Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations - Wikipedia

Could someone delete Talk:Britain's Got Talent (series 7)/GA1, it seems that the nominator has managed to create the review page. Miyagawa (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. Bencherlite^Talk 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've had my first GA approved today, but to be honest I'm not happy. When I nominated my first article for GAN, I wanted to test it out and see how far away I (or in this case, the article) was from the GA-standard. I've read some GA-reviews, and they always have some positive feedback that the nominator can learn from to the next time. In the case of my article, which I don't believe is a GA though not far from it, I've gotten a rubber stamp review (that can be read here) without any issues to adress and no indication that the good article criteria has been met. I agree that reviews like this is ok when reviewing articles from more prolific editors, like my countryman Arsenikk, but the reviewer in question does this in most of his reviews, and one of the articles that was reviewed by this user had a GAR opened the next day (Talk:FK Partizan/GA2). I believe someone needs to tell this guy how to review GA's - given that the user is reviewing one article per day s/he might be a great asset for this project when s/he learns to do it right, but I believe it should be done by someone with more experienced from reviewing and nominating GA's then myself. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think we both know that article doesn't meet the GA criteria, but as there's nobody in charge nobody can do anything. Added to which, WP:GAR seems to be dead. Eric Corbett 23:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mentoz, sorry you didn't have the experience you were looking for in your first review; I hope it won't sour you on the GA project generally. I'll take a look at your article in more detail tomorrow if you like, and give a second opinion on whether it meets the GA criteria and where it might be improved.

As it happens, I just came off a QatarStarsLeague review myself at Nelson Mandela. I was grateful for the suggestions and the effort to review, but I admit I was surprised that the review focused largely on linking issues, which aren't really part of the GA criteria. Checks for other criteria weren't explicitly discussed. If this is a running issue in other reviews, perhaps QSL might make it a point to fill one of the templates in future reviews and explicitly confirm that the individual criteria have been checked. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's sometimes helpful to ask reviewers with "unique" ideas of what's important to read WP:GACN. Speaking of which, someone should check to see whether under- and overlinking is mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd love that Khazar. In the long term, I want to be writing and reviewing GA's (and the planned recruitment center might be something for me), I just feel that I need more experience from writing articles before I start with that task. And I would learn more from having a GA-nom or two failed with a well-described list of what could be improved, than having my first GAnom rubber stamped. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I have no interest in sports articles, but I have reviewed quite a lot of Arsenikk's GAN nominations (23 I believe in the last five years, a few of which included Olympic sites) also a few nominations by Eisfbnore and by Filippusson. You appear (according to your talk page) to be interested in football as a topic and I'm willing to review one, but as I say I'm not interested in that topic so I never ever look at the Sports and recreation nominations section, so if you want one reviewed you need to tell me. Pyrotec (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed WP:GAN#GEO is listed as a shortcut for WP:GAN#Geography and WP:GAN#Earth_sciences. I think this is a mistake. Michael73072 (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I reviewed Lovebird (song) last month and eventually failed it, due to a variety of concerns (apparent self-contradiction, poor writing, irrelevant information) remaining unresolved after several read-throughs, and new issues arising as the article was further edited. The nominator, Calvin999, was not happy about this closure, but it was endorsed by another editor, Ohconfucious, who identified further problems with the article. It seems that Calvin has simply waited a few weeks and renominated, but without once editing the article again. Needless to say, the identified problems remain. Part of me is saying that I should just quickfail the article, but that seems a little confrontational. What is to be done here? J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't see your problems as problems. I explained things to you, you didn't understand. I made changes, you still didn't understand. I further explained things, and even then you didn't understand. That's not my fault. If I wish to renominate, then I can. I still did all the other points you raised, whether I agreed or not. Let someone else review it instead.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Two clear problems, just as a for instance: Firstly, the article retains poor writing. For example: "The lyrics of "Lovebird" focus on how Lewis informs her lover that enough time has passed since their relationship ended for her to have developed as a person." The lyrics don't focus on the method she uses to inform, which is what this sentence says. (This also illustrates that you are wrong when you claim you "still did all the other points [I] raised, whether [you] agreed or not." Are you really going to claim that this line doesn't need to be fixed?) Second, the article contains strange ambiguities: "In the United Kingdom, "Lovebird" was not released as a digital download single, but was released with an "impact date" of 9 December 2012." BUT "As of December 2012, "Lovebird" is Lewis' lowest selling single, and her first to not chart in the UK". Was it released as a single, or wasn't it? You assured me on the talk page both that "it was released as the second single" AND that it "wasn't given a single release". Your explanation, and the article, are completely unclear, no matter how much you asure me that you "explained things". If you're going to ignore these problems, or just claim that they don't exist, there's absolutely no point asking for a review. This kind of thing is what a review is for. It's really no wonder that you struggle to find reviewers when this is your response to criticism. If you just want a reviewer to give the articles you nominate a tick, then I don't think you're looking for GAC. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I explained several times, but for some reason, you just don't get it. Yes it was released as the second single, but as an 'Impact day' release, meaning radio and promotion (live performances and music video). 'Impact day' means limited promotion. There was no specific single page like this for example where you could download the song as an individual, it had to be downloaded from the album if one wanted to download it. I've explained this several times, I don't know how else to explain it. But you took your lack of understanding for it as my fault, which it isn't. "Stay (Rihanna song)" also got 'Impact day' release in the UK. You're getting yourself mixed up and confused by it. It is clear in the article, you just don't get it. This is my response to "criticism" when I know I'm right. And no, I don't expect to just get a "tick". I put a lot of hard work, time and energy into Wikipedia and I don't expect you to give me snarky comments like that. GAC is for helping an article become a GA, not for failing it because you don't understand something.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In Aaron's defense I'll say two things... this was a co-nom with myself but Aaron but I've remained silent because I disagreed with some of the changes that Aaron made to the article. As for the impact date thing... this is a UK-type of release whereby the label promote a song as a single i.e. it gets a single cover, a music video etc but it doesn't get a separate digital download listing. This is sometimes done in the UK e.g. Rihanna's "What's My Name?" and Nicole Scherzinger's "Wet", where these tracks could be bought as a track from the album but it isn't listed in Amazon or iTunes as a separate single. I am, as the original co-nominator and main author of the article, happy to give it a copy edit to try and correct the issues if I am permitted (since I did write the bulk of the original article). I didn't apply for the wikicup exactly for the fear of situations like this happening. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't really say you are the main author or that you wrote the main bulk. Contributions list and the revision history shows that I am, really. Not that I'm wanting to get in a brawl over it or anything. Just surprised me that you said that.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well I'm not anymore after you nominated the article for GA (and made changes some necessary, some more personal preference). It was only after we had that discussion, where I explained I was p*ssed off for you nominating the article even though you knew I'd been working on "Trouble" and Glassheart with that very same intention that you added me as a co-nominator. I had written more of the original article before you decided to work on it and nominate it for GA. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Anyway the above is irrelevant. I'm happy to take a look... surely a second pair of eyes could pick up things that the first hadn't noticed? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) You also said that you can't stop others from nominating. You massively hinted at being a co-nominator because you said you had planned on working it as "Trouble" has now passed (at the time). I asked if you if you wanted to co-nom because of your hint, and you asked if that was okay, to which I said yes because you had also been making contributions. I think you're forgetting that I created it and expanded it from the redirect I placed on it, and added each section, which you in turn co-copyedited. At no point did you start off saying you was pissed off on my talk. I always had the intention of working on it. I had no involvement with "Trouble" (even though I wanted to), as I saw you had been working on it, so I left you to it. It's not really about how many edits are made, it's about the quality of what is added. But you saying you wrote the bulk as the main author just isn't true. That is what rattled my cage. And yes, a second pair of eyes would be useful considering they were absent from the actual review.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did have exams and was on a partial break at the time of nomination but none of that was taken into account. You seem to forget I massively disagreed with some of the sectionalization hence I stayed out of the review because I felt it wouldn't pass with the changes you'd made but every time I changed stuff you seemed unhappy. With the review going badly us two arguing over the article wouldn't have helped. If it was about quality I guess it might still need improving since to editors seemed to agree that it didn't deserve to pass. Are you honestly saying you'd have accepted changes if I had made them? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I had my final term of university as well, not that I publicised it. Yeah we did have problems about sections, but at the same time that is how I've always set out sections depending on section content size, and out of 61 passed nominations, only one or two editors that I can recall suggested changing things slightly It's what I'm used to doing. You haven't mentioned that I did in fact change some of it back to how you suggested. Of course I would have accepted the changes you made proposed on the review, you're a co-nominator. Arguing about this isn't going to help, I just don't like it when people stretch the truth about things. Let's move on from this airing of feelings work toward resolving and improving the article, and the original situation proposed here.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Credit where credit is due, I didnt edit the article as much as I thought I had. You can be quiet confrontational at times, 61 GAs is an achievement but it doesn't mean that you're always right and there are multiple correct ways of doing things. Anyways you're right ... no point arguing. Like I said, since we disagreed on some of the article it seemed pointless to get involved and make the review any more complicated than it already was. I'm happy to take a look again tomorrow (its 1.30am in the UK) and give it a go over to see if Milburn is happy with it. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was only being confrontational, as you put it, because I knew I was right, as you just said. I suppose it is an achievement in other people's eyes, but no I'm not always right and there are several ways of doing things, I'm just regimented in doing things perhaps one or two of the several more correct ways. Yeah I am in the UK too.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You two are not improving the article with your squabbling. J Milburn correctly identified that problems (note plural) remain and he asked "What is to be done here?". Try answering that instead of bickering.. Moriori (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Shouldn't the nomination have been taken to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment rather than simply renominated without any significant changes? A renom immediately after a good-faith thorough review seems problematic to me—it could be seen as review shopping. The GAR page states that a reassessment request is appropriate when "you disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations.", and goes on to say that renomination is acceptable for "an article which has not had a proper review". Regardless of whether or not Calvin999 (talk · contribs) was satisfied with the pass/fail decision J Milburn (talk · contribs) made following review; it seems pretty clear that the review was "proper", and therefore reassessment rather than renomination is the best course of action. In fact, I think it's the only course of action. The article should be withdrawn and instead taken to WP:GAR; this will allow a community review, and for more than one non-involved editor to express an opinion. This will resolve the matter properly, and give the community some confidence regarding whether the article satisfies the criteria or not. - Shudde ^talk 09:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
• I think any reviewer worth his or her salt will first audit the previous nomination and come to their own conclusion as to why it failed. But please indulge my using a child-rearing analogy here. It seems that one parent, without the other's knowledge or accord, was hoping to put the baby up for beauty pageant so onlookers would say what a beautify child they had. Unfortunately, the parent got upset when receiving an honest appraisal they weren't expecting, and has immediately entered the baby in another pageant. But now the strains in the relationship between the parents is in the spotlight, as is the fact that the offspring's problems are a manifestation of the couple's difficulties. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

On 14 April 2013 Heptachord initiated a GAR at Talk:Thirsty Merc/GA1 and raised some legitimate concerns – curiously the account had been established that same day and according to contribs, besides the User's own account, no other edits have occurred and the last edit was the very next day. Since that time I tackled the article, in good faith, and made edits to improve the article: it certainly needed some work. On 20 April I had finished my improvements and voted for the article to be kept at GA. There has been no response from Heptachord on the status of the GAR despite a request for the same on 16 May. It is now almost two months since the initial GAR but no further progress has occurred. Is it possible to have the article's GA kept without feedback from the initial reviewer?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd say that if the GAR has been abandoned, it can be closed, especially as the specific issues raised appear to have been addressed. If no one else objects, I'll do this in the next day or two. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Several community reassessments at WP:GAR seem to me ready for closing: Pauline Kael, Margaret Thatcher, Rickrolling, 7 Khoon Maaf, and Huma Qureshi (actress). All appear to have a clear consensus and have been dormant for some weeks/months. Would anyone here do the honors? (Any uninvolved, registered user can do so.) Alternatively, if further comment is required, perhaps some editors here would join in? These reassessments seem to be really languishing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thatcher done. Bencherlite^Talk 15:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! If anybody else wants to look at the others to either comment or close, your help would be much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, an article I wrote, Aston Martin DB9 passed GAN today. However, I have concerns that the review was not thorough, nor were changes made during the review particularly helpful. Finally, the article is not showing up on the WP:GA page. Can I request a re-review? Superflat Monogram 18:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The review can be accessed directly from the review wikilink in the GA box on the talkpage (the link is Talk:Aston Martin DB9/GA1). OK, I've opened a new review, it would be polite if you would inform the original reviewer. That reviewer seems to be on their fifth review, and looking at their talkpage the others seem to have been well received. Pyrotec (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated. I will let them know. Superflat Monogram 19:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Going off the above, it seems like there's been a fairly large uptick of shoddy reviews lately. Good thing that the review school's opening up soon, it's getting difficult. Also... that reviewer did a buttload of reviews, all of which suck. The rest need to be addressed fast. Wizardman 19:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

One real problem seems to be the section Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Rubber stamp reviews, above. Looking at that reviewer, he's currently now at 272 reviews ([1]) and going back to 1 June ([2]) he was at 64 reviews. I don't believe that anyone can do 210 (-ish) reviews in 10 days or so; and we don't have the resources to send 200-odd reviews back to GAR. Could we consider overturning 200 reviews and putting them back into GAN, at their original timestamps? Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the 272 reviews number is some kind of bot error; if QSL had really done 210 reviews this week, half the queue would have disappeared. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You could well be right. These are the figures from GA_Bot/Stats: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th June - 64 reviews ; 5th June - 66 reviews; 6th June - 189 reviews ; 7th June - 268 reviews; 8th June - 269 reviews; 9th June - 270 reviews; 10th June - 272 reviews. They are taken from the first reading of the day at [3]. The diff for 5th to 6th June is [4]. This is the log from 06:00 on 5th June to current time [5] for GA nominations, it seems to have gone crazy with certain nominations / reviews. Elsewhere it was suggested that he was doing one review per day, so perhaps he started the month at 64 reviews and perhaps has done another dozen or so (perhaps twice that). If that is correct, it's more manageable. Pyrotec (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I do remember GA Bot re-reporting QSL's reviews every ten minutes one day last week, so that's probably what created the strange inflation. A look at her/his contributions seems to show ten or so reviews over that time.

As for re-reviewing them, I re-did one above, and will be happy to chime in at GAR, if anyone sees another that needs reconsideration. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This came up a while ago, but new GAs no longer have an article history automatically included by a bot. Maralia (talk · contribs) was sorting this for a while, but I don't think anyone can keep up on their own. Is there a list anywhere of good articles without an article history, and is there anyone who can push along the task of getting a bot to do all this? Some articles are starting to look a little untidy. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

As per consensus over on the reassessment page, I delisted the article as 3 months had passed with no improvement or reply. Hope there are no objections. I think I may have screwed up the delistment though, so if something went wrong, i'm letting you guys know :P. Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I think the procedure is to update, rather than delete, the article history [6] (which took me three tries to do right myself) and to also delist it at the GA list page [7]. But broadly speaking your close looks good to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just want to say, as copyeditor who helped improve the article's readability, that I agree with the delisting. Although the game and associated notes provide some nice light entertainment for readers, the subject is "significance-lite" in compare to other deserving game articles having deeper content, better writing, and don't currently sport Good status (e.g. Game of the Century, Immortal Game, etc.). This article never warranted any attention beyond "below average" and rang of hollow effort to make a quick claim re content creation, as several points of the reassessment show. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am just leaving a note her to say that I am leaving the review of Phineas Gage on hold, and will keep it there for awhile until the article activity dies down. Currently a lot of new contributors are arriving with their own ideas about how the article is supposed to be, and there is a rather uncomfortable environment on the talkpage. One probem is that the article was nominated without involvement of the main contributor (an expert editor) who is not enjoying the experience of an unsolicited and in my opinion needlessly hostile peer review. The article however is of very high quality and deserves to pass when it reaches a stable state. So please don't hurry me with the review, even if it takes some weeks for it to become stable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

As I feel I may be one of those being tarred with this brush of "unsolicited and ... needlessly hostile peer review" there are two things I'd like to point out:

• I am the fourth or fifth highest contributor to this article.
• I was asked by the main contributor for my input into the review, I didn't just happen along.[8]

Eric Corbett 17:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is not a tarring to call it unsolicited but a simple fact since the main contributor did not nominate it and was pulled into the review without making that choice him/herself. Of course this is how Wikipedia works, and that is not a problem, but it does not necessarily make for a very comfortable review experience for the article writer. I didn't know that s/he had asked you to participate that of course is good, and alleviates some of my worry that s/he has a less happy experience than they deserve. Several other editors however have not been so requested and have been a lot more hostile than you. You are among the main contributors in fact a shared second place according to wikichecker - but with 17 edits to the article there is still quite a way up to the main contributor with 242 edits. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I actually have 28 contributions if you include my previous user name; still a lot less than 242 admittedly, but enough to make me the fourth-highest contributor. Eric Corbett 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply