Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Good article nominations

WT:GAN

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 Frequently asked questions below 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.

See the Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, several other GA talk pages redirect here.

Archives

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

GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4

Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

GA help: 1, 2

Nominations/Instructions: 1

Search archives

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

Talk:Squirtle/GA1[edit]

My apologies if I'm not allowed to do this, but shouldn't the reviewer have asked for a new reviewer instead of failing it? Spinixster (trout me!) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not best practice. If a reviewer opens a review page and does not want to proceed, and no actual review has happened, they can request that the page be deleted which allows for a new page to be created. You could request that. Otherwise, we can reset the nomination date for the new review to the original one. CMD (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see BlueMoonset has already done this. CMD (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just adjusted the close on the review page to be a withdrawn reviewer rather than a failure in addition to updating the article talk page to restore the nomination's seniority and remove the improper "FailedGA". Thank you, Spinixster, for bringing this to our attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The review was odd Talk:Squirtle/GA2. 2001:4455:36D:9100:41E3:8099:FF76:2CC7 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, seems like no spot check was done. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking mentor to improve article to GA[edit]

Hi. I wrote a biographical article that went through DYK and did well there (51,000 views). I would like to improve the article and bring it up to GA status. I'm an experienced editor but I've never edited for GA, so I would like to work with a mentor who is experienced with GA reviews and could make editing feedback or suggestions. Main issues might be prose quality and breadth of coverage.

I'm currently in the "2024 Election Wiki Scholars" WikiEdu course, so they can give me guidance on various technical aspects. Please let me know if you or somebody you know might mentor me with this effort. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can post at Wikipedia:Good article mentorship ProfGray or, if you like the look of one of the mentors, you can contact them directly on their talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did not post there because that is for new GA reviewers, not for editors hoping to nominate for a GA. Right? ProfGray (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, ignore that. Which article are you referring to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's Jex Blackmore, who might be seen as controversial, but so far there has been no edit warring, just some vandalism during the DYK spike in views. I'm a scholar of religious studies and I came across this intriguing person. ProfGray (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look that bad, so I would suggest just nominating it and seeing what a reviewer says ProfGray. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If you aren't feeling brave enough to nominate this for GA right away (at a very cursory glance there are no major red flags!) I'm happy to take a look at the article and give you some feedback – looks interesting!
Aside from asking here, you might consider Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green. Blackmore is arguably technically out of their scope, but their sister project women in red explicitly includes "women and other gender minorities" and there may well be people watching that talkpage but not this one with relevant thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/GA3[edit]

Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/GA3 should be removed. The review was taken by a user who has 4 edits and wrote: You could possibly mention the many controversies he has been in, as well as the popular jokes about him being a lizard.. 750 h+ 13:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as G6, invalid review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dia (film)/GA1[edit]

I've failed this nomination, but the bot didn't seem to notify the nominator that it's a fail nor did it remove the GAN from WP:GAC. Something's off. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see everything worked correctly -- the nominator was notified and the GAN was removed from the main page. The bot runs every twenty minutes and takes about eight or ten minutes to run so in the worst case you could be waiting thirty minutes after you complete a fail or pass for the bot to do its job. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I guess I was just a little impatient. Thanks. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest vs. Highest priority[edit]

Is there any longer a distinction between these two (now that nominations are simply sorted by date), except that the "Highest priority" box seems to have fewer entries? If not, should we merge the two boxes together? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChristieBot crashing on Talk:Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present)[edit]

ChristieBot is unable to transclude the GA review to Talk:Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present), which is semi-protected. As a result it's been crashing every run trying to do so, and so has not been updating the main GAN page. Per WP:UAL it seems as though ChristieBot should have the extended-confirmed permission which would allow it to edit this page, but it can't. I'm about to go to work and so don't want to edit the code since I won't be around to see if it works, but if someone could either give the bot the permission, if that can be done without going through an approval process, or manually transclude the GA review, that should fix it. The former is the preferable fix if it can be done quickly since that way it would be definite that that's what the problem is -- UAL does seem to say bots automatically have the permission so I suppose the problem could be due to something else. Anyway, thanks for any help with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having queried the interface directly it seems the bot may have this permission but is missing something else. I've posted to ANI to ask for further help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]