpage has been checkuser confirmed to be a sockpuppet of the GA nominator of the article, so not sure how that affects anything and if a GA reassessment is even necessary now that it seems to have been inappropriately given in the first place. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

GA status has been undone by BlueMoonset as explained at Talk:Al-Shorta SC. The WP:SPI referred to is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hashim-afc#26 March 2017. Please note that in that SPI, the now-blocked reviewer Yakaba99 mentions they were also intending to start a GA review of the article Indian National Football Team. Obviously, they cannot do that now, but the article Indian national football team has been nominated for a GA review and is waiting for one to start. It might be a good idea for an experienced reviewer to handle this one, just any case there's any connection to the socking. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi to all. An editor I met at the Teahouse (a newbie) has asked me, at different times over the past month, to review 3 different articles for them (see my talk page). I've completed 2 and have just started the third. These are all topics I don't edit in (one was a sports player, one was a lighthouse and the current one is a science article). I guess that's a good thing, because that makes it easier to be objective. I'm just curious as to whether I'm wrong in accepting requests like this, especially multiple ones. If I am wrong, I won't accept anymore. I don't want to say anything to the editor yet because they are genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia, and I sure DON'T want to discourage that. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Always something that bugged me, I've done some work on this getting a feel on what the community or most veteran reviewers think about this: see Wikipedia:FA and GA answered queries#Good article. From it, short answer: most seem okay with it while some frown and others encourage; it depends on you, if you feel you can give a good review, go ahead. Long answer: for full details, look at the citations which link to each of their posts in this essay.

My personal answer: Be wary, especially with dealing with new users making AGF attempts at GAs. Compared to experienced nominators whose article rarely such mistakes i.e. those which being unfamiliar with the subject you won't notice, the newbies' work have more chance of having it. I remember doing a review which I regret now doing and was even thinking of getting it GARed. I can't speak for what you've done, they most probably will be fine but if you really worry about it, try getting someone with more expertise to look at them briefly at minimum. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 06:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

About five months ago, I nominated the article Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too for GA consideration. However, now that it is number 5 on the list of articles to be reviewed, I need to freeze it/put it on hold. For the better part of May, I will be unable to access the Internet, and will not be able to make requested changes if it's reviewed while I'm offline. Does anyone know how I can make sure the article isn't reviewed until after I'm back online?

Thanks, Anotheronewiki ( talk) 20:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Anotheronewiki, The only way I know is to put a note in the nomination asking for the review not to be accepted during the time you're away. Alternately, if a reviewer is interested in doing it while you're gone, they could write up the review in a sandbox or something and then copy it into the GA subpage when you are available again to fix any issues. That's the only two options I can see, unless somebody else is interested in the article enough to take your place as nominator. There should be a way to accomodate the time you won't be able to get online, though. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I'll try to put a note on the nomination asking reviewers not to review it while I'm away. - Anotheronewiki ( talk) 21:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Both "Finn the Human" (Adventure Time episode) and "Jake the Dog" (Adventure Time episode) have been identified as Good articles. Now they merged into a new article, "Finn the Human" / "Jake the Dog" and it is currently listed as Good article without any assessment. I think it should be reassessed.-- Namoroka ( talk) 13:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there any particular criteria you now think it fails? There is nothing stopping you starting a reassessment of any article if you think it no longer meets the criteria. @ Gen. Quon: as they seem to be the major contributors to both articles and the person who merged them. AIRcorn  (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to reassess if you'd like. I'd be more than happy to fix/mod things if need be. I will say that I literally just took this and this and smushed 'em together. If anything, by doing so I think I made the resultant page stronger than it was (Of note, same thing might've happened with " Mortal Folly / Mortal Recoil").-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

On 23 March I nominated the Marcel Lihau for GA status. Though this nomination is acknowledged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo's automated processes, I cannot find it in the master list. Can this be fixed? - Indy beetle ( talk) 03:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what happened there. Your other nominations all went through so you are obviously nominating them correctly. Maybe just a bot error? If you can't get it listed and no one else picks it up I will review it for you when I get time. AIRcorn  (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Somebody please fix my syntax...or, wait, did I get it right after all? Drmies ( talk) 17:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks alright to me. AIRcorn  (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm no good with those templates and parameters. Drmies ( talk) 01:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

At WP:Good articles/recent, it looks like User:Jarry1250's User:LivingBot missed the Prayer of Saint Francis article that was promoted to GA this morning (5 June). This automated update now has failed for two of my three times through the GA process, but maybe I'm especially unlucky. For this morning's article, was there a human procedure that got overlooked somehow, or was the bot malfunctioning? — Patrug ( talk) 20:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you're just more observant! I've made some changes that I think should help. - Jarry1250  ^{Vacation needed} 09:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with a review here Talk:Defeating_ISIS/GA1 — I am not sure if a 4 day old article with only one significant contributor can pass the stability criteria. I also don't think the article satisfies the well-written criteria yet. The editor has become very upset, and is now demanding that I not review any more of their articles. I could use some assistance before I close. Thank you, Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 17:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

He has closed his own review as withdrawn. I would still appreciate it if a more experienced editor could please advise on his request that I not review his nominations [3] and offer input on whether I did something wrong in my review? (I am still relatively new to GA reviews) Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 17:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Review closed as withdrawn by nominator at this time. We're done here. I put in a TON of effort over HOURS addressing, point-by-point, every single one of the specific recommendations by the GA Reviewer. Then he started to make stuff up. Like saying articles-must-be-X-amount-of-time-old before ever being considered to be passed. I just want to move on and not encounter this particular user that makes up Good Article criteria that are NOT there. And YES, you could see how I would be upset, after putting in HOURS of effort, and then the nominator doesn't care -- and makes up their own criteria that don't exist -- about supposed age of article as a new requirement. Thanks. Sagecandor ( talk) 17:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I recently visited the talk page of the GA article Rebecca Anderson and noticed that it had not been assessed in one of its WikiProject boxes (despite being rated 'Good Article' in all other boxes). Am I allowed to rate the article 'GA' in this one empty WikiProject box, despite the fact that I am neither a nominator or a reviewer for this article? Alanna the Brave ( talk) 21:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are a member of the WikiProject, you can rate it for them. If not, it would probably be more polite to leave a message on their talk page in case there is a problem. Generally speaking, it the project had rated it differently, there would be more reason to assume the possibility of disagreement, but the current template shows no previous rating, so they probably have just not got around to it for that article. If you do rate it as a non-member it is unlikely that anyone will object, and if they do they can just change it to whatever they see fit. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What are the practical advantages of getting an article to "good article" status? Are there editors/bots who add them to their watchlists to keep an eye on them? Thanks.-- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 08:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock, I am not sure about editors watchlisting, but there's a recent changes feed specifically for GAs. I've noticed that they also seem to get more views per month than non-GAs of similar length and similar topics. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@ White Arabian Filly: Thank you. I'll look for this feed. I wonder what the extra traffic is attributed to … (I really think that the articles themselves ought to be rewarded somehow. I'm aware of plenty of articles which meet GA criteria or better which languish as start class or C class articles simply because the primary editors either don't care or see no advantage in pushing for better classification.)-- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 08:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock, are you aware that you can rate any article yourself up to and including B-class? The criteria are reasonably simple, and the process is fully reversible if you get it wrong. If you see an article that has an apparently inappropriate rating, you can change it. If someone disagrees, they can revert and discuss, just like ordinary content edits. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Pbsouthwood: I wasn't. I guess that's a good start. Thanks.-- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 15:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock, It can be a fair bit of work at first, but quickly gets easier with practice. There are useful templates for B-class which help keep track and show your reasoning to anyone who wonders why you made a specific decision, the templates also provide good feedback for what must still be done to get the article up to B-class, and the comments can indicate how far from GA it is likely to be, so helpful to other editors too. I work semi-systematically on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scuba diving, leaving a trail of reviews and comments and a summary on the project page, and often go back to do a bit of work on those which are reasonably close. So far I have never had a rating dispute, but that is probably because there are very few editors active in the project. It will give you a short-list of GA candidates (maybe not that short), and a very good idea of what still needs to be done for each. I find that the usual residual issues are insufficient referencing, badly formatted references (bare urls etc.) incomplete coverage of the subject and trivia infestations. I usually clean up the prose and structure as I go. Much will depend on your interests. Have fun. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey! I built a tool^{[dead link]} that might be of interest to some of you. It pulls down the list of good article nominations and sorts them by ORES rating. There a couple of little things to note. Everything is done client-side every page refresh, so it will take a minute to process everything. There is a reason that some articles appear to sort out-of-order (articles are sorted by GA and FA probability added together, which in some instances conflicts with the predicted class returned by ORES that is printed next to each article). Feedback is appreciated. I might do work on making it prettier later, or having a bot post the report onwiki as a supplement to WP:GANR. TheDragonFire ( talk) 14:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I just checked that tool, I'm very pleased. But it definitely needs a new design, perhaps first by categories with colors, a division between FA, GA and so on... as I had some trouble seeing the breach between categories. Thank you for your effort. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 12:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It does not work for me. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't find it? I'd like to update my GAs/GARs.  —  Calvin999 14:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles). AIRcorn  (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so why do DYK and FA/FL ones still exist? They are manually updated?  —  Calvin999 16:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have returned to WP editing after absence of a few years to find that some of the articles I did most work on have recently got GA status. For example I have written most the prose and did most of the sourcing for Sylvia Plath - I am the top content adder for the article. (The GA nominator did no work on the article - it seems like a drive by nom.) What are the rules about using the GA icon on my user page? Thanks Anna ( talk) 14:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the nominator and reviewer can claim the icon. I have not seen a case where someone has claimed one by merit of having done most of the work, which would be a reasonable claim if you can substantiate it in some acceptable objective way. I suggest that if you can show that you have contributed more than half the content it would be a fair call. (other proportions/criteria may be proposed for discussion) · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There are no "rules". The icon is not even reserved for good articles. You have a certain amount of leeway about what you put on your userpage, but it is generally frowned upon if you deliberately deceive editors about your editing credentials. If you think you have contributed enough (I would not worry about meeting some arbitrary threshold) to deserve claiming credit for the articles current status you should be alright adding it. Looking through the history of Silvia Plath I would say you have certainly contributed enough to that article, even though it was a relatively long time ago. [4][ I personally would add an explanatory note to it detailing the circumstances. ie {{click|link=Sylvia Plath|image=Symbol support vote.svg|width=18|height=18|title=This user helped to make Sylvia Plath a Good Article, although it was later nominated by Matt723star.}} as a rough example. Also you might want to make sure the article meets your definition of "Good" before claiming it. AIRcorn  (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A while back I nominated the page Pumi dog for GA review. Today I see that an editor has covered the page in citation tags (some reasonable and some not - the majority for already-cited facts where a mid-para citation simply needs moving to end para), and then closed the review as a fail. As far as I can see there was no review process, no opportunity for me or any other editor to address any recommendations, and I didn't get any notification that a review was underway at all. Nor are there any comments about article structure, content or phrasaeology, etc.

Surely this isn't how the process is supposed to work? I was expecting an interactive process where someone would make constructive suggestions, and we would have a chance to work on them before getting to the review outcome.

I will work on the citations. But, meanwhile, can I revert the GA close to put the article back on the list, because process hasn't been followed? MapReader ( talk) 06:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @ MapReader:. There are allowances for reviewers to immediately fail an article if it meets certain conditions. There is also no limit on how long a reviewer has to hold an article. Therefor it is acceptable for a reviewer to fail it without placing it on hold. While these may seem similar the big difference is that in the second case a reviewer has conducted at least part of a review and should have left a decent amount of feedback on how to get it up to standard. In the first case there has been no need to conduct the review as the problems are so obvious. To be fair doing either of these things seems a bit harsh in your case, although as you admit there are outstanding issues with sourcing. The only way to add the article back into the queue is to delete the review and that is usually only done for obvious cases (mistakes starting a review, coi reviews, sockpuppeting etc). You could ask Georgejdorner if they would consider reopening the review? AIRcorn  (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Under review criteria, it states that lack of cites is a quick fail: "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {cleanup}, {{POV}, {{unreferenced} or large numbers of {{citation needed}, {{clarify}, or similar tags."

A quick fail is not the end of the world. Supply the needed cites, as you seem to know where they belong (and a reviewer cannot guess that proper location). Then renominate once the article qualifies for an indepth review. Georgejdorner ( talk) 22:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I marked the "cites needed" to aid you in the process. Georgejdorner ( talk) 22:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have some issues with these quick fails. Some of them, like Fulton Center, were actually reliably sourced, and {{ cn}} tags were added indiscriminately to lists. One of these citation-needed tags was actually put in the back of a citation! Just because some entries are unsourced doesn't make it a quick fail - it only should occur when the entire article is like this. epicgenius ( talk) 22:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I just found another one, Park51. In that case, your "quick fail" was so cursory that it should not have been quick failed. I strongly recommend that you slow down and raise the issues on the GA page directly, and look over the article before indiscriminately tagging statements that are, in fact, sourced. epicgenius ( talk) 23:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Georgejdorner, you say A quick fail is not the end of the world. In these current days when GA nominations can wait for as long as ten months, a quick fail can very much be extremely discouraging if the nominator has been waiting for a long time. You are comparatively new to GA reviewing, so you should definitely consider allowing more slack. A typical hold period is seven days; why not allow seven days to see whether the sourcing issues can be addressed? It hurts no one, and epicgenius's example of Park51 is telling: if only eight cites are needed, it should easily be solved with a standard hold, as could the removal of unnecessary cites, which is simply not a quickfail criterion. Finally, if you yourself are adding the templates, then it is also not a quickfail criterion: this refers to articles that already have been templated before you got to them. Again, Park51 was not eligible for a quickfail per the GA criteria. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The first principle of writing for WP is that all info must be cited. IMO, the fact that a GAN lacks that basic attribute renders that GAN a travesty.

Admittedly, I might have gotten a bit sloppy with the 'cite needed' tags--so many were needed. But I thought it kinder to point them out than simply quick fail without explanation.

I am sorry that some nominators lost months due to their own failures. I was just following the instructions and criteria displayed for all to read and heed.

Is this a movement to eliminate the requirement for sourcing in GAN? Georgejdorner ( talk) 01:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see much evidence that you have worked systematically through the review process as set out in the instructions? Your comments relate to just one of the six key review criteria, and your edit history provides an indication of the time you spent on the article. As I say above (and as should have been clear to anyone who took the trouble to read the article and follow the links to the citations) most of your "citation tags" relate to situations where a paragraph covers three or four related facts, all supported by the same citation, and the citation link has been placed mid-paragraph after the first fact, rather than left until end paragraph. The action needed was simply to move the citation, and it is unreasonable for you to have suggested that the article contains lots of unsupported material. MapReader ( talk) 06:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• From a personal standpoint I feel articles are not failed enough (I am guilty of this myself). Part of the reason the backlog is so bad is because sometimes articles that need a lot of work are nominated, which consumes the valuable time of reviewers. However there needs to be more thought put into quick failing an article than simply banging some citation needed tags on. One thing to remember is that, contrary to what was said above, not everything needs a cite. In fact very little needs a cite. There is plenty of wiggle room here for reviewers as they can challenge many statements and I would expect a nominator to be able to show where it comes from. I looked through George's last six reviews and all of them were quick failed for lack of citations. Park51 had nearly 300 citations so I cannot see how that is even close to a quick fail. Can I suggest that if you wish to continue reviewing you tag the articles like you are doing and then give the nominator a chance to respond. In many cases it is easy for them to find the citations or to explain them (one of the Park51 tags was for a summary paragraph at the start of a section so didn't really need a cite). If you get no response or are not satisfied with the response then you can still fail the article. AIRcorn  (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's see...any GANs not actually ready for review have to be placed on hold while the nominator learns the basics of writing for WP. Meanwhile, valid cited noms back up behind them. Then the regulars here wring their hands about the unnecessary backup they have created.
  • It makes as much sense as discovering, Hey, I have too many alligators in this swamp. Time to bring in some more. Georgejdorner ( talk) 17:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't know what else to say to convince you. I see you are getting similar comments at the GAN talk page. You might want to consider that you could be on the wrong side of this one. Listen to Mike Christie at least, he is one of the best and more measured contributors here and has been around a long time. AIRcorn  (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but we're not talking about GA reviews as nuisances that need to be resolved as soon as possible. Forgetting to put in the citation is not lacking "a basic of writing for WP". If there are some "valid cited noms" that are being backed up, maybe you should review these instead rather than complaining about it. epicgenius ( talk) 20:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

And in this particular case, most of the citations to support the tagged facts are already there, if not always in the right place. Having read the above discussion I don't think this user should be doing GA reviews, since s/he doesn't seem to have much interest in adding value through the process. And I am wondering whether the 'credit' you can get for closing GA reviews is counter-productively encouraging some editors to cut all the corners off the process? MapReader ( talk) 22:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@ MapReader: This editor doesn't seem to get the point. On a similar review they told me, You won the special exemption to which you feel you are entitled and Why not be content with your special status as you go on your merry way ignoring the standards?. This wasn't the case for me, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case for you, either. These standards weren't ignored at all, let alone on purpose; this editor is just being intractable and doubles down when consensus is against them (see WT:GAN#Talk:Park51/GA1). I have replaced your nomination in the queue, so a new nominator could review. epicgenius ( talk) 02:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I have removed the tag from the talk page accordingly. MapReader ( talk) 22:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Experienced good article reviewers from the community may wish to assist in supervising the new editor reviewing Talk:Pushpagiri Temple Complex/GA1. TheDragonFire ( talk) 03:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a question, but I'm ready for GA review on David Meade (author) if anybody would like to review it. -- LovelyGirl7 talk 20:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone will pick it up from the nominations page. It can take a while though as you can probably see from the backlog. AIRcorn  (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to put this article up for GAR. Are there any guidelines as to the most appropriate category to place a school article in? History / Geography / Art and Architecture? Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 09:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

KJP1, you'll want to use the Education subtopic. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 16:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

How many articles can a single user nominate? I know in FA, it's only one but I don't know about GA. Tintor2 ( talk) 23:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a limit. Of course, the more you have nominated, the more of a risk there is that you could have multiple nominations being reviewed at the same time, which could make it difficult to deal with competing demands from your reviewers. But people tend to be able to handle it if that happens. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This has been placed at Wikipedia:Requests for closure - could someone experienced in the GA reassessment process please review/close this assessment? Thanks. Fish+ Karate 12:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Fish and karate: GAR is one of the least efficient places here. I have some spare time this week so will look at closing the old ones. They can be tricky as often there are only a few participants and not many relate their concerns to the criteria. AIRcorn  (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Aircorn: Hugely appreciated, thank you. Fish+ Karate 08:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have closed most of the old ones. I would like someone else to do the following
  • Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Patti Smith/1 - Made some non trivial edits to the article
  • Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Baltimore Urban Debate League/1 - I reverted article to GA version
  • Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mishmar HaEmek/1 - Reviewed the article to GA status in the first place
  • Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rommel myth/1 - Commented on the reassessment

I will close Patti Smith and the Urban Debate one if no one else gets to it, but others should really do the other two. More help at GAR is badly required as most get very few comments at all. AIRcorn  (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Updating. Going to list the other two at requests for closing. It would still probably be better if editors familiar with GAs did it though. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, How do I move categories? I submitted corallivore as earth science but it should be in biology and medicine. I tried updating the talk page but it didn't seem to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilosauridae ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Basilosauridae, you had the right idea. Unfortunately the subtopic values have to be exact, including capitalization, if the bot that builds the WP:GAN page is to recognize them. The exact subtopic is "Biology and medicine"; because you capitalized "Medicine", it wasn't smart enough to recognize the proper value. I fixed it a little bit ago, and it should now be under the proper category. (PS: please be sure to sign all of your talk-page posts using the four tildes.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Legobot says it's New, however it's not actually appearing on the nominations page. Can't figure out why it's not working. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, it's because there isn't actually a subtopic called "Other music articles"; you need to use "Music" as a subtopic if it doesn't fit under "Albums" or "Songs". I fixed this yesterday, so it should be all set—the nomination doesn't show up until it has a valid subtopic. The bot should be smart enough to handle this, but isn't; I'm sorry you got caught by this. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonset. I wasn't the nominator just someone who watches the updates closely and saw the issue. Glad I know how to fix this for the future. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If I have reviews that are on hold, can I start another review or do I need to wait for it to conclude and process them one at a time? Basilosauridae ( talk) 16:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There are no limits to how many articles you can review at once. AIRcorn  (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

What is the minimum amount of content necessary for the biography section of an article about a contemporary person for that article to satisfy Good article criterion three, especially 3a? Are there any guidelines or essays, or even examples of Good articles on contemporary persons with sparse biographic information, that I can consult? Alternatively, if any experienced Good article creator or reviewer is willing to provide their opinion, it would be greatly appreciated.

For example, if I am unable to find any information on the person's early life, such as their birth date or place or parents or upbringing, can an article that is missing such information still pass as a Good article? What about if the bulk of information on the subject is about public activities later in life (such as writings, activism, etc.) and personal information about them is almost entirely lacking? Thanks for your time. — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@ Nøkkenbuer: There is no minimum content for biographical articles or any other article. It really depends on the reviewer and a bit of common sense. Personally if I can't find the information with a google search or the nominator has given a good reason why something is missing I usually let it go. It seems to be the general consensus here, but there are no hard and fast rules. As for an essay you might find Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not interesting as it addressing some of these concerns. Also see Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#"Broad in its coverage" and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 22#Issues with length/depth for recent discussions about similar queries. AIRcorn  (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Aircorn! It definitely alleviated many of my concerns about what to expect and whether these issues would render a given nomination as a non-starter. Have a great day / night! — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As I was recently passing a song to a GA article, it occurred to me that quite often the song can be placed in different years. Let's take an example song "X", which was recorded in 2009, however, it was only released as a single in 2010 and it was released on the album in the next year (2011). I'm reviewing the article, I pass it...in which year do I place the song? I have been placing them in the year they are released as a single, but am I doing this right? It might seem like a dumb question. If someone can enlight me it would be great.

Thank You. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 13:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a consensus, but I think the general rule of thumb is date of first publication. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 20:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Last year, I did some work on the article Quantum nonlocality and submitted it for GA status. After a while, the article was reviewed by User:DoctorG, who made a number of useful points about the article, which now that I have a little more time to spend on the article, I intend to look over again. However, as you can see on the page, we ran into an argument about plagiarised content within the article. In particular, it was claimed that part of the lede had appeared in a conference journal from 2012, and that since the opening sentence gathered a lot of hits on google, that it to was plagiarised. Having run the article through the GA plagiarism checker, and having it come up clean, I tried quite hard to find the offending sentence and the journal article, but was unable to. I asked repeatedly for the reference so I could verify which part of the article was plagiarised, but this was refused by the reviewer. In addition, the claim that the first sentence is plagiarised is demonstrably false; on the talk page for the article you can find a reasonably lengthy discussion of what the first sentence should be between a number of editors, myself included. In addition I cannot find any page with matching text to this one, other than (many) pages that repeat this page's content verbatim. I would like to resubmit the article for GA but I am concerned that it is impossible for me to deal with a plagiarism issue that I cannot myself identify in any way, and I would like guidance if possible. The only text I can find anywhere that appears in a reputable journal article is the phrase "Experiments have generally favoured quantum mechanics as a description of nature, over local hidden variable theories", which occurs in an 2014 article, though not from the journal claimed from the reviewer. However the text has been on the wiki article since 2013, implying that the plagiarism is in the other direction, as with all the other examples I have been able to find. Porphyro ( talk) 16:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I also asked for a 3O, who has agreed he or she could not find any examples of plagiarised material. Is there any way to fast track another GA nomination? Porphyro ( talk) 18:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

In general GA reviews are, as I understand them, designed to be "lightweight" and reviewers have a lot of discretion in their reviews. I happen to agree with the 3PO that I do not see the lead as plagiarism from any sources I can find, but since I wasn't the reviewer my thoughts don't matter. The nature of GA is that your best bet is to simply renominate the article and get a different set of eyes to take you through the review process. The mean wait time right now for Natural Science Nominees is 30 - 50 days which is bit below the mean for all nominees. Courtesy ping for Doctorg. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I came across this the other day that most of, if not all, of the wrestling bios are missing pieces from their pages pertaining to finishing moves, signature moves, nicknames, managers, and theme music.

The pages use to contain theme and I was wondering why they were gone.

Any explanation would be great.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jman2k3 ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#In wrestling. AIRcorn  (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Would some mind taking a look at this article and verify whether it’s a GA. Another editor upgraded it to GA status earlier today, but I can’t find any record of a formal review. I’ve reverted them, but if the article really is a GA, feel free to revert back. Thanks in advance. — Marchjuly ( talk) 11:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Review can be found at Talk:Despacito/GA2. AIRcorn  (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Aircorn. That page, however, was undeleted after I posted above. It had been deleted by RHaworth per WP:G7 because the reviewer apparently blanked it by mistake. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am reviewing Denise Vernay, but my bold attempt to resolve concerns about original research, neutrality, and focus that I had previously mentioned on the review page were reverted by a third editor. I therefore requested a second opinion, but 47thPennVols then wrote rather than asking for a second opinion at this juncture, I'll be placing the article on hold, and am asking that you cease your editing. First, I thought that putting on hold was something that the reviewer did, rather than the nominator, and second, I would like to gently point out that, while I appreciate their contributions, PennVols does not WP:OWN the article. Catrìona ( talk) 03:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• @ Catrìona: Please stop this. You've created an unnecessarily contentious Good Article review process, carrying parts of the GA review for the Vernay article over to the talk page for another user, @ Aircorn:, and now here, even though I've asked that this article review be placed on hold until I have time to assess where things stand. The article was assessed as B-Class by an independent reviewer, who worked with me on copyediting during that process. And a second editor, whom I do not know (@ Beyond My Ken:) just reverted a series of edits you made to the article. In his edit summary he noted that, "Your change was POV". I am fully aware that I do not "own" the article. I am simply trying to slow the editing process down at this juncture to have time to assess whether or not the changes you've made are accurate or even necessary. (You have already asked for a number of changes that are not required, as indicated by the article, Wikipedia: What the Good article criteria are not. So, this is not an unreasonable request on my part.) 47thPennVols ( talk) 03:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Addendum: I failed to mention in my response above that I also have valid concerns which stem from one of the reviewer's first edits. This particular edit changed the meaning of, and injected error into, a sentence in the article's lead. Quite frankly, I'm puzzled by how this review has unfolded. My last GA review was informative and collegial, and resulted in a better article. I don't have the sense that this is happening this time, and I'm at a loss as to why. 47thPennVols ( talk) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

All reviewers are different and in many ways it is the luck of the draw who you get. This is their first review and it can be a bit of a learning curve. They are trying their best and asking for advice so I would cut them some slack. Hopefully they will not be put off too much and become a better reviewer from this process. We need reviewers and everyone has to start somewhere. AIRcorn  (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have already given my opinion on a different aspect on this review at my talk page so it would probably be better for other editors to chime in here so it is not just me. As a general rule reviewers do not make major edits to an article they are reviewing. It is better to bring these concerns up at the review page and allow the nominator or other editors to deal with them. Once you become a major editor at an article you can lose the objectivity that a reviewer brings. As to placing on hold, that is the reviewers choice. It is usually the reviewers choice to ask for a second opinion and doing so is probably a smart decision. I have not looked at the review in detail, but for some unsolicited advice I would suggest that if you don't think it meets the criteria and are not able to work together to get it there it might be better to fail it. This allows PennVols to renominate. Your review will still exist in the history so it will not be in vain. It is annoying, especially given the backlog, but sometimes it is the best solution. FWIW I had a similar issue where myself and a nominator disagreed in one of my earliest reviews. I failed it then and it is now a featured article, so it is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course the ideal solution is for you both to agree on how to get the article up to standard and I would wait for the second opinion first, but this is supposed to be a lightweight process and sometimes a clean break is more healthy for everyone. AIRcorn  (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that one of the pages I edit regularly was nominated as a Good Article. However, the same person who nominated it, made themselves the reviewer too. From what I know, it is againt WP:GAREVIEW. So what is the best thing to do so another editor can evaluate it? ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 ( talk) 13:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Which article was it? A nominator cannot pass their own GA, so you would be within your rights to revert the pass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I did report it and the review page was deleted and the nominator was warned. However, when I went to check now looks like the nominator was banned for being a sock puppet. What to do now? Should the good article nomination be removed? This is the page by the way: Talk:Kim Hee-chul. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 ( talk) 19:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@ CherryPie94: Hi there. I would recommend for reviewers to take a look at the FAQ page under Review section, specifically the question: Nominator has been inactive on Wikipedia for a long time. What should I do? Delisting may not always be the best move for these kind of situations. Hope this helps. MX ( ✉ • ✎) 21:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

CherryPie94, I have removed the nomination, as it was made by a now-blocked sockpuppet. A quick scan of the article's prose showed a number of grammatical problems, so it isn't ready to be at GAN at present; at a minimum, the article would need a thorough copyedit before it would survive a GA review in terms of prose, and there may be other issues as well. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:South Polar region of the Cretaceous/GA1 was accidentally started by the co-nominator, do I nominate the page for deletion or close it and start GA2?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  00:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Nominate it for speedy deletion, or if you prefer, I can do so. Either way, I'll be happy to clean up afterwards. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Dunkleosteus77, I should have pinged you so you'd see this right away. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll remember that    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I nominated Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Double Down to be a good article, but now I'm having second thoughts. Now that I'm more familiar with the Manual of Style, I think the plot summary is too long, and the article is not notable and rather short. There hasn't been a review yet. Do I just remove the GA nominee template? Scrooge200 ( talk) 02:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• @ Scrooge200: Yes, remove the GA template from the talkpage. That will trigger the bot to remove the article from the nomination page. MX ( ✉ • ✎) 03:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Scrooge200: I found doing GA reviews really helped familiarize me with the criteria, MOS, and good Wikipedia writing. This might help you so that you feel ready to take Double Down or some other article up to GA in the future. Best wishes, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I've recently put up a review of Tony Kornheiser. However, the nominator seems to be on a small break (last posted on February 18). I've put the review on hold, but as the subject is a bit of a hybrid (sports journalist, with radio and NFL commentary), I'm not really sure which wikiproject to ping to fix the issues. Any ideas? I don't feel comfortable failing a review when it's been waiting for 8 months. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 15:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally I would wait a bit more for Lamblings to respond. It hasn't quite been a week since the review was completed and they might notice the talk page message and come back to tidy up this article. There is no reason you can't post a notification to more than one wikiproject if they still don't show up and you want to give someone else a chance to fix it. AIRcorn  (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski As someone who will dip their toe in the old end of the pool, I will generally confirm that there is still interest from someone before actually doing the review. In this instance I agree with Aircorn's suggestions. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A reviewer passed the article Mineral evolution, but a day later the bot has still not updated it. Was there something wrong with the process? RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) ( talk) 21:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the bot. The reviewer didn't actually finish the review or implement the closing instructions. While there is text indicating Mgasparin was ready to pass, the lack of the green check in the criteria under overall, combined with the lack of actually doing the close, gives me pause from doing it myself. I have pinged them here and hopefully they will close it out. Best wishes, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) Sorry I didn't pass the article correctly. my mistake. Thanks for alerting me to it... lol. Mgasparin ( talk) 00:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. As far as I can tell, it has been done correctly, but I still have not been notified on my talk page and the icon has not been added to the article. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) ( talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I added the icon myself. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) ( talk) 00:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how great of a problem this is, but I thought I'd rather give you a head's up. I have done five GA reviews so far ( Girl's Garden, Sky Skipper, Steam Heart's, V-Rally, and NHL 96), yet it only says 2 whenever I do a new review. Also the bot registers my reviews either extremely slowly (up to 2 days later) or not all, or puts it under the article when my review is already finished. I have no idea whether these issues are related or if it is somehow caused by me, I just thought I'd let you know.-- DasallmächtigeJ ( talk) 12:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I have the same complaint I just quick fail a GA article " This is America" and it hasn't updated my number of reviews. I should be on 79, not 78. Does the review needs to be open a certain amount of time before I failed it, because it's not the first time this happened to me. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 01:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

MarioSoulTruthFan If you quickfail (that is fail the review at the same time you start the review) you don't get credit for the review from the bot. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Barkeep49: Thank You for the explanation. I should have waited a bit so that the bot knew I was reviewing it. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 11:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

So a reviewer selected one of my articles to review, however, at the moment, he seems to be busy and told to me find a new reviewer. I was wondering if someone would mind taking a look and review the article.

Thank you. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 18:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@ MarioSoulTruthFan: I have tagged the review for deletion. This will put it back into the queue without losing its place. Someone else can pick it up form there. AIRcorn  (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I put Doki Doki Literature Club! up for a Good Article nomination on the 1st, and I have concerns over how quickly the article had been passed and the reviewer's credentials. The review began the day after nomination, and it was concluded and passed within the same day. The review's concluding summary is only vaguely positive, and the review itself doesn't suggest any particular improvements, which is contrary to my past experience with the Good Article nominations I had put forward prior. Aside from that, the reviewer had only registered his account two days before the review and not only does he have no other experience in reviewing, he has made no contributions to any video game-related articles whatsoever. As much as I'd like to see this article promoted, I don't feel right having it be done so hastily and would like a second opinion on the matter. However, if this isn't a legitimate issue, then I apologize for my skepticism. Cat's Tuxedo ( talk) 05:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

There are no obligations for a reviewer to have a certain number of edits or to leave any more comments at a review other than to say it meets the criteria. Looking at the other contributions they seem like a good faith editor. So I would say this is a legitimate review. I understand your concern though. I generally assume the nominators are looking get some feedback, even if it is quite minor stuff. Nothing leaps out at me from a quick glance at the article, but I may be able to do a more in-depth review if you want. I will leave a friendly message at the reviewers talk page. We are very short on willing reviewers so I would like to encourage keen new reviewers as much as possible. AIRcorn  (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, if it's really not as big a deal as I made it out to be, then I'm fully willing to accept the result. I'd like to encourage this new reviewer and I feel like going behind him for a second opinion just because I doubted his credentials and conduct would only undermine that. Cat's Tuxedo ( talk) 18:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Here, and this IP has no contributions nor did it say anything about the review. To me this seems like a mistake. Thoughts? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, it could be somebody who wanted to review it but forgot to log in. I would leave it a couple of days, and if there are no other contributions, I would suggest WP:G6. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

One week with no input, requested G6 speedy deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

GA review for Raja Harishchandra started on 8 March 2019. However, the reviewer is not active on WP since 9 March 2019. Its more than 2 months but there are no comments by the reviewer. Can anyone take a look at the article and its review? - Vivvt ( Talk) 16:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Vivvt, are you okay with Ssven2 continuing the review? -- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Ssven2: Please proceed. @ Kailash29792: Thanks for your help. - Vivvt ( Talk) 07:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems like after a couple of months, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Coropuna/1 does seem to be trending towards keeping its GA status based on the few comments so far but it's a reassessment I requested on an article which I largely wrote. Is there a procedure here? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I want to help closing GARs. I tried to close the GAR for green, but I keep getting the error "invalid action code GAR​" [5]. What should I do? StoryKai ( talk) 20:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

(I posted this at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment three weeks ago but have not received an answer. Maybe no one was reading it due to Framgate; maybe no one is reading that forum any more.)

I subjected Laozi to a thorough critique at the end of May & no one has responded. Should it be left open, or delisted? Yes, I could fix the problems, but I'd rather have the article delisted before I subject it to a more thorough rewrite addressing the problems I raised, then re-nominated to GA. That way would avoid any accusation of stealing GA credit for myself. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Llywrch: I'd favor delistisng and re-creating it personally. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This might sound as if I'm being lazy, but I think this might be best in the long run if an uninvolved third party were to second my review by performing the actual act. -- llywrch ( talk) 16:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I started reviewing Talk:Warcraft (film)/GA1 on August 8 and only a few of the easy fixes have been completed since August 9. I can be patient about it, but I don't know if it meets the criteria for a fail at this time. SL93 ( talk) 22:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

SL93, I would ping the nominator and put it on hold.If nothing happens in a week you can feel safe in failing it. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have done that now. SL93 ( talk) 22:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I passed Thuy Trang, but the GA icon was never added and the nominator was never notified. SL93 ( talk) 14:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello all; have I missed something with the above named film? I cannot see any evidence of a GA review for Wallace And Gromit The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit, but one seems to have been appended by this diff [6]. I cannot find any history of GA template being applied anywhere. I am assuming this is vandalism, but thought it worth a check. Regards. The joy of all things ( talk) 10:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I can also find no such evidence and have removed the icon. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 12:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 Thanks. The joy of all things ( talk) 12:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The reviewer of the article has not commented on the GA for a couple of months, but is still active. Based on the review, i think he was going to Quick Pass, but taking a quick look, I could see a couple or problems including dead links in the references. May need a second opinion.

@ An1alias: Pinging in case you want to continue the review. Jerry ( talk) 22:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC) @ JerrySa1: not too interested in reviewing good article nominees at the moment, i might get back to you later User:An1alias ( talk) 09:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I will delete the aborted review: Talk:Death of a Pop Star/GA1 (this is not showing as recorded anyway, as Death of a Pop Star is still listed as up for review), and start a new one. I shall inform both An1alias and JerrySa1. SilkTork ( talk) 18:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The {{ good article}} tag has been removed from this article by Cygnis insignis; although a brief comment was posted on the article talk page, my concern is that the WP:GAR process has not been correctly followed. I have no opinion on the quality of the article so a delisting may be the right call, but perhaps someone else could take a look and either restore the tag or delist it properly? PC78 ( talk) 16:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I restored the tag. Delisting should not be done just on one person's say-so; there needs to be a re-assessment (individual or community, but in any case structured and open for input). -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a talk page, I noted it, if anyone disagreed they didn't say anything. It is hardly just one person's say so, I worked on the articles and know it is wrong. ~ cygnis insignis 17:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The onus is on others to instigate an unnecessary process, to contest my decision, I've said that I am not fixing it anytime soon. ~ cygnis insignis 17:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the onus is on YOU to instigate the process; see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Clearly the community does not consider it "unnecessary". If you want to draw attention to a perceived lack in article quality, start a re-assessment, or (if you are not about to fix it) just list it as a candidate at that page. The main point of that is to invite the input of others, which is not satisfied by a non-logged comment on the talk page. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

We did instigate the process, and that is being obstructed for the sake of some irksome interaction. If you read the process then implement it and state why you think it is deserving of that status. I did my bit. ~ cygnis insignis 19:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't instigate the process; you bypassed the process and skipped to the end. Doing the correct thing and listing the article for reassessment, as you've been advised to do, would take up less of your time than arguing about it here. PC78 ( talk) 20:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

We have reached the "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" phase, which usually signals the end of anything productive with this editor. I'm unwatching this page before the "I won!" phase kicks off. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Just as a follow-up, the page has now been nominated for delisting by Plantdrew at Talk:Osprey/GA1, on the basis of internal contradiction/mixed-focus of the article. Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

For some reason the green icon hasn't appeared here. I think maybe we upset Legobot by moving the article midway through the review. Do we just add the template manually or is there some more proper way to fix this? Haukur ( talk) 23:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Just add it manually. This happens quite a lot. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I am reviewing Aneurin Bevan for GA. Please see Talk:Aneurin_Bevan/GA1#References/Notes which raised something about references I am not sure about. Probably not a major issue. Thanks, Amitchell125 ( talk) 16:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved. AIRcorn  (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm currently reviewing the above for GA. Three of the sources are documentaries about the theatre, hosted on YouTube. The videos are clearly professionally produced and the article's main editor indicates that the contributors are respected professionals, e.g. President of the theatre foundation, architectural historian etc. Production is by TV URBE, the channel of Universidad Rafael Belloso Chacín, one of Venezuela's largest private universities. To me, they seem fine as sources, and this Wikipedia:Video links appears to support that view. But this isn't my area of expertise and I'd be grateful for any input from editors who do specialise in sources. Shall also post on the FAC page as I'd be interested in thoughts from there. Thanks in advance. KJP1 ( talk) 11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@ KJP1: Personally I am not a big fan of using you tube at all. There are so many issues from copyright to reliability. It has such a bad reputation that it should generally be used as a last resort. If you tube is the best source we have, then maybe it should not be mentioned at all. Anyway from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.

I would want a pretty good reason why it should be used and you will need to be confident that the uploader is correct and someone worthy of inclusion. Also, depending on the length you may want a time period in the citation showing when the content is mentioned in the video (similar to a book page). AIRcorn  (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Aircorn, Kingsif - Aircorn, many thanks indeed for the very full and helpful response. I fully understand the concerns re. YouTube. The problem we've got is that the building definitely is notable, but definitely isn't well-sourced. I've experienced this problem myself when writing about buildings. In this instance, the documentary is probably the best source available about the building, and it is produced by a reputable source, Universidad Rafael Belloso Chacín, although I obviously can't vouch for the uploader. What if it wasn't hosted on Youtube - would that make it more acceptable? I've copied the main article editor in and it may be that they can suggest a way forward. Thanks again. KJP1 ( talk) 10:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I'm not sure what much else there is to say - the documentary is produced by a university and features subject matter experts on local and architectural history. It's not excessively long, and contains no POV; the charitable foundation of the theatre was involved in the documentary, so I will also add them as an RS. Of course, it's from Venezuela, where there's even struggle getting information on the major highways, politicians, and their World Heritage Sites because of a general lack of coverage and then even less in accessible reliable sources - self-publishing a documentary (in their cinema climate!) is one of the more successful ways of getting information out. Can I add that I have used two documentaries uploaded to YouTube as video sources for another Venezuela article that is currently at FAC, and the source checks have been happy with them? I don't want to sway you, though, since it should be case-by-case. Kingsif ( talk) 13:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You can only use the sources that are available to you. Kingsif has given a good reason why it should be used and it is unlikely to be fraudulently uploaded or covering biased information given the content. If it was hosted by the university (or linked to you tube from there) that would be better, but it is what it is. I would be inclined to allow it to be used. AIRcorn  (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Really helpful - thanks very much indeed for your input. I’ll now get back to the review. All the very best. KJP1 ( talk) 15:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I started a review on Battle of Huế/GA1 a while ago and have just noticed that it is not showing as under review on the Nominations page. Have I done something wrong? Likewise Mayaguez incident. Gog the Mild ( talk) 01:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, just a note to those who watch this page that there's a discussion considering consolidating the GA-related talk pages here. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Cheers. Ajpolino ( talk) 16:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)