Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Good article nominations

WT:GAN

This is the discussion page of the good article nominations (GAN). To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the New section link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click to show the frequently asked questions below or search the archives below.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Good article nominations

Shortcut

WP:GAFAQ

This is the list of Frequently asked questions about nominating and reviewing Good articles. If you cannot find the answer to your question here, you might want to ask for assistance at the GA nominations discussion page.

Nomination process

The backlog is huge! Is there something we can do to restrict nominations?: There have been complaints about the perceived backlog in reviewing since the Good article status was created in 2006. Generally speaking, we don't want to restrict nominations along their path to GA. In the beginning, as many as 100 nominations were waiting for a reviewer to volunteer. By 2011, each day typically listed 330 nominated articles, of which 260 were waiting. By 2016, 580 were listed, 460 waiting; by 2021, 470 were listed, 300 were waiting. For comparison, today there are currently 665 nominations listed and 560 waiting for a reviewer.; While it may seem overwhelming, a large backlog isn't a bad thing. It shows that many nominators want to use GA as a tool to improve the encyclopedia. It also allows reviewers to choose from a wide selection of articles that interest them. From a nominator's perspective, the main concern is the expected wait time before receiving a review, not the number of articles on the nominations page.
Can't we force nominators to review articles?: Quid pro quo reviewing (editors must review an article before nominating, perhaps after a grace period) was regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to lower quality reviews and fewer nominations from excellent content creators who may not wish to review another person's work.
What order do nominations appear on the Good article nominations page?: One advantage of reviewing articles to help the Wikipedia community is the GAN appearance order: the more articles you have reviewed relative to articles you have nominated, the higher up in the queue your nomination will appear on the GAN page. Note that above this, order preference is given to nominators who are new to GA.
What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic) IP address?: Any editor with significant contributions to the article may nominate an article for GA status (while only registered users may review), so significant-contributor IP nominators are permitted. Non-significant contributors should follow the advice above for editors who have not significantly contributed to the article. Dynamically changing IP nominators may want to clarify to the reviewer that, despite their signature, they remain the same person.
Can I nominate an article I haven't significantly contributed to?: No. Nominations from editors who have not substantially contributed will be removed unless the nomination shows that the article's regular editors were consulted on its talk page alongside a note on the GAN template showing their commitment to the process, e.g., |note=Adopted following extensive improvement by another editor. In the past, many drive-by nominators did not know the article or its sources and did not respond to questions by the reviewer.

Review process

I want to review an article. Do I have to review the oldest unreviewed nomination first?: Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. You may review any nominated article you are not involved in, regardless of the nomination's age or position in the queue.
As a reviewer, I want to help the nominator improve the article, but it already meets the criteria. What am I supposed to do now?: The purpose of a GA review is to determine whether the article meets the GA criteria. Article-improvement discussions are intended to prevent near-misses in nominated articles that almost meet the criteria. If the article already meets the criteria when you first review it, then explain exactly what you've checked in each of the main criteria (e.g., "I have verified there is no original research, copyright violations, plagiarism, unreliable sources, bias, edit wars, or untagged images.") and list it as a Good article. "Quick passes" are as legitimate as quick fails, although they are less common. Please do not make a list of nitpicky details or exceed the written requirements of the Good article criteria in an effort to make the review look rigorous. Instead, thank the nominator for presenting such a polished article, and encourage them to submit another.
Who can respond to the review?: The nominator is expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article, while everyone interested in the article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. Nominators have no special privileges over other editors except that they can withdraw the nomination.
Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't?: The nominator has an interest in seeing the article become GA, so the nominator will likely want to respond to the reviewer to improve the article. In fact, all editors interested in the article are encouraged to respond to reviewers' concerns. However, nobody, including the nominator, is required to. If the reviewer identifies concerns directly related to the Good article criteria and no one addresses the concerns, then no one should be surprised if the reviewer declines to list the article. If the article does not meet the Good article criteria after the reviewer has waited a reasonable amount of time for the nominator to make improvements, the reviewer is sure to fail the nomination. Future article editors may benefit from review comments on how to improve the article.
The nominator disagrees with the reviewer. Can another reviewer take over?: If your GAN experience is not going well or if you are disagreeing with the reviewer's decisions, then you may allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer). If the reviewer has not yet failed the nomination, you may try asking them to ask for a second opinion. Other than these, another reviewer does not normally take over an active review. You might want to read What the Good article criteria are not. To prevent avoidable disputes, reviewers should either not make comments unrelated to the Good article criteria, or they should carefully label those suggestions as optional (e.g., "I know that citation formatting is not required by the Good article criteria, and I will not consider this when making my decision, but if you might send this to Wikipedia:Featured articles later, then that process requires consistent citation formatting").
Does an article have to be on hold for exactly seven days?: No. Whether to place the nomination on hold at all, and the length of any such hold, is for the reviewer to decide. Depending on the quality of the article and the responsiveness of the nominator, a hold may not be necessary. If the reviewer decides that it is, they may choose longer or shorter periods of hold time. The reviewer may even modify the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page to include a "time" parameter, for example, "time=fourteen days", and the {{GANotice}} template used to convey messages to the GA nominator to include a "days" parameter, for example "days=fourteen". Keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GA nominations report page.
What should I do if a review page becomes inactive?: This can happen for a number of reasons. Review pages should only be started by reviewers who are willing to take an active interest in the article and are committed to completing their review of the article in a timely manner. Sometimes another editor (such as the nominator) starts the review page by mistake. A reviewer can fix this by placing their signature after "Reviewer:" towards the top of the review page, but if no reviewer is forthcoming, it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions may be posted at the discussion page. If a new reviewer is truly needed, follow the instructions page under "What to do during a review if it seems abandoned". Do not use this process to void a review you disagree with.
I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified!: That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your comments while independently deciding on their assessment. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and also decline to list the article as GA. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the Good article criteria, you can initiate a reassessment.
How can GA be reliable when a single reviewer decides?: The quality of a Good article is only as reliable as the most recent review and articles may deteriorate if unattended. The GA process deals with both of these issues by allowing repeat reviews by any registered user at any time. The process aims to encourage article improvement and build consensus on quality through multiple reviews—even though a single reviewer makes the decision whether to list the article according to the GA criteria. Any editor may contribute to any review discussion and reassessment is available when the "one reviewer decides" model breaks down.
What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process?: You can bring those concerns to the discussion page to get help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in any dispute that you have.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32

GA help 1 GA help 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Dated archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Waiting period for renominating after a failed nomination?

Recently I've noticed a number of articles fail a nomination, and within hours be nominated anew. In at least one case, this has happened twice to the same article. Although there may occasionally be a good reason for this, it raises the concern that the issues that lead to failed nominations are not being adequately addressed before the articles are renominated. In the featured-article context, this is dealt with by requiring that "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it." The good-article instructions are not so specific, although they note that "If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately." And generally, they envision that seven days is an adequate time to respond to any issues raised in a review.

With that in mind, how would others feel about a requirement that a failed nomination wait seven days before it can be renominated? This would not be a perfect fix, of course, but it would at least ensure that there is some built-in time to digest the comments from the previous nomination and implement any improvements before renominating. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly oppose the waiting period, but this behaviour is already against the rules of WP:FORUMSHOPPING (Raising essentially the same issue [...] to multiple [...] reviewers) and so it should be uncontroversial to revert a nomination if no significant edits have been made to an article since its last review was failed. Perhaps we could codify this formally somewhere. I'm quite concerned by the text: If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately. A genuinely improper review (e.g. by a new editor who doesn't understand the GA criteria) should be deleted/reverted and the page should be relisted under its original nomination timestamp. A review that one disagrees with is still a review that needs to be addressed and resolved before renomination. — Bilorv (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A review one disagrees with needs to be considered and responded to. It does not need to be addressed and resolved. Having a new reviewer look at an article for GA criteria is a more comprehensive second opinion format. This is designed to be lightweight for both sides and so if there is a reviewer/nominator mismatch a renomination can be the right low conflict way of moving forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a second opinion process. Perhaps you agree with me that there are some situations where repeated renomination would be disruptive, for instance, if an editor doesn't consider and respond to reviewer comments, simply not acknowledging them and renominating. — Bilorv (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that repeated renominations could be disruptive. I just wanted to point out a non-disruptive, actually disruption reducing, reasons not to have such a limit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that GAN is supposed to be very much lighter touch than FAC. Presumably at some point in the dim past FAC had issues with noms whose concerns hadn't been addressed prior to being renominated so they instigated a diktat to obviate that. Given that a FAC takes around two months to promote and a GAN can technically be promoted in half an hour, we're at odds with comparing process. Having said that, I agree with Bilorv, renominating something which clearly hasn't been improved is disruptive and should be disallowed. My opening suggestion would be to add instruction for GA reviewers to check previous issues have been addressed or else "quick fail" is appropriate. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tht would also cover the situation where someone just waits a month, but doesn't do anything before renominating it, no need to have that loophole open by looking at time since failed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the FAC prohibition is against nominating any article. At FAC only one nomination is permitted at a time, but a GA you can have as many nominations open as you like. There are other reasons for an inadequate review. Sometimes the reviewer does not give you a chance to resolve the issues raised, but closes the review immediately. I see nothing wrong with resolving the issues that were raised and re-nominating once they are resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, what it boils down to at GAN is that issues previously raised (i.e. if it's not GA1) should be suitably addressed. If someone picks up a GA2/3/4/5/etc and is instructed to check that previous GAx reviews should be checked, it's up to the new reviewer to call out "quick fail" and justifiably put it to bed. And if the disruption continues, well ANI is another venue altogether. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a waiting period. GA has just one reviewer and while that brings many advantages it also means that we do get the odd substandard review. If an article is failed for a reason that does not align with the criteria then the nominator should not have to wait before putting it back in the queue. The old review will be recorded in the article history and I would hope most reviewers would look at this before/while conducting their own review. I do agree that if someone repeatedly nominates an article that clearly fails without any attempt to fix the issues then that is disruptive. Those cases can be brought up here and the editor dealt with individually on a case-by-case basis. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a possible change to Step 5 (nom instructions): If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately, but note that the article may be quick failed if the new reviewer agrees with the concerns brought up in the previous review. I'm not sure how the reviewing instructions should be changed. Username⁶⁸⁹² 22:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC

From the comments above, it seems that any change needs to balance the concern of substandard reviews with the concern of substandard renominations. As Bilorv has pointed out, there are ways of dealing with genuinely substandard reviews: namely, deleting the review and returning it to its place in the queue, or undoing the edit that failed the review and letting another reviewer take the reins. These issues are dealt with from time to time on this talk page, and this method of recourse could be made more explicit in the instructions. For inappropriate nominations, meanwhile, there are several options, such as a waiting period or adding to the quick-fail criteria. I like the quick-fail idea, since it avoids what MPJ-DK termed the "loophole" of waiting eight days and renominating, without actually addressing the issues. From my own experience, I also know that it can be helpful to take a few days to digest feedback (and/or cool off, depending on the circumstances); and waiting a week to renominate doesn't seem like much of a chore.

With those competing considerations in mind, how would something like the following change to Step 5: After the review sound?

Current: At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately.

Proposed: At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you may renominate the article after taking the reviewer's suggestions into account and waiting at least seven days; a renomination made earlier may be reverted, and a renomination that does not take adequate consideration of issues raised in the earlier review may be quick-failed. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, however, you may ask for additional input on the discussion page. (The bolded part is a link to this page).

A corresponding addition, such as the one The Rambling Man suggested below, could be made to the quick-fail criteria. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change. I think in particular, some edge cases may always have to be dealt with by wider discussion, so a pointer to this page is useful. I note at least one user above opposes a waiting period though. — Bilorv (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this balances the concern with substandard reviews and disruptive renominations. b uidhe 19:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to "Immediate failures"

We should add something along the lines of:

5. A reviewer considers that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered.

It's worth noting "considered" because some GA reviewers are shit and while they think they know what they're doing, they don't, so this wording allows leeway for new reviewers to take those kind of reviews with a pinch of salt while applying some level of diligence should a former review be of value. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very good solution. Perhaps we could restrict its usage to "A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article" to stop someone abusing the feature by quickfailing an article immediately upon renomination by someone trying to get a fresh opinion, though I think if such cases ever happened we could deal with them on a case-by-case basis so I'd still support this text without that clarification. — Bilorv (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is very reasonable. If a second reviewer agrees that an article is substandard, then 99.5% of the time there is a legitimate issue that needs to be resolved before re-nominating. epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. b uidhe 19:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence with this and am now wondering if we need to qualify GA reviewers like we do over at NPP but not quite as stringent. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add my support per Epicgenius. In the 0.5% of the cases an appeal could always be made here. AIRcorn (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this proposed rule is a good addition. It allows reviewers discretion to make appropriate quick failures without diqualifying cases where the review was inappropriate or where the editor really has put in the work to bring it up to snuff. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Since it may be relevant to this discussion, I note that I recently renominated Freud and Philosophy after a failed review because the review was unfair and incompetent (the reviewer made a series of rambling, peculiar comments during the review demonstrating total lack of understanding of the subject, claiming, among other things, that a properly cited statement in the article was uncited, which it clearly was not). No apologies for the renomination or for calling an incompetent review incompetent. Unfair and incompetent reviews happen. They are a serious problem and more people should point them out and criticize them when they occur. I see no reason for a seven day waiting period. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy for anyone to take a look at any of my GA reviews for competency. You may also want to look at the Barnstars and good comments I have received recently from three nominees on my talk page. There is a list of recent reviews in the CaroleHenson section of the current GAN Backlog Drive. I have asked the user to be more civil, I find their comments to be uncivil and unwarranted. It is bad enough to do so on a talk page of a GA review, it is even more so on an open discussion board. I do not intend to respond to an uncivil reply.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a more serious problem is arrogant uncivil nominators who think the process exists for their own needs and don't appreciate that reviewers are also volunteers giving up their time to give feedback on an article they wrote. Given the backlog we need reviewers more than we need nominators and you should most certainly appologise for your comment here. If you think you have had a poor review you should discuss it in a way that is not going to lose us a reviewer and help them improve their reviewing skills. Calling them out on a public forum is the last resort. I for one will not be picking up any article you nominate now or in the future if this is your attitude. AIRcorn (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Free knowledge's comments were definitely unacceptable, and I'd say good luck if you think you're gonna get a timely review some anyone with experience in that matter if that's how you act. Wizardman 03:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply observing that there was a serious problem with one of CaroleHenson's reviews, involving failure to understand the subject under review, thus justifying me in renominating the article. Being good at reviewing an article on one topic does not automatically translate into being good at reviewing an article about something completely different, and no one has to volunteer to review an article about a subject they are obviously unfamiliar with. Why not instead spend your time on things you do know about? Whether other people wish to review articles I nominate is naturally entirely up to them (and Aircorn, telling me you will not review my article nominations makes little difference when you have shown no interest in them anyway, at any stage). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By my reckoning you've fallen out with around 5/6 reviewers across two GAs. There is a common factor here, if you could but recognise it. KJP1 (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it's this kind of nominator behaviour that needs to be highlighted and reviewed by any potential reviewer who might not know what they're getting themselves into. Perhaps the suggestion I made above makes even more sense. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the nominator has self-identified the Freud and Philosophy renomination, I may as well mention that this was the article I had in mind that was twice failed and twice immediately renominated. GA1 closed at 21:19 on 22 September 2019 (diff), and GA2 was nominated at 23:06 on the same day (diff); the request for GA3 was on the board four minutes after GA2 closed. The first reviewer was hardly less capable than the ~~first~~ second, reinforcing the idea—expressed by many above—that these are among the class of instant renominations that any potential change to the good-article instructions should address. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, I assume you meant to say, "The second reviewer was hardly less capable than the first". Nothing for me to say except that I am entirely entitled to disagree that a particular review did justice to the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just gave said article a quick read to see how it looked, non-judgementally. I would quickfail it based on flouting style and structure guidelines. I don't know what the GANR comments were, but I imagine they touched on the excessively long essay-like discussion of summary, and how there's a long introduction to the reception? Tagged for improvement. Kingsif (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. If you think the article fails "style and structure guidelines" the most helpful thing would be to explain why on the article's talk page. One of the templates you added asserts that the article has an overly-long plot section. The article does not have a "plot" section at all, since it is about a non-fiction book, and non-fiction books do not have plots. Would you please remove the inappropriate template? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That template says it has too long a plot summary. There is not template for just 'too long a summary', but the point stands in spirit, so it's not really incorrect. Kingsif (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template is technically incorrect, since the article has no "plot" section. There are other templates that you could add ("summarize section" or "overly detailed", for example) that would not be technically incorrect and would better express the problem you see with the article. Really this discussion should take place at Talk:Freud and Philosophy. Please respond there. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This "my article is fine, the reviewer is flawed" WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on display here is exactly what we don't need for volunteer reviewers. Throughout the review, suggestions are highlighted with "I don't see why I should", or saying that the reviewer is criticising everything. A topic being in-depth doesn't make it being accessible to readers any less important. I realise you have put in nearly 2,000 edits into this article, but I don't think they were overly judgemental. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article nominators have the right to disagree with reviewers if they wish. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They do, but when experienced reviewers are repeatedly pointing out what they take to be large and fundamental problems with the article, nominators should consider the possibility that the article is not as good as they think it is. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reticent to drag J Milburn into this drama but I think he should be told when he's being discussed in this way. I've skim-read both GA reviews of Freud and Philosophy and they are both thorough, competent and reasonable on the behalf of the reviewer, I think even bringing up the same issues which Kingsif also noticed at a first glance, and which Freeknowledgecreator has roundly ignored. Both J Milburn and CaroleHenson are distinguished reviewers and remained eminently civil throughout the process; the issue seems to be that Freeknowledgecreator is unwilling to accept any criticism about an article that they nominate unless those criticisms are very minor (e.g. punctuation), seeing it as either a personal attack or an opportunity to attack the other editor until they run away. The same pattern was repeated at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality/GA1. — Bilorv (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bilorv, for the ping - I was literally posting above as you wrote this. I was keen to give Freeknowledgecreator the benefit of the doubt because I was pleased to see someone putting time into philosophy articles, but reviewing the article was not a positive experience (WP:BATTLEGROUND has been mentioned, appropriately), and I do not intend to review any of Freeknowledgecreator's other articles. I worry that others might be/have been browbeaten into ignoring issues, and, consequently, that some of the other articles promoted to GA status may need reassessing. As Freeknowledgecreator really wasn't impressed with my reviewing, I thought I probably wasn't the one to do this. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews by J Milburn and CaroleHenson have little in common. It is specious to say that they were both "thorough, competent and reasonable" when the reviewers made totally different criticisms of the article. I completely disagree with your assessment of the second review, Bilorv. Simply telling me that it was competent is useless unless you want to discuss the details of what was actually said. As for the comment by J Milburn, he may have a negative view of me, but I harbor absolutely no ill-will whatever toward him. I am actually grateful to him for failing the article, because it gave me good reason to reconsider the way it was written and to rewrite and improve it. J Milburn, you say, "Freeknowledgecreator really wasn't impressed with my reviewing". I would like to thank you for your review, because it did help me, despite our disagreements. In contrast, the review by CaroleHenson was of absolutely no use. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freeknowledgecreator, You asked me not to communicate with you and to not post on your page. I am very fine with that. But, your continued bashing of me is uncivil and singularly focused on bashing me. And, there were two different reviews because you made a lot of edits since the first GA review.

I don't have any problems with rational discourse about ways to improve, but that's not what you have been doing. Let's just agree to disagree about my review of the article and move on. I truly hope that you find someone to perform the review that you can work with.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you found my review helpful. But I note that both mine and Carole's reviews can be "thorough, competent and reasonable" while making "totally different criticisms"; your accusation of specious reasoning is misplaced. More importantly, the way you are talking about Carole has no place in a collaborative project like this; as far as I can see, she has been deeply reasonable with you, and your claims about how her comments were of "no use" says more about you than her. She identified many parts of the article that make for difficult reading - if that's not helpful, I don't know what is. I may not have identified the same parts, but I certainly expressed concerns about readability. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to change anything in the article that makes for difficult reading if anyone can suggest reasonable improvements. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article is so good that it belongs at WP:FAC rather than at WP:GAN. Indeed at FAC you'll multiple reviewers with varying interests and differing competencies, as opposed to GAN where you will usually find one generous volunteer prepared to devote their own unpaid time trying to do their best to help you out. Which clearly isn't working in this instance. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in butting heads, or involving myself in the featured article process, which has never yet had the least appeal to me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it would suit you and your article so much better than this place. At least you don't have to nominate again and again and again to get the kind of review you're looking forward. And as for butting heads, that seems to have been well and truly accomplished already. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion I involve myself in the featured article process, but the answer is a definite no to that. And that's enough of this hilarious exchange. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one haven't found any of this hilarious, just very disappointing. But while you're here, why not take on a review or two of other GANs, that would seem reasonably equitable. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, several good article reviews have not gone the way Freeknowledgecreator might have liked. Four articles by him on similar topics - Philosophical Essays on Freud, Sexual Desire (book), Sexual Preference (book), and The Homosexual Matrix - have been promoted in the last few years. Someone who has not previously involved with reviewing these articles may want to take a look at them. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an inquisition? If the implication is that I have somehow bullied people into passing article nominations when they did not want to, the answer is that I have done no such thing, and that I have no idea how that would even be possible. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden

A comment pointing to an individual reassessment of Joe Biden was posted at the reassessment talk page. I looked through it and was not happy with how it was conducted so have now opened Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joe Biden/1. The individual reassessment attracted a lot of editors not really familiar with the good article process so it would be nice if some regulars were willing to venture over there and make sure the comments align with the GA criteria. it also begs a deeper question on how the stability criteria applies to delisting articles that we should probably address a bit more formally at some point. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graph

Users may find this monthly graph at User:Eddie891/GAGraph of interest. Comments are welcome, I think there's something off around October '09... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting chart, Eddie891, thanks for putting it together. It's fun to see the sharp drop from the ongoing backlog drive—although I see there was a sharp incline following the last one. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It happens after every backlog drive, and if anything the backlog returns even higher than pre drive levels. It tends to level off at some point, but that leveling off limit has been getting steadily higher every year. The bot was down briefly in 2009, which is probably why the data there looks off. See File:Good Article Backlog graph 2011.jpg for a early graph. AIRcorn (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to measure the total number of nominations per month, and the total number of reviews? I wouldn't be surprised if there's some fatigue after backlog drives—after squeezing two months of reviews into one, for example, perhaps regular reviewers take the next few weeks off. So perhaps the number of post-drive nominations remains about the same, but the number of post-drive reviews dips. —Usernameunique (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, The only way I can think of is by going into the history and counting the occurrences of legobot commenting "new" and "on review", which would give you an approximate count... Rather time consuming to make a graph of though Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Square South and Pioneer Square North stations#History

Does this section give undue weight to the history of the square (and not the station itself)? Username⁶⁸⁹² 15:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nom has trimmed it Username⁶⁸⁹² 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Hi reviewers, would anyone be able to:

Give a second opinion on Talk:Tocomar/GA1, about a phrasing concern that, after long discussion, the nominator and I can't seem to solve. Details at the review page.
Take over reviewing Talk:Silver Line (MBTA)/GA2 - I left some preliminary comments and got a 'no' to them all; leaving the review is an amicable split, it seems like a simple disagreement, but obviously one where nothing will get done if I proceed and it would be a waste of time for me and the nominator.

Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consultation with Happypillsjr

Though I wouldn't particularly want to call-out a user, many past discussions, most recently here, suggests that the pattern of poor nominations and reviews by Happypillsjr needs to be further (perhaps more formally) addressed. An attempt at mentoring by myself at the end of 2019 and start of 2020 didn't help much, and various requests for the user to slow down or stop have shown that they will wait about 2 weeks before going again.

In this open setting, I would like to invite @Happypillsjr: to tell us all what they think 1. the GA process is for, and 2. what the GA criteria are and mean. Then, it may be helpful if other users could discuss these responses, and what the best way forward may be. Another concern that has been noted in Happypillsjr's reviews is poor communication skills, which could suggest a command of English that is not good enough to assess GA's altogether, but which I bring up here in case it seems comments are being misunderstood. Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall a similar discussion only a few weeks ago regarding another review which you got involved with. From a glance, I must say that the quality of reviews may in part be attributed to what I see as a less-than-ideal grasp of acceptable English grammar. I think Happypillsjr has good intentions and I don't dispute that he believes to be contributing in good faith, but I can identify with the concern that he is perhaps not suited to be reviewing and passing judgement upon articles, particularly when assessing prose quality. On the review I mentioned above, the line "looks perfect, no confusion and bad grammars" is questionable and not just shorthand. I am always very mindful about being critical of those who, like many here, want to help out and contribute in the right way, but equally I fully take the point that in processes like GA, FA, PR etc, those passing judgement need to possess some degree of competency to do so. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say I think Happypillsjr should leave the GA process until they can demonstrate the ability to build GA-level articles. It makes me sad to see enthusiastic editors have their well-meaning hopes to contribute frustrated, but here I see no other option. Happypillsjr has been editing occasionally since mid-2014, very regularly since mid-2018, and has accrued several thousand edits, so newness isn't the problem per se. Early in their time here, they were asked to stop nominating articles for GA/FA, and were briefly blocked for non-compliance. In August 2018, BlueMoonset has to again ask. June 2019, BlueMoonset again asks them to stop. December 2019, epicgenius asks the same. Same month, Kingsif kindly offers mentoring after more of the same. I see no sign things are improving with time. Just this month Happypillsjr nominated yet another article for GA after doing some cleanup (which included adding material directly copy-pasted from a source), and again it was quick-failed. I'm not aware of any example of a nomination or review led by Happypillsjr ending well (though some example may be out there). At this point, I think further intermediate steps are a waste of everyone's time. I truly appreciate Happypillsjr's enthusiasm, but they cannot seem to contribute constructively to the GA process, and so they should not. Perhaps they can re-build trust by contributing constructively elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Ajpolino (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I must note there is a nomination that Happy is currently reviewing, which they previously nominated (that nomination was removed by Kew Gardens 613 because the article was far from the GA criteria). I think that, besides that nomination needing to be restarted, we need to consider whether Happy should be temporarily restricted from GAN reviews, since mentorship has had only a limited effect. I am hopeful that they could improve with time, but right now, it does not look like they should be reviewing good article nominations at this time. epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]