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 centralize 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, 33

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 .

New reviewer required

Hello, could I kindly request a new reviewer for the article Halimah Yacob? The previous reviewer has been inactive for some time and was unable to complete the GA review. Many thanks in advance. Pangalau (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it looks like the reviewer had a bit more of the article to go. I have reset the nomination. If the reviewer returns they are welcome to reopen the old GAN. CMD (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I hope someone else would start this nomination again. Many thanks! Pangalau (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive reviews

I was checking inactive reviews due to the backlog drive coming up, and I saw the following:

~~Talk:Sleeping Beauty (1959 film)/GA3: I think the reviewer said they are fine with a second reviewer, but haven't marked it as such. Plus the nom has been inactive for 24 days.~~
Relisted.
Talk:Jonna Adlerteg/GA1: The reviewer has been inactive for more than a month, but it does look almost finished, so maybe it should be marked as needing a second opinion?
Luckily this review seems substantially complete, unlike a couple of others from the same reviewer, and the reviewer seemed broadly positive on it. If there are no objections, this one might take a light lookover and pass.
~~Talk:IMac (Apple silicon)/GA1: Have had no review despite being open for more than 3 months~~
Relisted.
Talk:Andhra Pradesh/GA3: Also have had no review even after being open for three months
Reviewer has not edited since the ping three days ago, giving this one a bit more time.
Reviewer has returned.
~~Talk:Amos Yee/GA1: The reviewer barely started and have been inactive for more than a month~~
Relisted.
Talk:Mating of yeast/GA2: Had no edits for a month, then had a week of reviewing, and then again has no edits for a month
A bit more of a confusing one, probably should be relisted, but I've dropped a note on the reviewer talkpage.
Reviewer has not replied despite editing again, relisted.
~~Talk:June/GA2: The reviewer had filled out a review template, but has said nothing, or failed it (as they marked in the template), maybe they are inexperienced~~
Opened just this month, dropped a note on the user talkpage.
Reset.
Talk:Yang Youlin/GA1: New reviewer did not review, just marked it GA on the talk page, and has not been editing for two weeks (after having not edited for 3.5 months)
This one is a bit weird, usually I'd wait longer given the review just opened, but, given the talkpage action, the lack of activity in general, and the upcoming drive, not opposed to relisting sooner.
Failed.

Can something be done about these- either marked as needing another reviewer, or reset, as seems best? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking all this. I've relisted three obvious cases in line with my understanding of our precedents, other comments above. CMD (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are even more GANRs similar to the above, but they were all started around less than a month ago, so I only mentioned the most egregious ones. Might do a similar check around the middle of next month. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer came back for Andhra Pradesh, I'm going to try and second opinion Jonna Adlerteg. This is the second time Mating of yeast has been relisted, which is a bit of a shame. Otherwise the rest are handled. CMD (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive reviewer

I have already asked for a review in Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1, and the reviewer previously has gone AWOL. See discussion. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on review

Can I get a second opinion on Talk:Hilda Heine/GA1 to confirm that nothing was missed? I ask because History6042 has already had their reviewing scrutinized at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30#Potential issue with review of Arithmetic (again), and since then they have passed Talk:Texas Centennial half dollar/GA1, Talk:Serbia Against Violence (coalition)/GA1, Talk:Charles Brenton Fisk/GA2, Talk:National Gathering (Serbia)/GA1, Talk:Branislav Djurdjev/GA1, and now this one without taking the feedback on board. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with Serbia Against Violence (coalition), Charles Brenton Fisk, National Gathering (Serbia), and Branislav Djurdjev, no issues were brought up about those. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I might not be fully sure what a spot check is, the only thing I could find just said see if the sources are good and say what they are. Am I wrong? If so someone please explain to me what a source spot check is. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If necessary I can go back and do one one Hilda Heine once I understand what a spot check is. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did that now. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Crusading_movement/GA5

In the context of the backlog drive this one could do with a little help to get over the line. It has been on the list since July 2024 and in review for a month now. Mea Culpa it used to have issues with overly close paraphrasing of sources but it should be sorted now. AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) is doing a source check. IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) did check in at Christmas and there was some objective points raised that are now all resolved. What would be really great is if another editor or editors could have a look and give additional feedback/comments. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, the review is in progress. I am waiting to gain access to a couple of books. Of course, "Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article", especially with regard to source-text integrity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that Airship had this review handled. An article of this size is bound to take awhile. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account that the nominator has failed to clear the article of close paraphrasing and copyvio during a series of reviews for more than four years, I think the reviewer's precaution is quite reasonable. Now, I do not want to refer to several cases of unverified claims and misinterpretations. If I were Norfolkbigfish, I would be extremly patient and grateful. Perhaps, they could meanwhile clean "their" other articles of close paraphrasing and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Former GA

Is there a list of all delisted GAs by when they were delisted? I want to see the newly delisted articles. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want new ones you could watchlist Category:Delisted good articles. CMD (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the GARs since the change to remove the individual GAR option end up getting logged in the reassessment archives, although I can't guarantee that those are fully comprehensive. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 82 is the most recent one; the ones delisted from that are Joseph Franklin Rutherford, USS Texas (BB-35), Forbes Field, United States constitutional criminal procedure, Melbourne Airport, 1997–98 Manchester United F.C. season, Tristan da Cunha, Temper (film), 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song), Anuel AA, National Register of Historic Places, Fantastic Four in film, Mitch Daniels, Portland Monthly, UConn Huskies women's basketball, and Teleological argument. You can also check the various topical subpages of WP:GA and look in the page history, although anything by FACBot to "update good article list" is an GA being promoted to FA, not a delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 05:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]