User talk:Aircorn/sandbox

Opinions

@Kusma and Atsme: Trimmed down the instructions. What do you think? Removed a lot of repetition, rewrote the reviewing section and tried to tighten and update the information. Convenience link to the original Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions Aircorn (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a good trim overall, cuts a lot of unnecessary stuff. The link in "Step 3: Reviewing the article" should probably go to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, though, but that page shouldn't claim any superiority by being a "guideline". —Kusma (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Works for me. Atsme 💬 📧 21:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A few thoughts

1. Topics - is it possible to add Animals as a topic with subtopics like wildlife, domestic, mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians?
2. Withdrawing': To withdraw a nomination before the review has begun, simply remove the {{GA nominee}} template from the article talk page. If the review has begun, advise the reviewer, and they will fail withdraw the nomination. I think "fail" is rather harsh, whereas withdrawn is what actually happened.
3. This does not imply quid pro quo. This simply means that helping to review articles will help the Wikipedia community by cutting down the backlog as a way to help pay it forward. - I think optional says it all.
4. Step 3: Waiting Step 3: Timeframe - It may take several months or a few days before a reviewer commits to reviewing your article. The timeframe for the review itself will vary. Do not start the review page yourself, as it may leave reviewers with the impression your nomination is already under review.
5. Step 4: During the review - I'm of the mind that we need to be careful about how we approach any disagreement over interpretation of the good article criteria – perhaps we should more carefully consider raising the bar for GA reviewers? Every now and then, an article creator can become kennel blind, and we may inadvertently be lessening the credibility of GA status by making it easy to change a reviewer who is properly identifying problems. Perhaps we should create a panel of reviewers (say, 5 editors with at least 3 GAs/FAs) to review these types of issues instead of just changing reviewers?
6. Step 4a: Abandoned review - If the reviewer withdraws or abandons the review for no apparent reason, or becomes indisposed through no fault of their own, a new reviewer may be requested by editing the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page by changing: |page= parameter (e.g. from "page=1" to "page=2"), and |status= parameter from "status=onreview" or "status=onhold" to the blank setting "status=". You also have the option to remove the transclusion of the former GA review from the article talk page, and save the page. A bot will reset the nomination in its same position in the queue on the GA nominations page. If the reviewer abandoned the review after simply opening it without making comments, you may start over by requesting a G6 deletion of the review page.
   I think the above pretty much sums it up for my suggestions. And Aircorn, thank you for all the effort you've put into this! Atsme 💬 📧 13:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)