Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQBacklog DrivesMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport

Good article nominations

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

Mention source spot-check in the criteria?

I noticed that the reviewing instructions at WP:GAN/I#R3 say every review must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article, but the supplementary footnotes to the official criteria at WP:GACR6 are not so explicit about this expectation. Right now there is a footnote that says this:

Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources that agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in-text attribution if necessary)."

What about revising that to something like the following? (the text formatting in the quote is an update to how that page currently appears.)

Every review must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary). If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means."

That's pretty long, so I think we could also remove the parentheticals, since people can seek full clarification on the linked page. (If we do that, we can probably reduce the bolding too.) I'm hoping that it's non-controversial to unify the GA guidance like this but also wanted to confirm consensus before changing something as central as the criteria page. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- asilvering (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Cat intelligence

Cat intelligence im looking make it a good article. i know i have work to do. but any feedback or pointers ? Astropulse (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Astropulse, no comment on that article in particular, but are you aware of WP:PR? -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

thanks.. ill try that Astropulse (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Astropulse: You have edited that page for the first time this month and uploaded a video which may or may not be representative of the intelligence of a domesticated cat—as the domesticated cat has barely been domesticated, in contrast say to the domesticated dog or the domesticated horse—and placed it in the lead. Thereafter, you have made a flurry of recent edits to the article, the largest percentage in the lead. Common courtesy would require you to post on that article's talk page, either ping or post on the user talk pages of editors who have been editing the page for much longer, and ask them if the page is even ready for a good article nomination. Your edits to the lead are jargon-ridden in contrast to the simple summary there was before. You have added the remarkable second sentence to the lead, "Structurally, a cat’s brain shares similarities with the human brain,[1] containing around 250 million neurons in the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for complex processing.[2]" where 1 is Richard Gross's Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour and [2] is a conference paper from 2010 in High-Performance Computing. Do your sources bespeak due weight? For example, there is no reference in your additions to Dennis Turner and Patrick Bateson edited much read, much loved, and much-revised volume on the domesticated cat. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

PS Perhaps you should ping user:LittleJerry, whom my fading human brain remembers from somewhere in FAC Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

i only summarized the contents of the article that was there before and used associated references. i didn't add any new references. if references are incorrect, then it was incorrect before. I will double check references later. Nothing in there is factually incorrect. Astropulse (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed change to Report of Old Nominations

For those who read the Report, what do you think of a change from listing Old nominations over 30 days to over 90 days? This would change just that one section from a list of 500 nominations that were added 30 days ago or longer to a list of just over 100 nominations that were added 90 days ago or longer, helping the Report considerably; people can't manage more than that. Prhartcom (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I sort of think 30 days is a sensible ambition, no matter how distant. I'd prefer to create "Very old nominations", "Ancient nominations", etc. to split it up rather than exclude everything younger than 90 days. CMD (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree. -- asilvering (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

+1 Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't that long ago that 30 days was a realistic amount of time to wait for a review, especially for those who do lots of reviews. I can't remember the last time I had one that was less than three months get reviewed. I wonder if there is not a better way to encourage the amount down, rather than change the goalposts. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Eichmann trial article

Some time ago I translated the Hebrew Wikipedia page for the Eichmann trial which massively expanded on the English article's content. I'm proud of my contributions and want to help the article meet the qualifications for GA. But sadly unlike when I was translating the article, now I do not have the time in my busy work schedule to adapt the article to GA standards myself. So I'd like to ask if there are any editors out there willing to do this for me? The article means a lot to me. Of course I'll still be able to contribute when I can. Thanks! Gommeh (talk/contribs) 15:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Signpost article

What do you think about a collaboration amongst experienced reviewers for a Signpost article about why and how you should review good articles? It may slightly increase reviewer participation. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

What are the whys we could write about? I suppose for me, if I review an article, I learn something new. Building a similar level of knowledge to when I am working on an article myself, but without the actual hassle of working on an article myself. (Reviewing does take time, but not as much as writing!) CMD (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

If any of us had nominated a good article, we could write about how long it took to get reviewed, if that makes sense. For instance, when I nominated my GA, it took about a month or so before it was reviewed, and I was very grateful when it finally was. So something about how it feels good to know that other nominators don't have to wait any longer. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Reassessment submission of one's own GA

Hey all. From what I've seen, nominations for GA reassessment tend to come externally from people that notice an article no longer meets GA criteria. I'm not sure I've seen any reassessments requested by people for their own prior GA nominations, but I wanted to know if this was something that could/should be done in some cases. I ask because since my 2023 nomination of Virginia Bolten, Steve J. Shone has published a book chapter about her that is not only more in depth but clears up some historical inaccuracies that have made their way into the article. At some point in the near future, I intend to integrate Shone's work into the article and hopefully correct the mistakes in there, so I wanted to know if such a large change would require I submit it for a GA reassessment. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Generally, GAR seems like the wrong approach for articles for which the sources have changed since promotion—as opposed to those that have deteriorated in quality, or were effectively first promoted in a state below present standards. Remsense ‥ 论 14:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Nah, you're fine. I suppose you could start a reassessment, argue that the article was terrible and refuse to bring it up to standard, get it delisted, then improve it and resubmit it for GAN... but if you do that, I'm coming after you with a cartload of trouts. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I definitely won't be overloading the process by doing anything like that. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Some editors have submitted their own GAs for reassessment. Just be aware that if there are no obvious problems, they usually end up with few comments, as no-one can find obvious problems. If you do want a fresh opinion, it might be more worthwhile to reach out to trusted wikifriends for informal reviews. CMD (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I'll see if anyone else fancies giving it a look-over once it's updated. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Copyediting the "Film" text

Launchballer copyedited the "Film" section. This was immediately undone by the bot. If I remember correctly, any changes made to the page will be undone the next time the bot runs so the bot's code is what needs to be updated if we want to change something. I think the copyedit was an improvement that should be rather uncontroversial. Ping Mike Christie who runs the bot. TompaDompa (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that boilerplate is in the bot's code. I'll make the copyedit, but how about setting up those text chunks as templates? Then the bot could subst them in each edit, and they would be editable without changing code. If we like that idea, if someone could create the relevant templates I'll change the bot to use them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The copyedit has been made; it should update the next time the bot updates the page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:GAR

There are 80 reassessments currently open, of which about half have been open for the minimum month. I don't have time tonight, but the older ones could really use attention from those familiar with the GA process to start moving some of these towards a consensus. Hog Farm _talk 03:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a huge burden on the already seriously-strained resources available here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Something is up with the transclusion. Kempegowda International Airport is at the top for me, despite being an old one and already closed. CMD (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It happens when a reassessment is reopened after closure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I have closed 29 reassessments; hopefully we can get more eyes on the remainder. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)