Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 29

GA review exceptions June 11–17

 * Simultaneous GA and peer review open: Family (1976 TV series)
 * Possible failure to closely review the article or to spotcheck sources
 * Talk:The Birds (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1
 * Talk:Death of Cooper Harris/GA1
 * Talk:Hits Different/GA1
 * Talk:Ontario Highway 6/GA1
 * Talk:Shigi Qutuqu/GA1
 * Talk:Siege of Lankaran/GA2
 * Talk:Snake Ridge Fire/GA1
 * Talk:Suitcase/GA1
 * Talk:Sweet Nothing (Taylor Swift song)/GA1
 * Nominations that have been waiting for a reviewer for over half a year:
 * 64 others (needs urgent attention)
 * Miscellaneous shoutout: Great work by and  at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/GA4. Now that's a review!
 * 64 others (needs urgent attention)
 * Miscellaneous shoutout: Great work by and  at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/GA4. Now that's a review!
 * Miscellaneous shoutout: Great work by and  at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/GA4. Now that's a review!

After a month's-worth of these reports, I think a few conclusions can be drawn: Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 02:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The default review text may be doing more harm than good. I don't know how many checklist reviews there were before, but this does seem to encourage them. We might consider replacing it with a brief note at the top of the page laying out basic instructions for the review.
 * If we're going to have source spotchecks be the norm, we need to be clearer about what this entails at WP:GAN/I and maybe even on the GA review page itself. If the above reviews did spotchecks, they don't say so (or I missed it).
 * We need to do something to make sure older nominations get reviewed; six months used to be an unfathomably long time to wait for a review, but now it's increasingly becoming the norm for challenging nominations. Even AfC and its nightmare backlog doesn't keep pages waiting that long.


 * Six months has always been a reality for some GA reviews. I once waited more than a year for one in 2018-2019.
 * With 600 GANs waiting for review some of them will be waiting for a long time; maybe a backlog drive is in order (willing to coordinate). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Unfathomably" was probably the wrong word. But there was only a single 6 month nomination on January 1 this year, and it ballooned almost immediately after the sort order changed to stop prioritizing the oldest nominations. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * History of GAN Age Over Time.png
 * 2018 was a particularly bad time for the backlog (see attached). Certainly it seems to have spiked back to that height, after major recoveries from that level. I agree with every take, so to speak; it's very clear from 'returning from a time when there was much less of a backlog', and reading over ~everything that's gone down since the beginning of the year, that all of 'auto-checklist with heavy implication to newbies you're meant to use it as your review', 'divide-by-zero-error reranking', and 'public wall of shame for people whose reviews don't explicitly mention they've done a specific thing' are contributing to widespread issues at GAN.
 * My hobby horse for GAN is that people don't fail enough, and in particular are too hesitant to fail articles during a review rather than as quickfails. To a substantial degree this cuts at the heart of a rarely-mentioned-but-constantly-extant dispute, which is what is a GA? I can name articles with green badges that I think do not approach good-article status, and I'm sure anyone else here can too. I suspect those lists have very little overlap and very different contentions (in particular: "can very short articles be GAs" is the greatest thread in the history of forums, locked by a moderator after 12,239 pages of heated debate). All Wikipedia-quality-assessment-processes also possess the elephant in the room that their criteria trace back to lists constructed by very few people that amount to "yeah, this sounds good, let's go with it" that have never been particularly tested to see how well they match reader opinion, and much of what we do know about reader opinion to work from implies they at least intermittently come apart. I'm looking to apply for a WMF rapid grant to do some testing on that note, but things have gone a bit pear-shaped in my life now, so I'm not sure if I'll get in under the deadline. Vaticidalprophet 23:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "What is a GA?" really is essential, and the above RfC suggests that we're nowhere near answering it. I imagine I'm not the only one who's feeling less and less inclined to review when I can't even get a straight answer of what a GA review is or what purpose it's supposed to serve. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding The default review text may be doing more harm than good, is there a way to get data on first time reviewers (per week, per month, and compared to last year or previous weeks, etc.). The goal of having a template was to make the process more approachable to a first time reviewer. If it is not having a positive impact there, and it's having any negative impact, then the next step should be to just revert back to the blank page. Only if it is having a positive impact in recruiting first-time reviewers, should we discuss and revise. Rjjiii (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we need to recognize the connection between increasing standards at GA, and the increasing levels of backlog. Of course no one wants to take on long or difficult articles if they are going to be lambasted for providing a review which spectators decide is insufficiently deep, or blamed for missing errors or copyright issues. Now with spot checking requirements, reviewers are forced to spell out precisely how they read and evaluated what may be dozens of sources, lest they be accused of not spot checking (a standard that's actually more strict than FAC, which only mandates spot checks for first timers!). If the increased sourcing requirement being discussed above gains consensus, I guarantee the backlog will get even worse, because it forces the reviewer to do even more work to prove a stricter-than-FAC standard. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviewers are only forced to spell out how they read or evaluated something like 2-3 sources, no high figure gained consensus. This does not seem higher than FAC, each of which gets a source review covering far more than 2-3 sources that is independent of the rest of the reviews. CMD (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Source reviews at FAC are distinct from spot checks at FAC. They generally involve evaluating the reliability and quality of the sources and the formatting of the citations. Spot checks at FAC are required only for first-time nominators, otherwise they are to the discretion of the reviewer. (See the somewhat obscure Guidance on source reviewing at FAC). And of course FAC is a collaborative effort whereas GAN puts the burden entirely on a single reviewer, so any increase in standards falls on one person. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. How many FACs these days don't involve any source checks? CMD (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Most. The only time a source check is required is for a new nominator, or a nominator who has not nominated in a long time (years, at least).  Every now and then a reviewer will do some spot checks as part of their review, or because they're looking at the sources anyway, but I would guess less than 1 in 6 FACs is spot-checked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Which feels like another way of saying that our content review processes give very low priority to accuracy and only pay lip service to original research issues. And this problem is made worse by the general sense that a weakness in FAC should be magnified for GAN because "FAC is higher". Then any attempt to fix the issue both meets push back and risks depleting the already stagnant reviewer base. Should be an easy fix, right? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly appears 2 of the last 3 explicitly had none! What an interesting quirk, it provides an aspect by where DYKN can be more thorough than FAC. Perhaps the multiple reviewer format provides a better sniff test buffer, a wisdom of the crowd insurance mechanism that DYK and GA lack? I'm not sure how that might be imported here; a non-new nominator allowance is sadly part of what led to the February large-scale GAR. CMD (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel any better, I have a hunch that most DYK reviewers don't check sources either. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing that helps at FAC is that FAC has an institutional memory, both via the coordinators and because the core group of regulars changes relatively slowly. If a nominator were to start using sources sloppily after having passed their first FAC, there's a reasonable chance that a reviewer would notice something amiss -- multiple reviewers means there are more chances for someone to see something in the article they know is incorrect, or to read a source and realize it doesn't correctly support the article text.  I know that for nominators I've seen misuse sources (naming no names since I can't bring any to mind, but this has certainly happened) I would do a unofficial spotcheck, sometimes not bothering to note it in the FAC. It's not a perfect system, and if someone suggested that e.g. the FAC coords randomly nominate articles from experienced nominators for a spotcheck now and then I would probably support that.  But I don't think we've had anything slip through on anything like the scale of the Doug Coldwell affair. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing about Doug Coldwell that everyone tends to gloss over is that he was a known problem for years. There are ANI threads about his issues dating back to 2007. Because he was so prolific and so difficult to deal with, most people who were aware of this simply avoided reviewing his nominations rather than attempting to pursue sanctions (not blaming anyone - I was one of the people avoiding him). It took TAOT getting fed up and taking him to ANI for self-promo issues that finally opened the floodgates.
 * The lesson from Coldwell is not that we need to apply a microscope to every single person at GAN/FAC under the assumption that they may be bad actors. Most people at DYK/GAN/FAC are not fabricators, self-promotors, or copyright infringers. I can count the number of times I've had to bring up a source-text integrity issue at GAN on one hand, and most of those have been honest and reasonable mistakes. The lesson from Coldwell is that we need to be willing to aggressively quickfail nominations that have serious issues, and we need to more aggressively enact topic bans for repeat offenders. We could have prevented Coldwell from metastasizing if we had had the courage to engage with the issues rather than letting him run wild because he was a prolific content creator. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that virtually no users are intentionally gaming GA nominations, but I do think that text-source integrity issues need to be addressed. I went over my reviews, and of the 21 reviews where I listed my spotchecks in detail, I found some form of text-source integrity issue in 12 of them (and that's not counting close paraphrasing). Two of those 12 were severe enough that they contributed to a fail. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are some experienced FA nominators where I've found text to source issues significant enough to lead to withdrawal. It can happen because of bad faith but is more likely to be accidental or simply a mistaken copyedit that changes the meaning. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't apply yet a microscope to anyone, and I'm not seeing how we'd have that capacity even if we'd want to. As for failing, that's not a simple solution. I failed a Coldwell article, it got accepted without changes by another reviewer. As Mike notes, we don't have pass coordinators here, and presumably we have a much larger pool than FAC, so part of the issues here are trying to find mechanisms that might replicate similar engagement functions. CMD (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I failed a Coldwell article, it got accepted without changes by another reviewer. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, though. It was well known by many people that Coldwell had issues, but people either avoided reviewing his nominations or simply let it drop when he pushed back or renominated. I'm not attempting to single you out - as I said, I'm equally culpable by inaction. But perhaps if people had pushed back earlier and with more force, Coldwell might have been removed from DYK/GA earlier and created less of a mess. Regardless, we're derailing into rehashing Coldwell when that wasn't the original point I was making.
 * My original point is that there is a direct connection between increasing standards for GA reviews and the increasing backlog. It is more daunting for any reviewer to take on a difficult or lengthy GAN than it has ever been. We are expecting a single reviewer to do more work than is done by multiple reviewers at FAC, and then acting mystified about the fact that we have articles waiting for over 8 months. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't see how checking a few sources makes GAN more work than FACs. There's a lot of work carried out in FACs which we don't require here. While we don't want basic ticking exercises, we require very little beyond that. CMD (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This gets into the issue that no one really knows what we require. Yeah, we have WP:GAN/I, but you'll notice it's missing one key detail: what's actually supposed to go in the review beyond "basic ticking exercises". If we disallow checklist reviews, we're quite vague about what the minimum is. I tried to compile what I gathered to be the minimum, and it requires a pretty thorough reading of the article. I've also found source checks to be by far the most complicated and time consuming aspect when I review an article, which does make me sympathetic to the idea that GAN reviews might be more intimidating than FAC reviews. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 06:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , follow up: I've since done my first two FAC reviews, and I have to say that it's much easier and faster than doing a GA review. First, a significant portion of my time on a GA review involves checking criterion 2, which isn't an issue at FA. And second, I don't have to worry about looking for specific things (WP:GACN) and can just write down all of the problems as I spot them. The only way I see a GA review being this painless would be if the reviewer just ran it like a peer review, ignoring the GA criteria and skipping sourcing entirely (which I suspect is how many of the more casual GA reviewers already do it).  Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What can make a GAN review more work than a FAC notwithstanding the latter's higher requirement is that GA requires you to conduct a full review of the whole article, whereas with FAC because there are multiple reviewers you can just do a little bit. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. It would be unusual, but I could conceivably hop into a FAC and say "I've only looked at Sections X and Y because that's where my own knowledge lies" or something like that. But with a GAN, the expectation is all on the reviewer, and that makes it intimidating for new people to take on (not to mention the unclear instructions and increased scrutiny of reviews). Basically, it is not easy for anyone to review difficult articles, it is not easy for new people to jump into GAN, and we have a backlog as a result. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A separate source verification taskforce that checks all the accessible citations so that the main reviewer doesn't have to seems like it would be useful. JoelleJay (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I for one would be more inclined to review were the autogenerated text removed. It's a pain and actively promotes drive-by reviews. Just point reviewers to the page that lists the templates should they wish to use one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging as I feel that they should about this conversation considering that their reviews and GAs were called out here. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd feel a bit odd speculating as to the review of the article I wrote, and my reviews aren't listed here, but I think they could be, so I'll respond. I didn't explicitly list my spot checks in either of my two reviews: I—and perhaps I was mistaken here—didn't understand that to be required. I just assumed the "5 spot checks" were a precondition to a "pass" in the relevant category, not something that needed to be spelled out. In fact, in Talk:Keith Raniere/GA1, I actually forgot to remove "Have yet to do a spot check" from the review (because I had, mistakenly, said it twice and only removed one instance). But if you read that review or look at the edits I made, it become very obvious I checked almost every source, not just 5 sources.
 * I'm not totally sure what the precise suggestions are here, but, in general:
 * In both reviews—one of which I didn't finish because it was ultimately a quick fail—I found errors thanks to spot-checking. I think spot-checking is a good practice.
 * As a very new reviewer, I found the template helpful, and I would suggest keeping it: it structures the review in what, to me, feels like a fairly logical way. (Granted, I played around with the categories when I saw fit: While I understand that there might be OR that is attributable to a reliable source—like in a WP:SYNTH situation, in practice, those categories have been very similar for me.)
 * I do think I'd probably feel weird failing an article outside of a quick fail. I hadn't thought of that until I saw it mentioned by Vaticidalprophet, but, upon reflection ... yeah, I can see that. Granted, in my second review, I ended up working on the article itself quite a bit. I read a few other reviews before doing my first GA review, and I saw that reviewers do balance fixing what they can fix themselves with asking the nominator / other editors to address certain things. I don't think I balanced that perfectly—in hindsight, my mindset was more "it's our job to get the article to the GA standard", and, short of an editor insisting on an unsubstantiated statement or refusing to do work on the article themself (and, to be clear, my experience was the opposite of that), I can't imagine that I would have failed.
 * -- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding failing a candidate, I saw discussion recently that boiled down to this: In the course of the review, if the article is not up to standard, the reviewer is supposed to provide feedback to improve the article to GA standards. The reviewer thus provides general feedback, such as "There are some instances of OR and the article could use copyediting for grammar." From there, only a few outcomes can happen:
 * A: The nominator understands this feedback and makes the improvements --> Passing feels required for the reviewer, since the article has been "fixed".
 * B: The nominator does not understand this feedback and asks for specificity. --> The reviewer has to point out specific issues to fix, which is basically just as much work as just fixing them directly; this sucks for both the reviewer and the nominator.
 * I don't remember where I read about this, but it was in the context of Wikipedia and referred to as something like "draft-decline loop" or "review-fix loop". Actualcpscm (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You probably read it in the same place I did: 's essay WP:FIXLOOP. TompaDompa (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That‘s it, thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping Onegreatjoke, that's very thoughtful of you. I didn't even know this kind of review-review existed.
 * If I'm reading correctly, the issue with my reviews at Talk:Death of Cooper Harris/GA1 and Talk:Snake Ridge Fire/GA1 is that I did not mention whether or not I carried out source spotchecks. For the record, I did, particularly those that were used to support particularly contentious claims about living persons. If I missed something, do let me know.
 * If there is an expectation to mention source spotchecking in GA reviews, I wasn't aware of it. Likewise, I didn't mention "I checked for OR" or "I checked the history for edit warring" under the relevant criteria (referring here to this review). WP:GAN/I mentions that a spotcheck must be performed, not necessarily mentioned.
 * I'm very new to GA review, so my thought process was this: I presumed that having checked the criterion would be implied by marking the criterion as a Pass; I don't need to say "This is fine" for every item that I marked as a Pass with the template. If this goes against established practices or expectations, I don't think I saw that being mentioned anywhere. This situation might have been at least partially a result of me choosing somewhat short and easy candidates for my first reviews; I suppose that most candidates require at least some fixes under every criterion.
 * Rjjiii and Thebiguglyalien, I also want to address your concern regarding the default review text. As I mentioned above, I'm very new to GA review. So far, I have carried out 5 reviews: Talk:German torpedo boat T2/GA1, Talk:Snake Ridge Fire/GA1, Talk:Death of Cooper Harris/GA1, talk:Vatican City at the 2022 Mediterranean Games/GA1, and Talk:Dimitri Konyshev/GA1. The first 3 passed, the last 2 were quick fails. I really struggled with the default review text. I consider myself quite tech-literate, and I have gotten quite used to the editing interface(s) of Wikimedia/Wikipedia. I'm fine with both visual and source editing, and I often use a mix of both. In my experience, there were two major issues with the default review text. Firstly, it's formatted as basically a wall of text, which makes it difficult to read and interact with in the beginning. Secondly, I wasn't quite sure where I was supposed to make what changes. I particularly struggled with the pass/fail templates, as evidenced by this lovely attempt of using the review template.
 * I think GA review would benefit a lot from simplifying this aspect in particular. I'd be happy to provide more detailed feedback if you'd like to hear more about my experience! Actualcpscm (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts on the process are correct. There are no formal expectations or requirements of any sort. If you wanted to, you could just glance at the article for thirty seconds, slap six green check marks on it, and go your merry way. That would make people upset, but there's no mechanism to stop you or to review the review. That's the problem that I was (hopefully) trying to address with this scanning of reviews, but it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Regarding the default review text, that's a very recent addition to GA, and one that appears to be having unintended consequences. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. I always try to be through with my reviews (see Talk:Charles Edward Stuart/GA1 for an extreme example), but I was not aware that there was any expectation to explicitly declare OR/spotchecking-related verification. I thought that checking the green check marks was already a sign of confirmation that one went through those steps; if this is something that I need to start doing in my reviews, please let me know. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a thread. To be honest, I didn't understand most of the situations brought up here, but I read it all, and I can agree that GAN review should be consisting of more people than one reviewer. Like many pointed out before, it's easier to spot some sort of mistake or error in article by looking through it with multiple eyes, rather just one pair. Even though I never reviewed a single article in my life, and I probably won't any time soon, I think it would be a neat change, and maybe encourage more people to participate and help. inf sai  ( talkie?  UwU) 22:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article by me that's been brought up on discussion by me is "Hits Different", and I can see why. I was caught off guard when I applied to all of the suggestions of Unlimitedlead to get an immediate pass, even though I haven't fixed something they pointed out when the article passed. I changed it as soon as I could, and I'm still not sure if it's good, because review is over, and probably noone would bother to check it. If I'm being honest, I had the best experience with Kyle Peake, who reviewed half of my GA entries (3 passing, 1 failing), and it was a longer process taking up weeks (or months like it was with "NDA"), and he split review into multiple sections, checking each one from the article. I had a room to discuss with him and come to conclusions, nothing was rushed. And he was really forgiving, because with me constantly changing the content of "NDA", the review should result in failure, and I should come back when i could present a final form of the article (at least that's my opinion by looking at it retroactively, but still huge thanks to you Kyle!). inf sai  ( talkie?  UwU) 22:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is very helpful feedback. As a general note, the GAN reviews are not only a tool for the current editor, but also a resource for future editors to see when and why an article became a GA. It's helpful to see the thoughts that went into the decision. The spotchecking is something we look for because it's easy to note (eg. checked source X and it matched the content), and has in the past been skipped over by reviewers leading to problems. CMD (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do sort of wonder how often past reviews are used as a tool. The only time I ever check past reviews is to make sure the reviewer actually reviewed the article. And it seems a recurring issue is that in addition to the GA criteria not matching common practices (as is discussed in the ongoing RfC), we also have a problem with common reviewing practices not being described in the instructions. I've tried to compile an expanded set of instructions in my userspace that's closer to unspoken expectations, but you can't really enforce unspoken expectations. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel those instructions go beyond basic expectations, but it is useful to have the example of the source check clearly laid out. CMD (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is a version of the template with very nearly the same text as the live version but using more conventional wikitext: User:Rjjiii/GAwt Do you think that would be more approachable for new editors? Rjjiii (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's much better imo. I have only one suggestion regarding the GAList template comment; I edited your version with my suggestion :) Actualcpscm (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the belated ping. If one looks at my review, it is very clear that I only commented on issues I found with the article; there is no requirement to use one of the many different GA review templates. I did spotchecks and looked closely at the sources (I have done 100+ source reviews at FAC&FLC so I am no stranger to their importance) but found no issues, so alas I did not note any issues.
 * Very Wikipedia-esque an editor to call out 10+ other editors though not alert them; makes it appear that the OP doesn't want their input, just wants to prove a point. I'm sure this strategy is great in the communication and general improvement of content-reviewing practices. Or perhaps it is a "Possible failure" in that regard?  Aza24  (talk)   05:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If one looks at my review, it is very clear that I only commented on issues I found with the article - I'm going to chime in even though the original post didn't mention any of my reviews, but I generally do the same thing. My reviews tend to be similar to something like Talk:The Birds (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1 or Talk:Shigi Qutuqu/GA1). If the ref spotchecks don't reveal any issues, then I usually am only going to say that I didn't find any issues - at most, I might mention the footnote numbers that I checked. This doesn't mean that no spotcheck was done; it just means that no issues were found in the spotcheck. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking at the review itself, it does seem a bit lazy, but I was rushed for time and couldn't be bothered to properly format and all that. I can assure you that my fact-checking and analysis of the content was up to par, though it definitely doesn't look like that, and my assurance means little to nothing. I can go back and re-review the entire thing if necessary and make it look a bit better (referring to the possible failure to spotcheck and closely review the article mentioned above), or someone else can do it. Sorry, my mistake. It won't ever happen again. Cessaune   [ talk ]   15:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Abandoned GA review
I raised an issue a few weeks ago about this review, but now it's been more than a month since this editor has even made an edit to this review (and only one edit since then). And this is the second review of mine they've abandoned. While I appreciate their willingness to review my nominations, this is a process that should not be rushed, but completed in a timely manner. That being said, they appear to have posted most, if not all, of their comments, which I have addressed. I'd appreciate if someone else would be willing to take over the review. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Édith Piaf article
Hello. Édith Piaf is listed at Women in Green, which sparked my interest in hoping to improve it into a Good Article. I haven't done any GA nominations before, so I was hoping that someone might take a look at its current state and suggest what I should focus on? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Off the bat, I would suggest a longer lead that summarizes more of the article. The individual song discography could possibly be split into its own article, in the vein of "list of songs recorded by X" (we have a bunch of these lists). Right now it takes up a lot of space, has zero references, and the formatting is brutal. You'd need to fix the unreferenced bits. Sourcing might also need a look - I see refs to Little-Sparrow.co.uk, which appears to be a fansite, and books without page numbers (not a failure by GACR standards but makes it very difficult to verify). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for all of those suggestions. I will chip away at the article to hopefully get it up to a GA standard. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC: change GA criteria to require inline citations in all cases
I propose that criterion 2(b) of the good article criteria should be changed from
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

to
 * reliable sources are cited inline. All content, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, criteria should show the actual current expectations. —Kusma (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my view the proposal does not mean WP:BLUE would no longer apply to GAs. If this is unclear, I would not oppose a clarifying addition. "Likely to be challenged or contentious" stopped being the standard for material needing citations years ago (both at GA and elsewhere), we should not pretend it still is descriptive of current practice. —Kusma (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is the appropriate thing to do from both a descriptive and prescriptive perspective—these are the current standards, and so they should be. TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, this is a change reflecting already-existing practice. The proposed wording is a simple transference of the existing criteria at WP:DYK. CMD (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per CMD. Ajpolino (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. TBH I've always been a bit iffy about the plot summary aspect too, it would be nice to clarify that if plot summaries aren't cited then they must only stick to unambiguous WP:SKYISBLUE type assertions that are directly stated in the work, not interpretations of what people were thinking or motivations that aren't stated. But that's not really a matter for this RFC. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * GA nominations are already required to comply with WP:OR and WP:WAF, which hopefully cover any potential issues here. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support long overdue. For the vast majority of articles, the most practical and likely only way for the content to be realistically verifiable is to be cited inline. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as one of the editors that pushed for this RfC. The GA criteria have fallen behind current standards of what's considered high quality. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's expected of any article that is to be deemed of quality on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as I assumed this bare minimum adherence to core policies was already required. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - and while we're at it, I think we should do away with the "is the pope Catholic/is the sky blue" exceptions entirely. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Although unlike FunkMonk I think that keeping out the [citation needed] trolls for the night sky being black on Olbers' paradox is a good thing. Really obvious statements can be difficult to source because high-quality sources don't generally waste space on them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support . No paragraph in a GA should be without at least one citation Billsmith60 (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: change to OPPOSE, due to the acute disparity this new rule would create between future GAs and those that were approved some years ago. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Billsmith60, what disparity would that be? As Wikipedia changes its rules, articles no longer meeting the criteria get demoted. This has been happening for a long time (twenty years ago, Featured Articles did not require inline citations; at some point, expectations changed, and most FAs not meeting this requirement have since been demoted). For GAs, the same happens; as the criteria change, articles lose their green plus. —Kusma (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, with reservations about removing the link to Scientific citation guidelines (SCG). Inline citations are expected for verifiability of an article broad enough to meet criterion #3. This has no global consequences as the GA system is run by a dedicated WikiProject that can set its own criteria, so long as they do not violate core content policies. Hopefully it should be implicit that this does not override SCG. I am slightly uneasy about this being enforced retroactively just because of the amount of work this could create—look at WP:URFA/2020 and note that there are 6 GAs for every FA. But, yes, old GAs that do not have inline citations likely fail verifiability in practice and should not be listed as GAs. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. A sensible codification of near universal current practice which should make expectations clearer while having minimal effect on how things work going forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I had initial concerns, specifically surrounding how this would apply to tables, but 's point in response to 's oppose is a good one, and one that I was coming around to myself. With the modern practice of table captions, where a single citation is used to support a whole table, that can be placed on the table citation, therefore appearing before the information it is citing, and so meeting the proposed criteria. With that covered off, I think this makes it very clear what the expectation is, and should be. Rule creep maybe, but a good one. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 20:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for all the good reasons already mentioned. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - per Gog and Buidhe. -Ljleppan (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support should be a fairly uncontroversial change, this. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, and recommend that we tend to rethink what we consider to be trivial. I recently rewrote John Bullock Clark. Take a look at this pre-rewrite version. I imagine we'd just waive off all that stuff in the infobox as noncontroversial and "trivial" in a review, yet there's multiple errors there. The February 18, 1864, date is a blatant date error, and the mention of Lindley is misleading, as he actually filled the vacancy left by James S. Green as noted by sources on Clark (although technically I don't think Green ever really took his seat, but Lindley was long gone by then and the sources mention Green, not Lindley). What we think is trivial and obvious is often not so; we should be checking these things against sources. Hog Farm Talk 23:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Long overdue. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, this is already the case in practice, as it should be. The nominators/reviewers of Good Articles ought to be evaluating the source support for statements in an article anyway, so it's not like this would introduce more burden, right? JoelleJay (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, to be honest, I thought this was the case, the articles I've submitted for GA all met it, and when I've reviewed articles for GA status I've insisted on it. Will more stringent sourcing requirements mean that some (not all) GAs take longer to meet that status? Probably, and I don't see that as a problem. Mackensen (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, because this (a) matches the rule to the existing review practice, (b) makes the criteria more clear to new editors, and (c) matches the GA rule to the DYK rule for consistency.Rjjiii (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support An article without proper in-line citations cannot be considered a "good" article. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but only on the condition that we make an exception for statements that fall under WP:BLUE; even though WP:BLUE is an essay, there's a good point to be made that we don't need to cite statements that virtually everyone will agree on. For example, in an article about a building in New York City, we should not also need an additional citation if we wanted to say that the building is in the United States. Getting rid of the WP:BLUE exception may invite POV warriors and other users to challenge things that are generally widely known facts, like the fact that NYC is in the US. Otherwise, this is merely formalizing what has been unwritten practice for years, and it would harmonize the rules with that of DYK. Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, should have been like this for years now, and most of us have treated it as if it was; it was an embarrassment that DYK had a stricter rule than GAN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would change to Oppose if GAN had to be of the same exacting standard as DYK Billsmith60 (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support to reflect current practice. I'm not strictly attached to the particular wording, but it does seems good, and as far as I could tell, the DYKSG wording was more popular than other suggestions made in the last 3 discussions. DFlhb (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. GA standards shouldn't be below that of DYK. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your comparator. DYK is a pain in the neck and more like FA standard Billsmith60 (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, as it seems to me that this has long been a standard practice. My one caveat, as others have said I see no reason for plot summaries to be excluded either, but so be it. To my mind, if we don't allow OR, citations are required. SusunW (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - unverified facts should be nowhere near a GA. We can make exceptions for WP:SKYBLUE when necessary. Anything "good" on an encyclopaedia should be verifiable, above all else. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Honestly, after being around WP:GAR for a while. It's just kind of made sense that GAs should use inline citations and not just general citations. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as long as the amendment also takes WP:SKYBLUE into consideration where necessary (per O'Doherty et al.). Wonder if the FA team has been catching up to this development? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Duh. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support even at GA-level, this should be the norm rather than aberrative.  SN54129  15:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Would have thought this would have been the policy already. Seems obvious.--NØ 15:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: 's suggested amendment to account for WP:BLUE is a good catch, and I'd support seeing it updated, but the difference doesn't matter so much in practice. That's because this guideline, at both GA and DYK, doesn't actually require reviewers to investigate the sources to confirm that the cited content is verified. DYK practice doesn't require that reviewers do spot-checks on anything but the bits of the article that contain the facts used in the hook. Tamzin's example about a BLUE bit of the article not being verified in the source, then, doesn't actually play out in this guideline, because it doesn't care about verification. GA hasn't actually nailed down what source reviews should look like in practice, and this guideline doesn't do that either: it just says what needs to be cited. That leaves plenty of room for BLUE considerations ("the provided source backs up the substantive content, BLUESKY background is verifiable elsewhere"). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Long overdue, and is already de facto policy among GA reviewers. Surprised that this isn't in the criteria already. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Since DYK requires this, and GA are supposed to be DYK-ready, this is already a requirement. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as the de-facto standard, as the standard the community has already drifted toward for verifiability reasons, as the standard we ought to be enforcing for verifiability reasons in any case, and the standard I have enforced as a reviewer. Contra my colleague above, though, GAs are not subject to DYK criteria, and therefore this is not already the letter of the law. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum; I would argue that common sense still applies, and content we would never cite is still exempt per WP:BLUE; but I would also support modifying the proposal to make this clear. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this is a BLUESKY kind of vote. GA can and should be higher standard. I am not so worried about abuse of BLUESKY as it is similar situation in DYK which arguably is even more nitpicky crowd. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support reflects existing practice and helps ensure high quality. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support An article without inline citations is as good as citing a book without a page number; it's necessary for verification that we can point to specific sources that support specific sections. The concern about SKYISBLUE seems overblown. I tend to lean towards the view of if it's so obvious and important to mention surely someone reputable would have written it down? I don't think anyone is going to wikilawyer over whether, say, "Joe Biden is a homo sapien" due to lack of RS explicitly saying that as the people below seem to imply. I do think we should also include a specific caveat or at least understand, as some of the folks down below have noted, that it is fine when there is a large table with a single "source" box for including one or two citations or if there is a block quote formatted in the style of "Johnson wrote:[ref 57] Blah Blah Blah." Though I doubt most GA reviewers are going to wikilawyer around with what is currently proposed to prohibit such practices. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per CMD. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 11:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Tentative support. I think the opposing voices make some decent points as to obvious information, or, as Hut 8.5 best put it, "statements which every reader will recognise as true". But frankly, I don't think these kinds of statements come up that often, and I wonder if we're over focusing on exceptions that prove the rule. I've only participated in a couple GA discussions (two reviews/two articles), and, believe it or not, none of those articles featured a sentence like "The sky is blue." or "Manhattan is in New York." Even if the BLUESKY instances are more common than I think, surely we can footnote or simply amend the above list of exceptions? I mean, off the top of my head: Content should be supported by an adjacent citation appearing no later than the end of the paragraph. This rule does not apply to plot summaries, statements that every reader will recognize as true, or content summarizing a portion of the article (assuming that portion is adequately cited).-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have been reviewing to this standard for years now anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per the reasons said above. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 17:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – obviously. No good reviewer will be passing articles that lack them anyways. This is already expected at FAC (although not formally instated, the same de facto norm applies there). No reason to hide this information from new nominators. –  Aza24  (talk)   19:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Tentative support, with an exception added for WP:BLUE or BLUE-esque scenarios. Better to present things as they are. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  08:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose This is not a Wikipedia criteria or even an FA criteria. It's not even reasonable....it would require citing all "sky is blue" material.   North8000 (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph. Isn't one citation per paragraph the de facto citation requirement nowadays anyway? New articles not following this for example are likely to get a maintenance tag. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The proposal doesn't say 1 cite per paragraph. It says that everything must be cited, e.g. sky is blue items. North8000 (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a Wikipedia criteria or even an FA criteria Is WP:5P2 good enough for you? All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds a lot more like the existing language than the proposed change. Expecting verifiability "especially when the topic is controversial" is different from expecting citations for every statement. -- Visviva (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, per Visviva you are describing existing policy, not the proposed change which goes far beyond existing policy including requiring cites for all sky is blue items. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "This is not a Wikipedia criterion"? When taken literally, it's bizarre – of course it's not currently a criterion, it's being proposed! jlwoodwa (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is good practice in most cases, but that is very different to requiring it in all cases. Visviva gives a good example, others are lists or tables cited to the same source, e.g. filmographies, sports and election results, several tens of identical footnotes do not make the article more verified than a sentence stating that all entries are sourced to X. Quotes of lists or bullets, etc. would also be required to have an inline citation at the end of every line, even when that would not make sense - see Universal Declaration of Human Rights for several examples. This change would also require inline citations in addition to prose citations, including midway through multi-paragraph quotes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no language in the proposal that forbids putting the citation before the content as in your example. —Kusma (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the proposed text as requiring citations after the cited material. Given that we are both reasonable people this different understanding is another reason to object to the change. It also unquestionably declares that a citation that comes at the end of a (quoted) list that covers more that the last entry in that list as insufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this raises an interesting point. For instance, in an FA I worked heavily on, there's a plain text listing of all the rail lines the company operates. Each section of the list begins with citations which support the bulleted text immediately following. I do agree it would be dumb to add the same citations again and again for each list item. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it self-evident that placing a citation ahead of the list it verifies (example from a recent article of mine) is both appropriate and not something that would be prohibited by the "no later than" phrasing. TompaDompa (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This seems to be just a rule creep to me. Ruslik_ Zero 19:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, omission of scientific citations guidelines is concerning. Ruslik_ Zero 19:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The scientific citation guidelines are weaker than the proposed change. Keeping them would essentially carve out an exception where science articles don't have to be as well cited. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed: Wikipedia_talk:Scientific_citation_guidelines Rjjiii (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would support if "content" were changed to "content that could reasonably be challenged". Consider a sentence like "The plaintiff claimed that the city's actions had violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech". Suppose the citation, a high-quality law review article, does not explicitly say that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, because that's so basic a claim that it often goes without saying. The proposed wording would say that this citation is insufficient, even though the claim is trivially verifiable. To me, that defies common sense. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the "trivial" things are either also trivial to source, or alternatively the process of finding a source reveals they are not quite so trivial after all. Ljleppan (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that this change would institute a requirement that truly trivial and basic matters would need a citation where they do not now, and indeed where doing so would be unnatural - e.g. if an article says that something was criticised by "Multiple United States government departments." with one source that states that thing was criticised by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and another that says the National Institute of Corrections were unhappy with it. Neither source explicitly says that these are US Government departments, because the target audience of those sources would clearly know that. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would trivial matters be in the article in the first place? Billsmith60 (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a massive difference between "trivial matters" and "trivially verifiable matters", but some things that are trivial in isolation are important in context (often to provide context). Additionally, some things are too trivial to explicitly state for a source but not for us, because of the different contexts of a general purpose global encyclopaedia and a specialist source. This proposal would require an inline citation for all of this, regardless of context or other ways to verify information (e.g. links to other articles, citations elsewhere in the article, etc.) It's far, far too blunt an instrument. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin Re: your example, why would we be adding in an inference that isn't supported by the cited text? That just seems like OR. I also suspect that very few BLUESKY statements aren't really supported by an adjacent substantive citation; in your example, how likely is it that a source reporting an alleged 1A violation on the basis of free speech would not actually mention that reason? If it isn't referred to at all, then we shouldn't be introducing that interpretation in the first place. I struggle to think of any instances where a statement is a) necessary to include in our article; b) unsupported by whichever sourced statement it accompanies, let alone by any citations elsewhere in the article; and c) would be too difficult/seem too silly to cite. In fact, the example in BLUESKY itself would already be covered by both this proposal and existing policy.

This is referring to two incidents in the version history, one from 2007 with zero citations and a poorly-cited 2018 version, and in both cases the request for citation was already spurious as the content was in the lead, was expanded on later in the body, and anyway would easily have qualified for the new OR/calc policy of accepting routine reading of images as sources (there were pictures of hands in the article). Further, in the 2018 case, the "5 finger" claim actually did contain a citation at the end of the sentence: Normally humans have five digits,[failed verification] the bones of which are termed phalanges[citation to an illustrated dictionary that supports "5 fingers"], on each hand, although some people have more or fewer than five due to congenital disorders such as polydactyly or oligodactyly, or accidental or medical amputations. It was also immediately preceded by lead text cited to a dictionary that defines "finger" as "one of the five terminal parts of the hand". Even if it wasn't cited in the lead, the corresponding body text A rare anatomical variation affects 1 in 500 humans, in which the individual has more than the usual number of digits; this is known as polydactyly was undersourced, but obviously any source used to define polydactyly would necessarily also verify "5 fingers".


 * JoelleJay (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose per Tamzin. I particularly take issue with the bolded content in this sentence All content, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). If the content can reasonably be challenged, then sure, we should add a citation. But take an example like railway stations - are we supposed to require citations for simple info such as the next stations on the line? The proposed wording would require that we add an explicit citation for the next stations on the line, which are not in prose, even though this is such a trivial matter that it should not need a citation.I do agree, on the whole, that almost everything should be cited inline, but this really should not apply to something that should be, nominally, very easy to verify. My problem with this specific wording is that, in order to meet these new requirements, people may be encouraged to add citations that are not directly related to the topic itself. Take, for example, Palace Theatre (New York City). If I were to write that the Palace Theatre is located in Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States, would I have to find a citation saying that NYC is in the United States, even though there is a citation for the Palace Theatre being in Manhattan, NYC? The addition of a citation for the Palace Theatre being in the US would be unnecessary at best and harmful at worst, since not many citations will explicitly mention such a trivial detail as "The Palace Theatre is in the United States", even though this can be very easily verified. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Moved to Support. Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would cite the rail stations but I wouldn't require a citation for Manhattan being in the US, to me that's WP:SKYBLUE if included in another sentence with information cited to a specific source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I suppose that citing the next railway stations would be trivially easy, anyway; it just requires an additional sentence in the prose and perhaps a map or timetable. My concern was more with situations like the latter - people would be motivated to find citations for every little detail, even if the addition of such a citation is not important to readers' understanding of the subject, and that is why I slightly opposed the wording of this proposal. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The proposed wording is taken verbatim from WP:DYK (specifically from WP:DYKSG). I don't participate at DYK often, but how frequently is this a problem there? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't recall it coming up there. WP:BLUE situations are generally easy to solve. If they're not stupendously BLUE (ie. Manhattan being in the United States, which is almost a matter of disambiguation), they're usually in an existing citation. If they're not, they probably aren't BLUE. CMD (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems like a contradiction to WP:BLUE. This specifically says that all content should be cited online, which would include things that we would not typically cite. I'm all for stating where your information comes from and citing to specific sentences, but this is far too damaging. Also, specifically stating about plot sections isn't specific enough. There are other instances where text is not generally cited (image captions, navigational/keys, glossary meanings etc). We only don't cite plot summaries because the source of the information is the subject itself which is a bit of a redundant ref. There are bound to be other uses where the sources are just taken from the subject that aren't limited to plot summaries.
 * I'm also not the biggest fan of having additional requirements that are higher than that of Wikipedia as a whole.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion pertains to nominations for "good article" status. It goes without saying that such articles are of a higher standard than "Wikipedia as a whole". I wouldn't object to examples like the First Amendment one above, where a subclause contains an "sky is blue" type assertion, but there shouldn't be standalone claims that are uncited in a GA, however "obvious" you may think them. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So why does recently promoted GA Songbird Sings Legrand contain an uncited assertion in the first sentence? None of the citations in the article verify that Regine Velasquez is Filipino - source 2, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, states that she is "local" but (a) that is the sort of "obvious" you are arguing against, and (b) this citation comes two paragraphs after the claim. It has been explained elsewhere that you cannot rely on claims in other articles, so whether it is verified there or not is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for many of the same reasons discussed above. An example of an issue that could emerge based on GAs I've written: Would TV episodes have to cite credits? That's not in line with current practice. It's reasonable to require inline citations for the types of statements outlined at WP:BURDEN, but this is already implicitly covered by criteria #2: "Verifiable with no original research", with a link to WP:V (which WP:BURDEN falls under). I would consider supporting new language more in line with those policies. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If this does pass, I think "plot summaries" should be changed to "statements drawn from a work being discussed". That would cover cast lists, and also brief mentions of a work's contents, e.g. "In Genesis, God creates Adam and Eve", while also clarifying that a plot summary is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to write statements unsupported by the work's plain meaning. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I support this, and I'll go a step farther to say that this should be updated in other project space pages as well. The proposed text was originally taken from WP:DYKSG, where it says plot summaries, and WP:When to cite similarly mentions plot summaries to the exclusion of other types. Then there's also the fact that we have MOS:PLOTCITE and MOS:PLOTSOURCE, which go into more depth about this, but I don't know of any equivalent for things other than works of fiction. I've run into this issue when writing articles about nonfiction works, where I basically had to assume that I could use it as a primary source for itself in the same way. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose usual practice is that some information does not need a citation, such as statements which every reader will recognise as true. This is the case for GAs as well.  Hut 8.5  17:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with something along the lines of "supported by inline citations where appropriate" from the FA criteria.  Hut 8.5  16:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as contradicting WP:BLUE and going past FA criteria. I hope whoever closes this discounts arguments that Every paragraph must have a citation as the proposal is about every fact/statement and not every paragraph. I'd appreciate someone explaining to my why this proposal is necessary although I appreciate the work put into proposing this. I also fail to see how this "matches DYK criteria" as the DYK criteria (to my knowledge) is only about the hook and not the whole article, . — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 13:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , see WP:DYKSG. It's verbatim. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 13:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , thanks. I remain unconvinced GAN rules should be made to match DYK supplementary rules, but appreciate the clarification. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 14:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm also unconvinced. Why should I have to follow the DYK rules if I write a GA but don't want to bother with DYK? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a rule of thumb, I think this is a good one, but this would elevate that to a status it does not deserve. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Amending my comment: the current version does a better job of conveying why citations matter. The proposed replacement tries to reduce good writing to a formula. I don't think that's progress. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Or, to try saying it yet another way: "at least one at the end of each paragraph" turns out to be a reasonable density of citations in practice, because a paragraph is supposed to be one or more sentences working together to express an idea, and each idea we talk about has to come from somewhere else first. But making that the standard instead of expressing why it is often a reasonable minimum puts the focus in the wrong place. It's like saying that because smoking is bad for your lungs and smokers buy more lighters than non-smokers, the way to avoid lung cancer is to stop buying lighters. The "solution" looks at the problem the wrong way around. A standard which implies that text goes from acceptable to unacceptable because of a paragraph break may be easy to apply, in that it makes for easy box-ticking, but it's still misguided. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, seems too strict to me. Plot summaries are an odd exclusion. As the original author of WP:BLUE I'm heartened to see it's stuck around. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tamzin, Lee, and XOR'easter. The current wording reflects two existing major guidelines with broad community consensus; the proposed change would institute an arbitrary standard for no obvious benefit. Additionally, I think the new wording is less helpful. Giving specific advice on citing contentious material about BLP subjects, citations for direct quotes, and reference to the scientific citation guidelines is helpful for reviewers and editors. The proposed change would remove that generally applicable advice in favor of noting a special exception for plot summaries and "summariz[ations of] content cited elsewhere in the article". Leaving aside the issue of what the standard should be, the proposed change seems to make the criteria less helpful in orienting editors and reviewers to our actual policies. If all that's desired is to add a requirement that inline citations be used to cite information within the paragraph it appears, I'd rather that simply be tacked on to the existing, helpful text, instead of overwriting it with a less helpful criterion. — Wug·a·po·des 23:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:BLUE, the fact Verifiability is a core content policy and CITE EVERYTHING is not, et cetera. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)</b> 16:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tamzin. I think that there are some trivially verifiable statements that we don't need explicit cited sources on, and we need not impose anything further than WP:NOR and WP:MINREF for GAs. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tamzin.  Volunteer Marek   05:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Solution in search of a problem. I agree with the arguments in opposition given above by Tamzin and Lee Vilenski. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, however I would support something like all citations are inline and are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. --Rschen7754 20:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as seemingly stricter than the featured-article criteria (When to cite). DMacks (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose while it's a FA candidate not GA Featured article candidates/Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication/archive1 is an example of an article which doesn't use inlines everywhere for a reason. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you support then the alternative wording provided by tamzin above? (If this does pass, I think "plot summaries" should be changed to "statements drawn from a work being discussed". Rjjiii (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per many others. To be honest, I'd drop criteria 2 and 4 entirely and replace that with something general about meeting all content policy and relevant guidelines. Leave it to the whole community to determine the V and RS guidelines, not some quality club pet rules. -- Colin°Talk 07:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If that were the policy, how would you explain the review process to a new reviewer. What actions would you tell them to take in order to review a nomination? Rjjiii (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You'd just tell them to ensure that the article met the relevant policies and guidelines, perhaps with examples of which ones are relevant and what meeting them looks like in various common situations. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on a conversation elsewhere, I've realised I didn't spot the "and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article" tucked in after the "plot summaries". Perhaps if the proposal succeeds, then those two exceptions might be reversed since the first affects a minority of articles and the latter is relevant to all. I thought this proposal was another attempt to demand our leads be overcited. Regardless, I still oppose. I think the job of quality standard projects should be to enforce community guidelines, not create new ones and new exceptions of their own. And others have noted that the problem may include images and also other information readily drawn from the subject (e.g. song) itself, not just "plot summaries". The existing practice of not needing a citation if the fact is already cited elsewhere does not insist (as this proposal does) that one location of this fact "summarises" the other location. Merely that they cover the same fact. Is "Genre R&B" (in the infobox) a summary of "Musically, "It's a Wrap" is an R&B song". Nope. Just another way of saying the same fact. Remember too that categories are also "content" that may need to repeat a fact cited in the body. This is why we get into a mess when we try to restate P&G and it isn't this project's job. -- Colin°Talk 13:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why should the "quality club" not be allowed to dictate the "quality club pet rules" when they don't affect any other P&Gs or projects? JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose current proposed wording (although I agree many things like this need to be fixed at GAN). This proposed wording takes the GA criteria well beyond even the FA criteria, which state:
 * 1c – ... supported by inline citations where appropriate
 * Problems in citations and much more in the GA process need to be fixed, but this proposal is overreach, and won't solve the core problems, which are about how reviews are conducted. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I agree that the proposed wording is stronger than what you quote from the FAC criteria. In practice, though, FA reviewers operate on the same basis that this wording proposes -- it's been years, perhaps as much as a decade, since I recall seeing a nominator quoting WP:When to cite in refusing to add a citation request from a reviewer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but the way this RFC has been approached is backwards. I can't even tell what the proposal intends (probably partly related to I have never understood what a GA is ... in my way of editing, if you're writing a decent article, you cite it.  Period.)  Is the intent to make the GA standards the same as the FA standards?  Then, what is a GA? If the intent is to clarify what the FA standards are, or to change them, then this is the wrong page for doing that.  You seem to be saying the intent of the proposal is to make the GA standards the same as what you believe the FA standards to be, and if your interpretation of the FA standards is what you are stating here, then the place to change WP:WIAFA is not WT:GAN. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The proposal doesn't change GA standards to FA standards, it fixes one tiny aspect of GA to reflect the current practice. Plenty of differences still exist between FA and GA articles. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then it's hard to tell what it does. WRT citations, I have never understood the point of an allegedly "good" article (decent enough) not being fully supported by inline citations.  I agree that should happen (although the whole point is moot as long as most reviewers aren't even checking those citations).  I don't think the way this proposal is worded does the job appropriately. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sandy, per your reference to DCGAR, the instructions have since been changed to specify that spot-checks must be performed. There's also now a page which logs recent activity at GANs, and some GA regulars look at this periodically to try to spot weak reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose—the propose is well intentioned but fatally flawed. We'd end up with the oddity of stricter requirements for a GA than an FA. We'd also end up with issues related to requiring sourcing for content that site wide policies and guidelines do not require to be sourced.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose echoing others. GAC should not be stricter than FAC. –Fredddie™ 01:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see no constructive purpose or reasoning to make GA content a higher standard than A-Class or Featured, both tiers above GA. Having it stricter than either would defeat the purpose of having A-Class and Featured. The second reason is that there aren't always inline citations available. Using highway articles as an example, the respective highway authorities sometimes place the data into route logs, straight-line charts, etc. Many of these lack details for proper inline citations, which does not make them less credible. If these cannot be used, it would be impossible for highway articles to reach GAN status. I can understand the need for better sourcing, though the push by editors on sourcing, material, article content, etc., on Wikipedia has gone too far, is unrealistic, draconic, and threatens to purge information about major topics off the website altogether. This isn't Encyclopǣdia Britannica. This is supposed to be a repository of common knowledge anyone can contribute to or edit, and the ever-increasing standards make Wikipedia lose sight of its original and intended goal every time the standards are raised too high. I will not support this proposal and strongly advise anyone who reads this to do the same. &mdash; MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 05:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I get what the idea was, but this would impose stricter rules for GA than FA. And it also loses too much in translation. The original is correct that for a big class of things we want to see an inline citation . It is not okay to bury a quotation or a controversial claim in the middle of a large paragraph and then just dump some citations at the end of the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 06:25, June 7, 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:BLUE. Editors should be encouraged to use common sense about where a citation is appropriate in a GA. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 19:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I really wanted to support this, because I certainly agree with the general principle that content should be well-supported by cited sources. But I don't think that the proposed change works. If we were to implement the change, there would still be a need for commonsense editorial judgment to deal with BLUE situations. And the status quo language also requires common sense to decide that a cite is needed. Per Tamzin and others, I tried to think of amendments that would achieve the nuances that I would want, and I end up with more complicated ways of saying what the status quo language already says. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written. As others have noted, this seems like a very strong "no exceptions, no excuses" guideline that doesn't weigh appropriateness.  To be clear a minimum citation per paragraph is absolutely expected, but what about allowed WP:CALC tables?  For non-prose content?  For image captions mentioning non-controversial facts from another article which is wikilinked in the caption for a reader curious about more on this other topic?  This is easily fixable, just include "appropriate" or something and encourage the reviewer / nominator to use common sense.  A prose paragraph with relevant, non-trivial claims about the work under discussion needs to be cited; other stuff, use discretion.  SnowFire (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written. Strongly agree we need to bring criteria in line with practice, but this wording risks conflict over skyisblue kind of things needing a citation. Per SnowFire / Tamzin. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As written this is essentially demanding a citation, or possibly multiple, for every single sentence. That's simply unreasonable. Wizardman  01:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Going beyond WP:V is excessive. Research shows that citations are rarely used by readers and, in the few cases that they are clicked through, this is typically to provide more information about the topic rather than to verify something.  So, while they may be useful as an audit trail for editors and reviewers, they are not normally required by readers and so should not be mandatory in the finished article. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written. This is more than is required even at FAC. Furthermore, verifying that an article meets this standard would increase the burden on reviewers to an intolerable level. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Like Tamzin, I would support this if the requirement was "all content that can reasonably be challenged." I like this idea in spirit as there are GAs out there currently I think are undersourced, so I think strengthening the requirements in that regard would be good. At the same time, it's a lot of work to source an article well in the terms we currently recognize, and if we were to impose such an inflexible requirement as this it would add a portion of un-common-sensical work on top of that for anyone working to get an article to GA. Mesocarp (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As a general rule of thumb I like this, but as a hard-and-fast rule I see a WP:BLUE conflict (though BLUE is only an essay most editors note its relevance and importance). Generally speaking, GA hopefuls are going to adhere to this anyway (odd cases of lists and tables and such has been discussed extensively above and below). I would support changing the current wording to something along the lines of reliable sources are cited inline. As a general rule of thumb, all content, except for plot summaries, common knowledge, and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, should either be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose), or once immediately preceding the content in certain cases of tables, lists, etc. Cessaune   [ talk ]   04:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose strictly per Tamzin; and as per xem would change to Support if xyr multiple proposed amendments were incorporated. --GRuban (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per change of mind noted in 'Support' Billsmith60 (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
See the discussion of this change here. The proposed wording reflects current practice in good article reviews -- experienced reviewers have required everything to be cited, with the exceptions noted above, for a long time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've posted a note at the village pump, and added it to the centralized discussion template. Any other notifications needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What does (or line if the content is not in prose) mean? Might need clarification. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I take this to refer to lists, tables, image captions, infoboxes, etc., where there is content that may need a citation, but which is not organized in paragraphs. --RL0919 (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd support if there was a "grandfathering" exception for current GAs. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind giving current GAs a grace period, but grandfathering is bad: people should be able to look at existing GAs as model for new GAs, and different rules are bad for that kind of things. —Kusma (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is my position as well. I suggested in the WP:RFCBEFORE discussion that we don't immediately delist any article that fails this updated criterion, but that we use the standard reassessment process as we find issues just like all of the other GA articles that have fallen below the minimum requirements. I'll note that, whether it's procedurally valid or not, WP:GAR has already been delisting articles failing this citation standard for a long time, even though it's not part of the criteria. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 14:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been de facto applying this standard to GAs when I check for needed GARs and I'd imagine I'm not the only one doing so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't quite find my way to opposing the proposal, but I share North8000's concerns. On the one hand, there is a problem to be solved here: it's not good for the project to have an opaque GA process in which candidates are judged on criteria that authors don't have fair notice of. That weakens Wikipedia by making it less welcoming to the newbies and lower-engagement editors on whom so much of the project's content depends. On the other, this change doesn't really feel like a step in the right direction, and has a distinctly rules-creepy vibe. The GAC are aspirational, but the same could be said for a lot of our policies and guidelines in practice. So this isn't really just a GA process issue: quality-conscious editors are going to look to GAC as a lodestar even if they aren't planning on getting a particular article to GA. And anything that moves the culture of Wikipedia further toward "get everything right first" and away from "give it your best shot and then sort it out collaboratively" is going to tend to further weaken and slow the project. This is a small change, but every little change like this shifts Wikipedia further away from the kind of editing culture that makes wikis an effective collaboration tool. At the same time that isn't really a problem for the GA process to solve. So I guess it's reasonable to focus on just getting the GAC to reflect actual reviewer practice. -- Visviva (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an insightful overview. I was on the fence, but "So this isn't really just a GA process issue: quality-conscious editors are going to look to GAC as a lodestar even if they aren't planning on getting a particular article to GA. And anything that moves the culture of Wikipedia further toward "get everything right first" and away from "give it your best shot and then sort it out collaboratively" is going to tend to further weaken and slow the project." has tipped me to "Support". If editors are looking at GAs as good practice, then let us try to make them so; and GAN should be post "sort it out collaboratively" (IMO). Thanks for helping me to form a view. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If people look to the GA criteria as an example to follow, and this leads them to relying upon a formula when thinking is required, then that's a bad outcome. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a bad outcome whatever our criteria are, though. To the extent that editors are mindlessly applying rules without doing any thinking of their own, I would rather them mindlessly apply rules that make it more likely that they are producing good content, and easier for other people to find and fix problems.  I suspect on balance GAN applying an incentive for editors to be over- rather than underenthusiastic in their citation practices would be a positive change. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to invite those opposing this to provide an alternative update. Perhaps using some of the language in Tamzin's post? The current rule does not reflect the current practice. To keep the language of the criteria the same, would not actually keep the existing rule, but would instead keep the rule a secret from new nominators. Rjjiii (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In which case the current practice is what needs to change - GA should not be requiring references for BLUESKY things, should not be requiring citations in the middle of quotes, inline citations for things referenced in prose, etc. The rule as currently written matches WP:V and I see no benefit to making anything more stringent than that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * GA does not require those in practice, nor would the rule change require them. CMD (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The rule change absolutely would require them - it says (emphasis mine) there is no exception for anything to is not a plot summary or summary of other parts of the article. Unless you are arguing that the things Tamzin, me and others have pointed out are somehow not "content" then they absolutely would require inline citations no later than the end of the paragraph/line in all cases. If this is not what GA requires at the moment, then the proposed text does not represent current practice as claimed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Every case brought up would be or is part of a portion of cited information. Ideas such as "Manhattan is in the United States" and "the First Amendment protects freedom of speech" are going to be part of larger prose that has citations. The new guideline does not mean that citations need to define every word used in the prose, or similar. We rely on editors to understand their sources enough to copyedit and explain them, and that remains true even in the new rules. As for the finding of edge cases regarding particular formatting for listes, quotes, tables, or other forms of presentation, no wording would meet all edge cases.The GACR do not exist in isolation as a piece of legal text. Much as with all our policies and guidelines, they are read and understood within the framework of how en.wiki works as a whole, including other policies, guidelines, and practice. Every single policy and guideline on en.wiki explicitly has exceptions, and the GACR are no different. Anyone trying to wikilawyer a fail through some sort of edge case or another would be rebuked, and those raising them as general questions would create discussion that helped clarify community consensus. As Rjjiii notes, the current wording gives a misleading impression as to what is expected from the community throughout all our various content evaluation processes, including GA/GAR, particularly for those not deeply versed in wiki-understanding (which anyone who accurately references and understands WP:BLUE is). There is not going to be a perfect formulation, but the new text goes a long way towards giving a more accurate impression of what is done. CMD (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The current wording (and WP:V) encapsulates that these are guidelines with general exceptions, the proposed wording does not. The proposed wording literally and explicitly says that "all content" must have inline citations. Lists, multi-paragraph quotes, etc. are not edge cases they are core parts of hundreds of thousands (at least) of encyclopaedia articles. You and others have made it clear that there is no exception for SKYISBLUE, etc. Except now it seems like you are saying that there can be exceptions when its convenient but not at other times - that is much less friendly to those not versed in "wiki-understanding" than what we have at present.
 * . Looking through recently-promoted GAs, as someone who is not intimately familiar with the GA process, the current wording appears to be a much better reflection of the expected standards than the new wording is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see where I or anyone else has ever said there is no exception for SKYISBLUE or etc., let alone "made it clear". I will however state that lists and quotes are generally not SKYISBLUE, and should be cited. As someone who is familiar with the GA process, the existing wording suggests a much lower standard that is actually expected. If you have seen GAs which do not cite things properly, please bring them up in a new section here or take them to GAR. CMD (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * CMD, I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I have never seen a single reviewer suggest that WP:BLUE be ignored at GA or at DYK, nor has anyone come up with such an interpretation until this RfC after several discussions about this. While I'm sure the oppose !votes all have legitimate concerns, some of these look so similar to wikilawyering that there's really no practical difference. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps we took the wrong thing from DYK, and have overlooked the DYK solution of having 60+ supplementary rules explaining the 18 criteria explaining the 5 core requirements. We only have 10 criteria to explain 6 core requirements, bunch of slackers really. CMD (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have never seen a single reviewer suggest that WP:BLUE be ignored at GA or at DYK – that is literally what this RfC would do, though. "All content must be cited". <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)</b> 05:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for everyone, but I think virtually all of the supporters (including myself) are of the view that true SKYBLUE supersedes the need for citations for that particular area, but not the rest of the content of the paragraph. I just struggle to imagine a time when there would be an entire SKYBLUE paragraph, such that no citation would be necessary for the entire paragraph. Perhaps it's just that we've become overly legalistic, on both sides. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a blurry line between clarity and legalisticism. I think we should strive to have guidelines that represent the real expectations, not the expectations minus certain implicit-to-some exceptions.To address the matter at hand, WP:BLUE is an essay that presents an interpretation of WP:V and WP:MINREF. But this is a proposal to explicitly set higher standards for GA than V and MINREF. As such, you can't rely on BLUE to justify exemptions. In fact, BLUE bases one of its arguments on the current GA criteria . Even beyond BLUE, which as an essay should not be given too much weight here, the very argument that some facts do not need inline citations has its policy basis in V and MINREF. Again, if we set higher standards than MINREF, we cannot implicitly rely on MINREF for certain unwritten exceptions. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)</b> 08:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We already have higher standards than MINREF. MINREF itself explicitly states "Substantially exceeding [MINREF] is a necessity for any article to be granted good or featured article (or list) status". It's also, inherently, the minimum, which seems an unusual bar for a process aiming to identify articles which are developed well beyond the minimum. CMD (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chipmunkdavis, it looks like that sentence was boldly added without discussion in 2020 by an editor who no longer seems to be active. I don't agree that it's true, so I'll remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagreement could change it I suppose, but it is true. It's not even GA and FA, there is furor when even a DYK goes up with poor referencing, ITNs are routinely rejected on sourcing, and OTDs are regularly removed. CMD (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Poor referencing" and "substantially exceeding MINREF" are not, necessarily, the same thing. It is entirely possible for an article to both substantially exceed MINREF and have poor referencing - for example every sentence having citations to half a dozen sources of varying quality. An article about a contentious BLP could easily be GA quality without exceeding MINREF by virtue of there being almost nothing that hasn't been or is not likely to be challenged. Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, I conflated two things. What I meant: The current GA criteria, just like MINREF, do not require everything to have an inline citation. Therefore, some things do not need inline citations – WP:BLUE. If we establish as a criterion that everything must have an inline citation, it is no longer true that not everything is required to have an inline citation. Hence, WP:BLUE would not be applicable anymore. It is important that WP:BLUE is an essay that explains why some things do not require inline citations; it is not a policy or guideline that could grant an exception if GA criteria specifically contradict it. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)</b> 13:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it were a policy, GA could still require it. GA is a purely voluntary thing.  We could make a GA criteria that says the letter E must never appear at the start of a sentence if we wanted to, or that there must always be an odd number of images.  So long as it doesn't contradict a policy, it's free to have higher (or weirder) requirements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

One of these days, the community is going to have to reconcile the fact that the absolute bare minimum of what has to be cited under policy (WP:MINREF) is nowhere near the level of citation that's expected of a half way decent article (everything except common knowledge, plot summaries, and summaries of content elsewhere in the article). Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 13:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Editors who believe that nearly everything is Likely to be challenged, and that therefore nearly everything already requires an inline citation, would not agree with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is where we are in practice, and what the proposal is trying to address. This RfC is a case study in the difficulty of making Wikipedia processes more accessible. CMD (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Examples from recent GAs
Here are some recent examples from reviews I've done in which the proposed wording reflects my current reviewing practice better than the current wording. These are not BLUE cases; they are cases where the uncited content doesn't fit into the categories required by the current wording. This is three examples from the last twenty or so reviews I've done. I felt that none of my requests were supported by the current criteria, but I asked anyway, and I think the criteria should be changed to support these requests. As for BLUE issues, I agree with others above that true SKYBLUE issues are extremely rare. I don't think I've ever had a debate with a nominator over whether something was BLUE and needed to be cited, and I don't expect it to ever come up. I probably wouldn't object if, after this RfC, another was started to add some kind of wording about BLUE, but I don't think it would make any difference at all to reviewing practice. I would oppose adding such wording to this RfC, for fear of derailing a needed change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk:Carbon accounting/GA1 -- search the review for "There are uncited sentences...". The nominator initially argued that citations weren't needed, but I pushed on despite not having GACR supporting me.
 * Talk:Marisa Anderson/GA1 -- the discography was uncited.
 * Talk:Les Avariés/GA1 -- interesting because the nominator pushed back on the need for citations, citing WP:WHEN, and I had to make an argument that they should be cited anyway despite the GA criteria. When the nominator complied they responded "I have to admit, this actually did end up being a productive exercise, as I ended up finding some new details along the way, and identified and removed a claim that was not supported by sources and possibly incorrect."


 * Looking at your three examples:
 * At Carbon accounting the very first sentence fails the proposed criteria because it has no inline citation. It's not a SKYISBLUE by the arguments in this discussion so even if that unwritten exemption does exist (and there are different interpretations about whether it does or should) it wouldn't apply here.
 * Marisa Anderson is currently only partially cited (I've not looked to see if this has changed since the GA review), but even if it were fully citied it would fail under the new wording if one citation was used to cover more than one line rather than having one per line.
 * Les Avariés passes because of the plot summary exception.
 * So two of your three examples do not demonstrate that the new wording matches the current requirements. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need an unwritten exemption for "GHG accounting is used in other settings, both regulatory and voluntary", as we have the written one about summarizing text. I've fixed the discography, good catch. CMD (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, can you clarify? For Les Avariés, this is the version I was reviewing.  I feel the current wording doesn't strictly allow me to ask for sources for the last three sentences in the "Film adaptations" section, because those statements don't fall into any of the categories listed in 2(b) of GACR.  Are you saying that the current wording does allow me to ask for sources, or that asking for sources for these three should not be required for GA?  I think you're saying the former, but I don't see how you're basing this on the current wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to know more about the expectations for citing a discography. Currently, under normal WP:V rules, the correct citation for a statement that amounts to "The Beatles recorded an album called The Beatles" is – nothing.  That is the form of inline citation described in Inline citation, because the authoritative citation for it is the album itself.  You could spam in a copy of Cite AV media notes between a pair of ref tags, but it would be redundant.  It seems to me that this proposal would basically end up with reviewers insisting that ref tags be added anyway, so that the material will look like it's been provided with an inline citation.  Is that what you expect? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In practice, the discography will also tell us things like when the album was first published and how long it is, which needs a citation. You should not cite this to just "the album" without further qualifications as there are sometimes different versions and you need to specify them clearly for verifiability. —Kusma (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it's typical for albums to have both copyright dates and information about how long it is. In the event that there were different versions with different information, I could see a need to specify, but not a need to use a pair of ref tags to do so.  Consider "Album length:  23:45 (US version), 25:01 (UK version)".
 * With bibliographies, which are also part of "all content", different book editions are very likely to have different information, but we have never used ref tags in lists of works to specify that this item is the 2003 book with 243 pages published by HarperCollins vs the 2009 re-issue with 312 pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mike Christie re Les Avariés, I hadn't considered that section. The proposed rules would require citations for those statements because release dates and national origin of production are not summaries of the plot. Whether the film genre and a film being a modernisation are summaries of the plot could be argued either way. The current rules do not require there to be citations, but WP:V does require them for material that has been challenged and the GA criteria do not prohibit you from challenging unsourced statements. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So do you feel that with the current wording of the GA criteria, all unsourced statements can be challenged by the reviewer and hence a source can be required for everything? With the usual BLUE etc. exceptions?  That's (more or less) the outcome I would want, since that's current practice.  If there's a consensus that that's the case, some wording change to clarify that that's how the review should be conducted would satisfy me.  I don't know if other supporters of this RfC would agree with that, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Any unsourced statement can be challenged by anyone at any time for any (good faith) reason, and WP:V requires challenged statements to be sourced. I don't think GA rules could override that if even if that was desirable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that answers half the issue the RfC is trying to address, but only half. The current wording means that if I had passed Les Avariés without challenging those statements, nobody could complain, because the GA criteria don't require me to do that.  You're saying that a GA reviewer can challenge those statements, per V, and of course you're right.  The RfC is trying to change the criteria so that it's clear the reviewer should challenge those statements.  Do you see a better wording that would convey that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head I can't think of a wording that encourages reviewers to challenge statements where relevant but doesn't require them to do so (or punish them for not doing so) where they aren't relevant (concise, clear wording is not my forte!). Any wording should also not be overly prescriptive about how and where a citation is provided, e.g. if there was a single source about adaptations of the work it should be permissible to cite that after every entry in the list or once at the start or end of the list (which is best will depend on context). Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I think we've put our finger on something that is behind the disagreements above. Most experienced GA reviewers now do challenge all unsourced statements (barring BLUE etc.).  You say any wording "[shouldn't] require them to do so", but the impetus for this RfC is that the supporters believe the GA criteria should be made more stringent -- that a reviewer should do so.  That was the intent of the wording change.  I think it's possible to oppose this RfC because one agrees with this approach but feels the wording is flawed, or because one feels the criteria should not be made more stringent in this way.  (It sounds like you might oppose on both grounds.) I might be sympathetic to other wordings, but I think the change is needed.  Perhaps supporters above are not changing their !votes based on the oppose arguments because the opposes are engaging with the wording rather than the fundamental question of whether the change is needed in the first place. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think GA reviewers should challenge everything that could theoretically be challenged, rather they should apply same standard employed by the featured article criteria quoted by Sandy Georgia which strike the right balance and allow for the application of common sense and context while still requiring high standards of sourcing. The intent of the proposal is imo too strict, but wording is much stricter than even that intent (or at least the intent according to the majority of those commenting, others think the strictest possible wording is the stated intent).
 * For a real-world example, SECR N class is a featured article but would fail GA if the proposal passes because the N class construction history and Withdrawal sections have tables that are referenced with a single citation in the table header rather than one at the end of every line. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "High standards of sourcing" is incompatible with leaving challenge-able claims unsourced. Also, why wouldn't citations in the table header be valid under this new criteria? It doesn't say at the end of the line. It says no later, meaning you can't use WP:GENREF or anything like that. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The "standard employed by the featured article criteria" is effectively that everything is sourced, which is exactly what is being proposed here. It also remains a higher standard than the proposed wording, because it requires that sources be of high quality while GA still requires sources only be reliable. CMD (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's perhaps not a great example as it has a number of unsourced claims in the body which should be addressed to bring it back in line with FA expectations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You could argue that it still meets the FA criteria even with a bunch of unsourced claims. And that's the problem here. On a sidenote, I'm loving the votes that essentially oppose because the FA criteria are weak and out of line with expectations, so the GA criteria should be even more so for consistency. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well... those votes are consistent with the reason GA was created. Editors wanted a lightweight way to identify decent articles – the ones that were "only" good, not the best ones.  The kind of thing that most decent editors could realistically aspire to, without having to go through a nitpicky review process, or argue with a bunch of people, or know exactly how to format the citations, or anything like that.
 * Scope creep has been something we've had to push back on for as long as I can remember. There's always someone who wants to add just one more little thing.  Back when we added most of the footnotes at Good article criteria, we had a tool that flagged dead URLs, and multiple reviewers falsely claiming that dead URLs were banned in GAs.  Then it was extra MOS pages.  Then it was citation formatting.  We didn't write Reviewing good articles and What the Good article criteria are not just for the fun of it; we were addressing the problems that we were seeing with multiple reviewers trying to push GACR towards a personal FAC process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I also really don't like when reviews involve personalized criteria (nitpicks about reference formatting are especially a pet peeve of mine). But meeting WP:V is just the bare minimum to not have content removed. I'd think that to say an article is "good" would require a bit more than that. Maybe it's because I wasn't around in the early days before this became the norm, but I do think that a citation for each unique claim is what's necessary before an article should have any little icon indicating quality, whether GA or FA. Not only is it impossible to check for OR without them, but it raises the question of how an editor summarized reliable sources without any reliable sources. An article with a bunch of uncited statements is not "good" or even decent. I'm not even convinced an article like that would make it through AfC, let alone GA.But on the note of scope creep and simplifying the process, I think there's general agreement that GA needs some sort of reform to make it easier to nominate and review, especially for newer editors, and I'd love to see ideas to make that happen as well. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only is it impossible to check for OR without them: Really?  OR = claim has never been published in any reliable source, in any language, anywhere in the world.
 * Are you incapable of determining whether a claim like "Smoking tobacco raises the risk of lung cancer" or "Chris Celebrity won the 2022 Big Award" has ever been published in a reliable source, unless a source is presented to you on a silver platter in a little blue clicky number?
 * Mind the gap between "I don't feel that I should have to bother" and "It's actually impossible". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The current proposal is one that works towards this goal. It replaces a vague and individually interpretable criteria with something consistent that would reduce nitpicks and arguments. CMD (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Images
In terms of what counts as "all content": Should there be an exception for images?

User:Mike Christie, I see that you recently passed several GAs that do not have citations for the images: Frederica Planta, Andrew Planta, Abishabis. The Image use policy is listed in List of policies, so I think it's safe to say that images are content, and the proposal says it applies to "all content". How do you expect editors to cite the images in those three articles? What function are the citations supposed to serve? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Depends on the image, but if what it depicts is at all controversial it's a reliable source should be provided, either in the article or image description, for what it depicts. I believe that the proposal is only for text content however. If rewording the proposal to "prose content" would ameliorate your objections to it, perhaps we should consider that. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Prose content" means "not content contained in lists, tables, infoboxes, images, graphs, captions, lyrics, or poems". That's probably a bigger exemption than you intended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed - we don't normally expect citations for images, which I suppose amounts to believing what the Commons file says, and cites, in most cases (though of course these are sometimes wrong, just as "reliable sources" are). Sometimes they are desirable though, often mainly for the caption rather than the image itself. Since images get used all over the place, it is better to add a reference to the Commons file than to a single use of the image. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My usual standard is that an image that merely illustrates something in the article text, with a caption that merely summarizes something in the article text, does not need a citation as being "that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article". If there is actual new information or claims in an image or its caption, they need citation. And in some cases the source of an image may need a citation for credit instead of for verification. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A technical drawing might "summarize cited content elsewhere in the article", but a photo of a person does not, and a source that directly says "This is a true and accurate representation of what this person looked like" is generally hard to come by. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Compromise wording?
Is there the possibility that supporters and opposers could come to some sort of compromise wording regarding WP:BLUESKY? My support would still stand with an explicit BLUESKY exception added in. (I think it is implicit but I understand that others are afraid they would have to cite every use of or similar things that are universally used without citations). Any thoughts? —Kusma (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think any issues could easily be solved by running a second poll regarding adding in BLUESKY exception (and potentially WP:SCICITE)? Not sure whether this should be concurrent or should follow the close of the above RFC. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Pardon my impertinence, if you like. But where is this discussion going? Clearly there is insufficient consensus after a number of weeks, hence ending and archiving it accordingly – with thanks for all the contributions made Billsmith60 (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It will end after 30 days, and an uninvolved editor will close the discussion. If it passes, I agree a second poll adding a BLUESKY exception seems likely; if it fails, another RfC with revised wording seems likely. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Consensus brought about through discussion is always prioritized over simple support and oppose votes. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need a "compromise" regarding BLUESKY; there isn't really disagreement about the application of BLUESKY in the above discussion, nor do I remember any hint of disagreement surrounding it in any previous discussions. What seems to be needed is wording to account for the potential misunderstandings in a future RfC, but I don't think that RfC needs to come quickly. CMD (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How is there insufficient consensus... I count a solid 60% for straight support, and 80% if conservatively counting opposes citing only BLUESKY as supports for an amended version that explicitly accounts for BLUESKY. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What is required for a 'pass'? I was in favour but have changed my mind and will vote 'no' now. Would not a c. 40% opposition score, as part of a large turnout, indicate significant opposition? I'm not bothered, of course, if the proposal does pass. Thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Closure requested at WP:CR
I've requested a close for the RfC as it's been 30 days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way I can view all reviews I've conducted?
I feel like I've been around here long enough to know better if there is such a method, or perhaps I'm really missing something obvious. Seeing as we're able to tally how many reviews a user has conducted, is it possible to curate a list of all GA reviews one has conducted over the years? -Indy beetle (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you ask nicely.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not exactly elegant, but you can look at your Special:Contribs page, filter for talk pages created, and use your browser's search to find the string : in your case I count 23 reviews, which accords with what the bot says.  Of course, this only finds GA reviews where you created the page; if you take over a review where the review page already exists it won't find it, nor will it find anything where you've commented on a review that someone else was conducting.  And the more talkpages you have created, the clunkier it gets; even relatively prolific editors have often only created a few hundred, but the most prolific editors have created tens of thousands of talkpages. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * User:GA bot/Stats keeps an active list of it, but it's subject to the same limitations mentioned by Caeciliusinhorto with the contrib method. This one gives you 24 reviews. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Somewhere around here I have code that can produce a page like this for anyone who asks; the count that produces should match the number on the GAN page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 July 2023

 * 1) Remove the period in 0c for consistency for the other fail rationales.
 * 2) Remove the period in 2b, as it produces a period before the semicolon at WP:GACR.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Transferring GA Reviewer
Hello. I have taken over the GA review of Hednesford because the old reviewer has been inactive for 30+ days. Is there anyway for me to officially transfer reviewship? The reason why I ask is because I used the GA reviewer tool to place the article on hold, but it showed up as the old reviewer placing it on hold. Cherrell410 (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * - I'm not sure, but I think all you've got to do is post a note that you're taking over the review. I currently have a similar situation that I mentioned above. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no way to actually attribute a review to a given editor -- the various tools that determine who the reviewer of a GAN is all do it by looking to see who created the review page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Can I get a quick check on...
...this GA review? It was quite quick by what looks like someone new to the GA process. Nothing specific jumps out to me, just the tempo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The timing is confusing, a five minute review, but it starts with "This article looks pretty good at a cursory glance, can't wait to get into it". Perhaps it might have been in draft for a bit. A couple of points where I think policy isn't fully understood (eg. image licencing), and a somewhat expansive claim around inline source integrity, but there's a bit of commentary in the review and I don't see any glaring issues with your article the review missed. CMD (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I notice that the reviewer is not extended confirmed, which should probably be encouraged if not a requirement for reviewing. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 05:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks as if they fortunately or wisely picked a particularly tidy article to review. We are torn between wanting GA to be an "intentionally light" process, not bureaucratic, and to achieve a substantially larger throughput of articles than is possible at FAC, with less effort on the part of both nominator and reviewer — and, it seems, wanting GA to be a mark of high quality, a formal review process, with well-defined criteria and some sort of oversight to ensure full and correct application of agreed standards. Well, these two things are in opposition to each other; and in case anyone has been holidaying on Betelgeuse lately, the wait in the GAN queue is getting steadily longer, so that a 6 month delay is not uncommon. If we don't want to train new reviewers, and we don't want to insist on Quid Pro Quo to force nominators to serve as reviewers (what a lot of things we want and don't want!) we need some other way to attract people into the system. At the moment, it's heading for collapse. Indeed, compared to how it used to flow along, it has seized up already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. I said as much above somewhere. This increased scrutiny of reviews is not particularly encouraging or welcoming to new reviewers. I especially disagree with the now-common practice of bringing reviews here rather than discussing them with the reviewer first. If I were an inexperienced user looking to get into GAN and I saw this talk page, I would be seriously intimidated about even trying. We should be thanking interested newbies and showing them the ropes where they have been imperfect, so they can feel confident about coming back to do more reviews. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, but I think an increase in waiting times is definitely preferable to a decrease in standards. I don't really see the point of having a formal quality control process if it's not going to mean much to pass it. TompaDompa (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole point of GA as a process is that it doesn't take much to pass it! It's not supposed to be FA! If we're going to hold GANs to the same level as we hold FAs, we might as well can the process and all move over to FAC. Something which I think gets forgotten at GAN lately is that nominators and reviewers alike are hobbyists doing this for fun. Yes, we want to have as few errors and issues as possible, but perfection across every GA is impossible, and we need to accept that rather than making this process damn-near impossible trying to pursue a level of perfection that even professionals don't achieve. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that it's supposed to be broadly attainable for most articles and somewhat experienced editors. What I'm saying is that it's also supposed to be a mark of quality. If it doesn't function reliably as such, the entire process is a complete waste of volunteer time, and we could scrap it in favour of WikiProject quality assessments (B-class and so on) without a formal review (and WP:Peer review for article improvement, I suppose—though GAN is designed to be a reviewing process, not an improvement process). We don't need to (and shouldn't) hold GANs to the same standards as FACs (and we don't), but we do need to hold them to some kind of standard. We can't let it be a crapshoot whether a WP:Good article is actually up to the standards we expect from a decent-quality article, because if that happens the process is not conferring any benefit. TompaDompa (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I half agree, but I think it's worth remembering that GA has never been a guarantee of quality and yet it hasn't been a waste of time. There have always been weak reviews, and articles passed which clearly should not have, but we've also had many editors gain useful experience from nominating and reviewing.  PMC is right that more negative feedback to apparently weak reviews may drive some reviewers away, and Chiswick Chap is right that there's an unresolvable tension between the need for a quick unsupervised process and the desire for a guarantee of quality.  It's also always been true that without reviewers willing to review more than they nominate, the process would have collapsed long ago.  In that sense nothing has changed; as Thebiguglyalien says below, the increase in the size of the backlog has been gradual, as it always is.  The oldest reviews are now much older than would have been the case a year ago, and that's obviously because of the new sort order, but if in fact the number of nominations and reviews is about the same as ever, that has to mean that some other nominations are getting reviewed more quickly.  I wish I could make confident statements about the effect the sort order has had on GAN, but I haven't been able to come up with metrics or statistics that I have confidence on the interpretation of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's still not entirely clear how we're supposed to respond to reviews if we're not happy with the quality. My first ever GA got a checklist review, so I made a post to this talk page, which largely went ignored, so I posted it at reassessment (back when it was a months-long process) and it was confirmed as a GA there. We should probably write something to the effect of "if you think a review inappropriately promoted an article, list the article at WP:GAR". That might at least temper the in-fighting that's been developing here. A more challenging problem is getting everyone on the same page about how thorough a GA review should be, or if there should be any thoroughness requirement at all. Right now it seems like there's an unspoken one, but as with most unspoken rules, most people either don't know about it or disagree on what it is. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, but as long as this doesn't become a frequent occurrence I don't see why we couldn't use GAR for this purpose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (EC) Really? Straight to GAR, even if there's nothing actually wrong with the article? How about talking to the reviewer? How about explaining what seems to be insufficient and encouraging improvement? Sample message: "Hello, thank you for your review! I'm not sure if you have much experience with GA reviews but usually reviewers are looking for some comments about the article. Do you think you could take a look and post some more detailed thoughts? Reviews like [some example] and [some other example] might give you an idea of the kind of feedback we're looking for." Tweak as necessary.
 * That being said, it seems to me that if an article meets the criteria as-is, there is nothing wrong with passing it with minimal feedback. Why do we expect reviewers to leave detailed criticism for an article if it is already well-written, broad, and properly sourced? Why should we force someone to come up with nitpicks just to make the review look more thorough? (I'm not dunking on people who want to review like that, by the way - I do all my reviews FAC-style, but that's my personal preference). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All I'd expect personally is a sentence or two. "I checked against criterion XYZ and found no problems." That's it. We can't read people's minds so we don't know what they do unless they say so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ironically I made a proposal at the feedback drive that might have handled the question about the thoroughness of reviews by leaving it up to the nominator to request either full PR-style review or not. It got shot down in flames because people argued that it's up to the reviewer to decide what kind of review they want to do, not the nominator. But obviously it isn't up to the reviewer, or we wouldn't be having these discussions all the damn time. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems like an overreaction. GA is supposed to mean that one editor (the reviewer) thought an article matched a short list of criteria.  That could be considered a "mark of quality", but it should be understood as a rather small one.  And if you think an article meets the criteria (and presumably you did, since you nominated it), and the reviewer claims to believe that the it meets the criteria, then why question it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that the increase in the backlog has been fairly slow. It has been gradually climbing up, but the number of reviews is pretty close to the number of nominations. The problem is that the sort order on the GAN page was changed in January so that newer nominations now cut in line ahead of older nominations. This means that if you have a nomination where it might be hard to find a reviewer already, then it's made even harder because it will sit in the middle of the queue indefinitely. So now the easy ones have even shorter wait times, while the harder ones have even longer wait times. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously the sort order had something to do with the recent upswing, but our tendency to jump on anyone who fucks up even a little rather than trying to show them the ropes is not helping to attract people to reviewing in any way. And if we're driving away potential reviewers, we're certainly not decreasing the backlog, are we? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we need to strongly promote mentors, and as PMC says not come on people like a pile of bricks, as tempting as that may be. We should also reassess some of the changes made in the past year and see if any need to be modified. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * New to GAN but made my way to this talk page somehow, so I'd like to state a few things (After reading some of the convos above and most of this one)
 * FIRST: The template is invaluable to new reviewers such as myself, and I think by removing it the (already limited) flow of new reviewers will collapse entirely.
 * SECOND: A Quid-Pro-Quo system of 1:1 seems like a great idea to me, and I can not for the life of me understand why one hasn't been implemented. Maybe something to DYK, where after your first X # of nominations you have to start reviewing at least one for each additional nomination? Not to name names, but just scrolling through the nomination list there are a *lot* of nominators that don't have anything close to a 1:1 ratio, or even a .5 reviews for each nomination ratio. Or even a .2 reviews for each nomination ratio! It is frankly ridiculous. This is a surefire way to reduce the backlog, though it may result in less good articles being produced.
 * THIRD: The lightweight standard of GA's makes most sense to be. It's not supposed to be an FA, it's supposed to be a GA. To quote WP:ASSESS: "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equaling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia." Alexcs114 :) 14:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The template is very recent, and was implemented at the same time the reviewer flow collapsed for other reasons. It's probably a net negative, because people who actually use it keep getting come down on like a ton of bricks for "following what they reasonably assumed to be the instructions". GA templates were quite heavily signposted before one was officially added, so it was easy to use them as a new reviewer; I did for my first few reviews before growing out of the structure.
 * QPQ has never had formal consensus at GAN, specifically because GA reviews are so unlike DYK reviews. At DYK you have to check about four things, and people still get them wrong often enough to have a thriving ERRORS cottage industry. GA is significantly more complex -- even the 'lower standard' version of it (which I don't subscribe to, but what I do subscribe to is fairly different to what most 'higher standard' people seem to) needs way more, and formally implementing a requirement is doable only if GA is outright reduced to around DYK level. This would certainly result in fewer good articles being produced, regardless of what exactly it did to the number of articles with green plus signs.
 * I've always found the 'paper encyclopedia' quote interesting. WP:NOTPAPER is the highest law of all in ways a lot of people never really notice, simply because we barely even interact with paper encyclopedias these days. Pick one up and go through the articles; almost all of them, as we'd call it, are stubs. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 18:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (Replying solely to the third point) Then it would seem to me that WP:NOTPAPER & WP:ASSESS contradict, as almost all GA articles and 99% of FA articles contain more valuable information than their corresponding entry (or lack thereof!) in a "professional encyclopedia" such as Brittanica (Print version now defunct) or World Book. Note however of course that quantity =/ quality, though I think nearly all of our "GAs" or above are of a higher quality than Brittanica or World Book. Alexcs114 :) 20:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. NOTPAPER is policy, and ASSESS was written many years ago and has been a pretty marginal page since. That's not to say the article assessment system isn't important -- well, I consider it important. But I notice my considering it important is fairly unusual, especially for non-peer-reviewed levels (B and below). The specific wording on ASSESS isn't really reflective of how people treat the categories anymore, and hasn't been since about the turn of the previous decade. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 09:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting, how can we go about getting that updated then? Alexcs114 :) 13:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm following the conclusions being drawn here. In what way do NOTPAPER and ASSESS contradict, and how is that meaningful for the purpose of GA anyway? NOTPAPER describes how Wikipedia is not limited by the constraints of physical media. Printed books have limited page space before they become unwieldy. One benefit of Wikipedia is that we are free to cover obscure topics in detail so long as there are sources, because that doesn't mean taking pages away from other things. ASSESS was created ages ago in service of WP:1.0, and was sort of grafted on to the main project after that without much analysis of how useful it actually might be (not very). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * May I ask as to what about the "tempo" sticks out to you
 * -The reviewer, DimensionalFusion   (talk)  11:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably the fact that the initial review begins "This article looks pretty good at a cursory glance, can't wait to get into it" but marked every criterion as passed, and then you completed the review only seven minutes later. As a couple of people discuss above, there's some tension between the "GA reviewing should be a lightweight process" and "GA reviews should be a reliable mark of quality" schools of thought, but many people who tend towards the latter view look askance at a review which doesn't pick up on any issues in an article, even if it does meet the letter of all of the GA criteria.
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus has plenty of experience writing GAs, and a quick glance through the article doesn't show me any glaring issues, so I expect that the article is indeed GA standard and you are right to promote – but reviews which appear to have been conducted very quickly tend to raise eyebrows, even if you in fact spent some time checking everything before you opened the review. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seemed to me that the entire review was quick. But it seems like most people here don't see any issues with this particular review, so I guess I was imagining things. And it's true, folks can be reviewing a nomination before officially initiating the review, which won't show up as a timestamp. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I see some issues have come up because I reviewed while in draftspace instead of publishing first DimensionalFusion   (talk)  20:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain the seven-minute gap between initial placeholder and final review. It should take you far longer than that just to spot-check the references. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It was in draft for much longer than seven minutes DimensionalFusion   (talk)  21:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I don't think there was a significant issue, just a mismatch in available information. Your "This article looks pretty good at a cursory glance, can't wait to get into it" note was a helpful indicator in this regard. Best, CMD (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yea, Johannes Gensfleish.../ 2A02:2F08:B60C:7400:9C5:8EF2:BBCE:9477 (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Is using one source for an entire article make it good enough for GA?
Hello, I have a question. Is using one source for an entire article make it good enough for GA?

So i nominated Gruban v Booth for reassessment since the article only uses one source. Sure, it's a book with multiple pages, but it's still one source. But i've come to realize that there is nothing in the criteria that definitively states that using one source for your entire article is bad and makes an article not a GA. So I've asked this question as I think that it shouldn't make an article a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant GAR link is Good article reassessment/Gruban v Booth/1. My view is that the article can't be delisted, per the GA criteria at least, but it definitely can be AFDed or merged. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * GA requires compliance with WP:NPOV. While the policy page is vague on this, my understanding is that you need at least a few sources before NPOV can be met. Right now the article consists entirely of what H. Montgomery Hyde has to say about the topic. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * GAs can be quickfailed for having or needing valid cleanup banners. Among these banners are One source. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is possible to comply with NPOV while only citing one source. For that matter, it is technically possible to comply with NPOV while citing no sources:  If a vandal blanked all the sources in an NPOV-compliant article, the article would become uncited, not biased.
 * However, if you're relying on one source, it would have to be a very unusual source, perhaps one that reviews and summarizes all the views on a subject. I don't think that the source cited in this case is necessarily such a source – though, again, it is possible to write a perfectly neutral article regardless of what appears in the ==References== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

GA criteria change implemented per RfC closure; possible variations in wording
I've implemented the change to the GA criteria as suggested in the close to the RfC. I agree with the closer that this is pretty close to what seemed to be a consensus about including BLUESKY. However, this form of words uses WP:LIKELY as the target essay for the phrase "reasonably challenged". It might be better to rephrase slightly in order to make BLUESKY the natural link. E.g. reliable sources are cited inline. All content must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose), except for material covered by WP:BLUESKY, plot summaries, and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Link in new c2b
The newly-rewritten c2b now reads:

All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).

Could reasonably be challenged links to Likely to be challenged. To me, these two statements are not the same: the link creates the false impression that if something is unlikely to be challenged, it doesn't need to be cited, whereas the criteria say that this only applies if any challenge would be patently unreasonable. I suggest that the link should be removed to take away this ambiguity. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've moved UC's new section to Mike's previous topic (WP:RTP). I've also removed the bit dealing with the GA criteria in WP:BLUESKY, since it is now, obviously, out of date. I suggest: All content, except for that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, plot summaries, and material covered by WP:BLUESKY, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). This puts the focus squarely on the "all content", before making three exceptions. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the order, material covered by WP:BLUESKY is a little clunky. It may be wise to steal the "general common knowledge" language from When to cite. Rjjiii (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with both and : I think it's better to present WP:BLUESKY as an exception to a general rule, and I think "general common knowledge" is a good way to phrase it. TompaDompa (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I quite like the wording "could reasonably be challenged": WP:BLUESKY is an essay, so I'm uncomfortable raising it to the level of a hard rule, and by its nature a little flippant: more precise and objective language is helpful since we'll inevitably have editors disagreeing over what constitutes a self-evident statement like "the sky is blue". Someone elsewhere mentioned that plot summaries could be replaced by something like material based on the content of the article's subject itself, which I quite like: it avoids having to cite, for example, that someone was the author of a book when their name's on the cover. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that a link to When to cite is a good idea. For one thing, since that's FAC's hard rule, that clearly aligns GA's and FA's sourcing rules.
 * Linking to an essay doesn't "raise it to the level of a hard rule", and if that really concerned you in general, you should be concerned about the actual policies like WP:NOT, which freely link to essays and Wikipedia articles. Linking to essays in policies and guidelines is explicitly authorized in the policy Policies and guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Politics & gov or world history?
So the description for the politics and government header indicates Note: This does not include deceased politicians or former heads of state and government, who are added to the World history subtopic but this does not seem to have been the practice as long as I can remember. Looking through there we've got:


 * Des Corcoran (died 2004)
 * John Bullock Clark (died 1885)
 * A. A. Adams (died 1985)
 * Ray O'Connor (died 2013)
 * Lucy Parsons (died 1942)
 * Maurice Duplessis (died 1959)
 * Iskaq Tjokrohadisurjo (died 1984)
 * Surachman Tjokroadisurjo (died 1952)
 * Sigismund Danielewicz (died 1927)
 * Ngo Dinh Diem (died 1963)
 * Jorge Sampaio (died 2021)
 * David Ivon Jones (died 1924)
 * Alfred Verdross (died 1980)
 * Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed (died 1977)
 * Zail Singh (died 1994)
 * Shankar Dayal Sharma (died 1999)

So that's 16/50 of that category being deceased political figures. I highly doubt that it would be useful to go through and move all of those nominations and any similar future ones over to world history, and the practice certainly has not been to adhere to that note? Shouldn't we just remove the note and allow nominators the judgment call of where the nominations best go (for instance, classifying Clark as politics instead of warfare)? Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you actually look at Good articles/History and its World history subtopic, you'll see that there are subsubtopics for Historical figures: heads of state and heads of government (78 articles) and Historical figures: politicians (352 articles). Given that these numbers far exceed the 16 that have been placed under Politics and government, I would strongly suggest that the note be left in place, and the 16 be moved to where they clearly (by the numbers) belong: World history. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Without any opinion on what the correct practice is, you are counting different things; Hog Farm is talking about current nominations. I count ten deceased world leaders under Good articles/Social sciences and society (out of 30). Six of the eight articles under #Intelligence and espionage are dead people (and a seventh is an intelligence program which ceased in 1947). I haven't counted how many of the #Political figures section are dead - there's 300+ articles in there.
 * In general, there's always going to be overlap between different categories; it's unavoidable. Many of my GAs could be classed as either world history or language and literature; one of the articles I'm currently working on (Ithell Colquhoun) could be justifiably nominated in at least three different places.  Unless a placement is clearly and obviously wrong, I would be inclined to give nominators and reviewers a fairly wide deal of discretion in deciding where to class a particular article.  (And that's not getting into the fact that e.g. Jimmy Carter is currently 98: do we need to remember to reclassify him as world history when he inevitably dies?) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Change GA Nominations to go by date nominated, not whatever's going on now.
Anyone else support changing GA Nominations to go in order of date nominated, not whatever's going on now. What a mess. What an awful change. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It had consensus in an RFC, so I think that there would need to be an RFC to change it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea was to reward editors who review lots of GA noms and to penalize editors who write lots of good articles but don't review. It saw nearly unanimous support when it was proposed, but the reception since then has leaned negative, and it's unclear whether consensus would support keeping or removing it if an RfC was held about it. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 03:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem with the reward/penalty aspect is that it does not seem to be clearly communicated. I have dealt with multiple editors who had no idea what the new sort metric is and found themselves frustrated with it. If people don't understand how the list is being sorted, they have no way of knowing that they even can change their sort position, let alone how to do that. The other problem is that even if you understand what's going on, the ratio is very easy to fix at lower numbers, but quite difficult at higher ones. An editor whose existing ratio is 2 GA:1 review can easily do 1-2 reviews to even it up, but someone whose ratio is 245:200 would have to do 20x as many reviews just to break even. (Also, editors like myself who take their GAs to FA have artificially lowered ratios, because FAs are no longer counted as GAs in the ratio).
 * If we want to keep it this way (and I'm not convinced we should), we should figure out a way to communicate the sort method much more clearly, alter the algorithm to consider only recent reviews, and then assess our results. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the new system has reduced wait times for frequent reviewers, so it does some of what it was designed for. Nevertheless, I do believe wait time should play some role in the sort order. To make it clearer how things are sorted, perhaps we need a "sort score: N" in each nomination listing. Especially if the sort score (or whatever it is called) is not immediately obvious, we could make it link to a page or footnote with an explanation. —Kusma (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think most people inclined to review at GAN (which you can see from the stats is about five people...) already had a decent working sense of which frequent nominators reviewed a lot and which didn't, and made decisions accordingly inasmuch as this was a factor in their decisions. (In real practice, I think stuff like "does the reviewer find the article vaguely interesting" tends to trump everything else.) <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 06:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the current system and have the impression it has not been working worse than the old system. One of the things I particularly like about it is that it groups nominations by the same nominator together (maybe not as the main intended feature, but as a consequence of its definition). This makes it much easier for me to skip over nominators whose articles I might prefer not to review, for whatever reason, compared to the old system where they were all mixed together. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are advantages to either system. But I think backlog drives might have become even more necessary thanks to the system change, so perhaps running one of those should be a priority now. —Kusma (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A new backlog drive right now is abstractly good. Tricky thing is the last one worked out in ways that resulted in a substantial lack of enthusiasm to repeat it for a while (though it's been over a year now), and some of the issues around it (e.g. regarding "what is good enough for a GA review") are only bigger now. I'd be very happy to run another backlog drive -- participating in them seems to burn me out -- using probably a similar points structure to the mid-2021 one, with tweaks accounting for the worsened backlog. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 07:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Try to figure out what caused the lack of enthusiasm, avoid some of that, and advertise a New And Much More Fun Backlog Drive. I will certainly contribute a couple of reviews. —Kusma (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I like it. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think the order listed will make much of a difference (people review whatever they feel like), but I just noticed I am listed as "only" having one GA, and am therefore on the top of the list, which seems unfair, since I have a good deal more, they're just FAs now. Is there any way it can count articles that were GAs prior to becoming FAs? FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I have all the data necessary to make that change; it would require some thought and some testing, and it would mean the number could no longer be checked by reference to the GA counting tool that SDZeroBot maintains. That tool, which is what ChristieBot uses, only counts current GAs.  It would also be possible to count failed nominations too -- for example, if someone nominates five articles and each one fails, should they still be top of the list?  I think I would want to see a consensus from others that this would be a worthwhile change, but I think it could be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be for a system that counted all GA nominations that received a review, I think that is preferable than the current proxy. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good idea, for a few reasons. Firstly, it seems a bit WP:BITE-y since it means that new nominators whose first nomination is unsuccessful are basically pushed to the back of the line. Secondly, it in effect penalizes editors whose nominations receive reviews where (1) the article was not promoted but could reasonably be re-nominated more-or-less immediately or (2) the article was promoted but the review was not up to standards and the promotion needs to be undone and a proper review conducted. Thirdly, it might influence reviewer behaviour if a review that doesn't result in promotion puts the nominator at a (further) disadvantage for all their other current and future nominations. Fourthly, it doesn't produce the effect I want to see in the scenario describes. I don't want someone who makes several unsuccessful nominations without any successful ones to wait longer for reviews, I want them to improve articles to a higher level of quality before nominating them so they are in a better position to have their nominations be successful—and if they are not willing or able to do so, my second choice would be for them to refrain from nominating articles altogether. TompaDompa (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've only written a couple Good articles, and although I've looked into reviewing a couple nominations I've found I didn't have access to the sources needed so I haven't been able to start/do any reviews, so perhaps my opinion should carry less weight than editors who do more GAs / reviews, but FWIW I agree with FunkMonk that it's unintuitive to count someone as having, say, zero GAs if they in fact have a dozen GAs that became even-better FAs. (I also suspect FunkMonk is right that people review what interests them and what they have the source-access capacity to review, not what's in a certain place on the list, but again, users who do more reviews would be in a better position than me to judge that aspect.) -sche (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * although I've looked into reviewing a couple nominations I've found I didn't have access to the sources needed so I haven't been able to start/do any reviews Spotcheck expectations have not slowed down GAN at all and have had no unforeseen consequences, exhibit n. Anyway: I can name right now, off the top of my head, five easy reviews by experienced writers that are months in backlog, that any newcomer could pick up and review easily if any of them are interested:
 * Mississippi Public Service Commission
 * Eduardo Maldonado
 * I Shall Be Free No. 10
 * Lateral line
 * Robert J. Parins
 * <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 17:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

New reviewer needed
Hi, a reviewer started reviewing my GAN for the article Gangnam, but was unable to complete it because of irl time constraints. It's been "put on 2nd opinion" now, but I'm not quite certain what else I should do. Thanks! : 3 F4U (they/it) 04:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Distribution of reviews and nominations
The thread just above about a proposed backlog drive prompted me to try to find ways to look at the data that's been accumulated over the last few months. I came up with these two tables:

The first table shows that 637 reviews have been started in the last three months, by 185 reviewers. 540 of those reviews were performed by just 92 reviewers. The second table shows that 743 articles have been nominated over that time, by 330 different nominators. 535 of those nominations were from just 122 nominators.

's comments, above, about QPQ were another reason I thought these would be interesting numbers to look at. I would summarize this as: GAN has worked that way for about twenty years now, and it can continue to work that way, and the backlog will always grow if so. I've thought some more about what it would take to make QPQ acceptable, and I think at least three things would be needed: I don't know if those would be enough to make QPQ palatable, but I think that's a minimum. Without some limiting function like QPQ we will always need backlog drives and we should not be surprised when that happens. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A small number of regular reviewers who review more than they nominate are the reason GAN does not collapse. I would say there are less than fifty editors in this group.
 * Most nominators (that is, more than half) treat GAN as a free service.
 * Some free nominations allowed before a review is required
 * A rolling time frame of some kind -- no reason to penalize someone now who had 40 GAs promoted ten years ago.
 * Some kind of quality control -- a coordinator function that intermittently sampled reviews to check that there weren't quality problems.


 * I'm fairly hard on the idea that QPQ doesn't work at GAN, because it barely works at DYK, which has massively lower standards and already a bunch of free passes. From recentish stats DYK has a 94% acceptance rate; the fruits of this can be seen every time we run bad hooks. (Something also often missed about DYK is that people tend to construe their 'review' for QPQ very broadly, and many nominations receive QPQ-eligible reviews then wait another two months for a real one.) My broad impression from the amount of time I spend looking at GANs is that the pass rate should probably be a little under half. It's way above this, which is because we tend to treat GAs dichotomously as "obvious no-hopers" and "going to pass one way or another", but I don't think QPQs are going to help a low-review-quality problem. I think backlog drives have a low-review-quality problem, but...I'm happy to have two months of low-quality reviews a year be the price we pay, over the alternative of all of them. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My broad impression from the amount of time I spend looking at GANs is that the pass rate should probably be a little under half: I don't know what it is overall (maybe 's bot can tell us?) but my records of things I have reviewed suggest that I pass about 75% of nominations. The proportion of FACs I have reviewed at which have passed is marginally lower but around the same rate. Obviously I may have some level of selection bias in what I review (and there are certainly reviews where if I were feeling less generous I would probably have been justified in failing them and letting them nominate again rather than putting in the effort to bring them up to GA) but it's not my impression that fewer than half of the GANs I have looked at should pass. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Since ChristieBot took over from Legobot on 17 November 2022, there have been 1301 passed GAs and 368 fails; a 78% pass rate. There have been 15 reviewers in that time who have reviewed at least 20 GANs; the pass rate for each reviewer individually varies from 40% to 100% and averages 79%. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Most nominators (that is, more than half) treat GAN as a free service. – This sentence stands out to me as interesting, and I think it gets at a philosophical issue. It implies (to my reading, at least) that nominating is a selfish act for the nominator and reviewing is a selfless act that a reviewer does for the benefit of the nominator. I don't know if I like that conclusion. Contributing to Wikipedia, including as a reviewer, is a free service. Obviously a nominator wants the article they wrote reviewed because they put in several hours of work, but that's just the thing; they're putting in work to benefit the encyclopedia. Nominating exists to improve Wikipedia, and reviewing exists to improve Wikipedia. The reason that long wait times are an issue is because the nominator has that obligation to respond hanging over their head for longer, but the nominator may no longer be available after a certain period of time. And in the meantime, close familiarity with the article fades away as they wait longer (after a few months, I often have to go back and reread some of the sources to get familiar with them again). Something doesn't seem right to me when content creators are treated as a burden when they ask for collaboration when that's whole point of Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not that nominating is selfish, but nominating something for review inherently necessitates the participation of another person who does the review. It would be fine if we had a balance between people who love nominating and people who love reviewing without nominating, but we clearly, statistically, do not have that. More of us want to write than want to review, and it creates an imbalance which results in people waiting for 8 months for some articles to be reviewed. I'm not making a moral judgement, but a practical one. If you are asking someone for their labor, it only seems reasonable that you should be asked – in the spirit of collaboration – to give that labor in return, to ensure that everyone gets a timely review without having to beg. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One might of course take the perspective that the nominator has already given their labour in writing/improving the article in the first place. TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't, because that is a different piece of labor than asking for a review. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with PMC here. One could make the improvements to an article prior to nominating, and then not nominate; the labor/article improvement is done irrespective of if the article then goes to GAN or not. By nominating an article at GAN, the nominator is asking another editor to put in time to review the article. This is not a universal or even a majority view, but when I see people with 50+ GAs and no reviews, I think they're unfairly taking advantage of the process and their fellow editors, and ought to be banned from nominating or have their nominations heavily throttled. I do wish we had been much more strict with a maximum concurrent nominations limit to try and address the imbalance (but some will say that's not even a problem, even as other editors wait half a year or more to get a reviewer). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree with PMC. I would put it a bit less harshly than TAOT: I'd prefer to say that if someone does a lot more nominating than reviewing, nobody in the community should feel any obligation to review, because there's no labour to repay.  The reason I don't like the previous GAN sort (by age) is because it sends the message that there is an obligation that increases with age -- even the word "backlog" sends that message.  I enjoy reviewing GAs, and I've done a lot of it; I like working with new nominators and trying to help them learn the ropes.  I think that's more helpful to the encyclopedia than reviewing the 10th GA nomination of an editor who has not done much (or any) reviewing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't have a particular view on this, but just thought I'd throw in the fact that there are plenty of editors like me who were very active reviewers and content creators in their earlier years on WP, but do less of one or the other (or both) now. Any approach to QPQ needs to take into account the lifetime reviewing contributions of the nominator, not just what they have done in the last three or six months. All their reviews have contributed to WP regardless of when they were done. For example, I've done ~350 GAN reviews, and if you include GAs that are now FAs, have successfully nominated around 110 GAs. A 3:1 ratio or thereabouts. Something to think about perhaps? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I would prefer to calculate the 6-month and all-time reviewing ratios and use the more favorable one for qpq, if we decided to implement it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I like that approach a lot. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So do I. I wonder if we could do a sort of soft QPQ by using the existing collapse templates on the GAN page?  Right now those templates are only used if someone has more than 20 nominations.  We could set a limiting value for the review/GA ratio and move anything with a ratio below that into the collapse templates.  That would mean people who wanted to could still open those templates and review those articles, but they would not be immediately visible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this works iff you have something like "ratio or absolute". We have some incredibly prolific reviewers who have low ratios because they're also incredibly prolific writers, and it seems suboptimal to penalize major contributors (I'm cautious, around 'trying to stop the backlog from being this bad', to avoid overcorrecting to things that harm the underlying backlog cause of 'people are writing and nominating lots of articles'). Something like "with five or more GAs, ratio above 1:1 or 100+ reviews" could work, with some tweaking maybe on the low end (five honestly seems extremely high -- I'd really propose "one or more", but as you can see from below this is not necessarily agreed with). <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 12:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand, you're saying that we would put a nomination inside the collapse template if: Is that correct? I would make it 3 GAs in (1), and I'd be more lenient than 1:1 in (3), but those are parameters that could easily be tweaked. I like that idea. I would also suggest per Buidhe's comment that the ratio in (3) should be the most favourable of the lifetime ratio and the last 12 months ratio. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The nominator had 5 or more GAs; and
 * 2) The nominator had done less than 100 reviews; and
 * 3) The nominator's review-to-GA ratio was less than 1:1


 * Yeah, that's the shape of the proposal. 3 GAs sounds like a fairly ideal spot for it to kick in. I'm inclined to a relatively strict threshold for the ratio, but something in the neighbourhood of maybe 0.7:1 or 0.8:1 is defensible. We should signpost the collapsed templates fairly well, though, especially given quieter categories might start looking pretty empty. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 13:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I ran a couple of queries to see what this would do. At the numbers above (no more than 4 GAs, at least 100 reviews, R/G at least 1:1) there would be 432 nominations visible and 250 collapsed.  Here are some other possibilities.  Note: this does NOT include the tweak suggested above -- that for the R/G ratio we should look at the last X months as well and pick whichever ratio is better.  It also does not show collapses due to having more than 20 nominations.

I tried with 50 instead of 100 for the first parameter and it makes almost no difference as you can see above, so I think we could set that to 50, if we were to do this. It's also interesting that the number of nominations that end up in the collapsed box is not very sensitive to the other two parameters. (Which suggests to me that a scattergraph of those two parameters might be interesting to look at; I might do that next.) I would be happy with the most lenient version of this (50/4/0.7); or I could go for (50/2/0.7). Not ready to actually propose this yet, but I think it's a possibility. , I also think it's interesting that you described yourself above as a hard opponent of QPQ, but you find this option worth considering -- that suggests it might be possible to get support for some version of this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The 50 vs 100 distinction is sort of a distinction about "what behaviour are we focusing on?". My intent for it was to avoid collapsing nominations by people who are very high on both axises -- our most prolific nominator-reviewers are by quick observation split about 50-50 on whether they have significantly more reviews or significantly more nominations, and it'd be awkward (and, I feel, kind of uncharitable) to collapse based basically on "sorry, do another literally 200 reviews because your existing substantial contributions aren't enough". There are a couple people in the barely-under-100 range who I have the same sort of thoughts on -- I could drop it to 75, reasonably -- but there are prolific nominators very close to the 50 mark who are definitely far-nomination-skewed.
 * And yeah, I think this is substantially more workable than a true QPQ, at least on paper. Unlike some others with very review-skewed ratios, I have no real animosity to people who've made the decision it's not their thing. Frankly, it's not much of my thing some of the time either (I've learned twice over that I can't be a backlog drive participant without burning out). I think GAN already has a problem with reviews frequently being surface-level and not seriously engaging with structure -- the reviews I'm proudest of are often the ones where I've really grappled with an article's coverage, e.g. taking articles that are a "list of things that happened, with some person coincidentally being in the middle of it" and turning them into biographies, but this is more in-depth than people tend to do when they're ticking off QPQs. (It is also, significantly, something that is hard to spot when reading a review as a non-participant after the fact, or to do based on a checklist.) I think it is healthy for the process to have some significant incentive to review, though, and particularly to signpost to newer people entering that we expect to turn people into nominator-reviewers. It may or may not work in practice, but it would be pretty far from the "good-on-paper idea wonkiest in practice" right now. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I openly admit that I submit more GA articles than I review (and have reviewed far more PR and FA than I have ever submitted), but I refuse to feel guilty about that. As I have pointed out numerous times, in the real world, writers write, editors organize, copy editors correct/proof, fact checkers check facts, but on WP, especially for GA reviewers there is an expectation that editors do all of those jobs. I am good at and enjoy research and writing. I am less good at critiquing other people's work and I find it excruciatingly difficult at times to discern whether an article is "good enough" if it is far below the standard to which I hold myself. That said, I rarely fail an article I am reviewing (only in the instance that the nominator is unresponsive or decides to withdraw it) and am willing to take however much time it takes to improve it rather than to fail it. Besides which, failing an article does nothing to improve the overall quality of the encyclopedia, which is for me anyway, always the goal.


 * Over the last few years I have made a concerted effort to push myself to do reviews at GA, PR, and FA. (If I am understanding the technical analysis above, weighing only GA reviews would definite penalize people who review to improve articles on other platforms, but maybe folks here don't care about things outside the GA scope.) Despite the fact that I don't think I am good at it, others have told me that they found my reviews helpful. My point is that it is a balancing act – finding time to write vs. reviewing. If a hard rule of QPQ were implemented, I am 100% sure my article creations would go down, and certainly those that I submit to be reviewed, because of the time required to do equal amounts of reviews. That to me would be a loss for the encyclopedia, as I don't submit articles for recognition, but rather for the improvement that results from collaborating with someone else. IMO, which is worth diddly, requiring a QPQ would lead to a loss of quality articles on the whole. SusunW (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO, which is worth diddly, requiring a QPQ would lead to a loss of quality articles on the whole. Yeah, I emphatically agree with this take. I don't think 'reviewing' is a particular strength of mine either, especially as wildly-broadly-construed as it is at GAN; I review a lot anyway because I consider it important, but I completely recognize other people can come to different conclusions on the same basis. I think instilling the sense that "it's important to review articles" to new nominators is important, but I have no illusions either that I could change established habits or that it would be a net positive to do so (because the primary change would generally be 'no more articles being nominated', and the possible secondary one 'more bad reviews'). <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 17:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely concur with you Vaticidalprophet. The secondary potential hadn't occurred to me, but yes, that would be a significant issue too. SusunW (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, anything that discourages good writers from writing is a bad thing. SusunW, you have 98 GAs and 16 reviews.  One possibility that occurred to me is that I would be willing to donate, so to speak, 82 reviews that I've done to your "account".  Essentially that would be saying I like your work well enough to take responsibility for the labour required to meet the R/G ratio.  That's probably getting too complex, but in principle it's something I would do -- choose editors who I think are worth supporting with my labour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with the points made by (and the addendum by ), but I do want to point out that failing an article does nothing to improve the overall quality of the encyclopedia is not necessarily correct. I have worked with nominators to improve the quality of articles to meet the GA standards within the GAN process (leading to an initially subpar article turning into a quality one, and the nomination closing as successful), but I have also seen nominators respond to the feedback I have provided during reviews that I ultimately closed as unsuccessful by committing significant time and effort to improving the article in preparation for nominating it anew later. In the latter cases, the overall quality of the encyclopedia was improved even though the initial nomination was closed as unsuccessful. TompaDompa (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are also, more cynically, many cases where "improving the encyclopedia" means "not devaluing GA recognition by giving it to a substandard article". <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 23:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I did not reply sooner, but just saw this. You are a peach Mike Christie! (In Southernese that is a high complement.) I do think reviews are important and I have increasing made myself do more of them. I am just trying to be honest and transparent that I am probably never going to hit an equal number of reviews to writing. But, my goal is for the number of reviews I do to increase each year. I am trying, balance is hard. SusunW (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Does passing a nomination do anything to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO, definitely. Why wouldn't it? Unless one is doing "drive by" reviews, how can it not? (I have only ever had two of those, both reverted at my request.) In my experience, reviewers genuinely provide feedback with the aim of improving an article and collaboration gives the writer an opportunity to ensure that the context is clear to readers. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And why would failing an article not do that? Unless you feel that the only acceptable method of reviewing a GAN is to collaborate until it is of sufficient standard to pass, this line of logic doesn't really make sense to me . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain that I said that I am willing to work with it until it can pass. Perhaps your experience shows you that failed articles eventually are improved, but to me that is illogical and doesn't jive with my experience elsewhere on WP. Those who are genuinely interested in improving articles do. Those who have other motivations for editing articles generally don't take the time. I've reviewed plenty of articles that weren't submitted for GA, FA, or PR, given lots of feedback and no changes were ever made, so I now try to limit my time to reviewing articles where it seems probable that the nominator wants feedback. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, let's wait and see if anyone else likes the idea. In the meantime here's the scattergraph I mentioned.  Each point represents a nomination; the left axis is the R/G ratio at the time of the nomination; the horizontal axis is the number of GAs that nominator had at the time of the nomination.  This leads to smears of points -- e.g. the smear on the axis at a bit over 400 reviews at around 0.1 R/G is a single nominator who had gradually more GAs under their belt at the time of each nomination.  If we were to implement some form of this it would be based on GAs and R/G at runtime instead, but I don't have that data quickly accessible.  I doubt there's any difference in the outcomes.  Also, this graph doesn't take into account the "use most favourable ratio of lifetime vs. last X months". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)



Any opinions on this approach from others? Does anyone else think this could work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "work"? Do you think it would reduce the actual backlog instead of just hiding it? I am skeptical. Personally, I would like us to use all available carrot (more recognition and love for reviewers) before we add more stick (barriers to participation for non-reviewing nominators). Hiding some nominations may feel like punishment to some nominators, and just hides the backlog instead of doing anything about it. I have come to stop viewing backlog drives as a band-aid on a failed process: their competitive nature makes them something where we focus on and celebrate reviewers, not GA nominators. —Kusma (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * By "work" I meant "be beneficial to GAN"; that is, make GAN run more smoothly and better align reviews with nominations. If the above idea were to work in that sense, it would be because more nominators were prompted to become reviewers, enough to make the difference, and eliminate the backlog. I don't entirely agree with you about backlog drives -- yes, the competitive nature helps, but they burn reviewers out, and the result is fewer subsequent reviews, and I suspect the shorter wait time drives up the rate of nominations.  It's like bailing a leaky boat -- the water pours in faster the lower the level gets. I have to say that SusunW's response, above, that she writes and nominates articles in the expectation of collaboration at GAN, and would write less if her R/G ration banned her from GAN, is the most discouraging point I've read.  I would hate to make a change that reduced her motivation for writing.  I am sure there are others like here and I'm finding it hard to see how to accommodate editors like her in any approach to GAN that feels fair but is tilted towards encouraging reviewing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is a good idea; it looks like QPQ by any other name, i.e. pressure to review. The collapse thing looks and feels like a punishment - if you're bad, your nominations will be hidden. Oh, and we tried collapsing already, and it didn't hide enough articles from enough nominators, so let's collapse a whole lot more by some yet more complicated set of rules. One of several things that seems to be being missed here is that creating GA-quality articles is a skill, and a time-consuming one: work is being given to the project. The skills of creating and reviewing are clearly different, and both are necessary; but it's far from obvious that everyone can be good at both, or that liking one makes one good at the other; or that (QPQ) doing one should oblige one to do the other. If we genuinely believe in QPQ, we should enforce it; if we don't, which seems to be the case, we should not try to enforce it. I don't see that discouraging nominations in any way, for any nominators new or old, is a good move. Wikipedia consists, for its readers, of articles (good or not); I hope everyone can agree that it is better if readers see good articles. We know that GAs are only a small percentage of the total: but if the effort to promote them is well-chosen by topic - i.e. we work on well-visited topics - then the chance that a visitor will encounter a well-written article improves. I agree with Kusma that hiding a backlog is not an improvement; and that backlog drives, which competitive people seem to enjoy, and which seem to work well on collaborative projects like Women in Green, are beneficial, and very likely necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Creating GA-quality articles is a time-consuming task, but also the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. Nominating them is neither—it is asking for another time-consuming task to be performed, for very little benefit. There is no effort to promote GAs to the general reader—nearly all have no idea what the green circle or bronze star mean—so the only real benefit is the self-satisfaction of the nominator. That said, we really should be trying more carrots, as Kusma has said, than resorting to the stick and only the stick. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Readers on mobile devices don't even get to see the little green circle, I've no idea why as it limits GA to a niche audience (I don't mean just nominators and reviewers, but ...). The benefit of GA is however not just self-satisfaction but that articles become better for everyone, whether readers know how their article was prepared or not (a restaurant metaphor comes to mind). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In both the most recent GAs I reviewed (Talk:Maria Mies/GA1) and nominated (Talk:Michael Huber (writer)/GA1), there was very detailed reviewer engagement with the text and a marked improvement of the article, in a collaborative process. We do not have enough things on Wikipedia where people truly work together closely on a single article, and to me the GA recognition by the green plus is far less important than knowing that at least one person really deeply engaged with my article and helped me make it better. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point of putting some nominations in a penalty box. It isn't going to reduce the backlog, it isn't going to change the prioritization, it isn't going to make those other nominations above the penalty box more visible, and it isn't likely to cause boxed nominators to want to continue as contributors to the GA ecosystem. All it's likely to do is to increase the waiting time of some of these penalty-box nominations from months to years, and maybe discourage some contributors from improving articles to GA-nomination-worthy quality. For what benefit? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I no longer think this is worth trying. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Review types
Some of the comments above, Chiswick Chap's in particular, have convinced me that collapsing more nominations is not the way to go. I want to respond to Kusma's comment about the review types though. I have certainly had (and performed) GA reviews that resemble what Kusma describes -- detailed reviewer engagement and a marked improvement of the article -- but of course there are other types of review, and often one knows even before the review starts what it will be: I'm sure there are more types. I sometimes think it would be nice if the GAN page was divided up this way instead of by subject. When I review, I open up the article before committing to the review, and try to decide which of the above types it is. I had time to review something this morning, and went looking for the highest priority nomination that I knew would be a fairly easy one, and found one near the top of the list. I have to have a lot more time to commit before I'm willing to pick up some of the other types of review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Detailed reviewer engagement with a high quality article leading to an improved article.
 * An article (usually by a very experienced nominator) where there is very little to say, or at least the list of bullet points you come up with is minor. One knows ahead of time that the article is going to pass.
 * An article from a new or newish nominator with obvious problems. Usually a quickfail, but sometimes a teaching opportunity.  That means the time investment can vary from half an hour to many hours.
 * An article from an established editor with limited prose skills -- sometimes the nominator has English as a second language. These are often good in many ways but the prose can be difficult to work with.  I find these hard to do because I know the nominator is unlikely to be able to improve their prose skills, but I don't want to say "don't nominate without a co-editor who can write well".  I usually end up either fixing the prose myself, if it's a shortish article, or failing it with examples while feeling bad about it.
 * An article that goes into great detail about something, usually in pop culture. These are usually long, almost entirely supported by web citations, and vary in quality; they can be a grind to review because one has to immerse oneself in the details to understand the prose.  Trying to trim trivia from these can be painful.  There's one of these near the top of the current backlog, and I think a lot of reviewers shy away from this sort of article.
 * Articles on huge topics, such as logic, which recently passed. These reviews are almost like research projects; just checking that appropriate sources have been used requires more scholarship than most editors are going to have on any particular topic.


 * I alluded to 'structural' reviews earlier, which I think is a missing category here. A lot of articles are nominated when they have significant structural concerns that aren't necessarily noticeable at a quick glance. The archetypal example is biographies that aren't particularly 'biographic', and mostly list things with which the subject has been associated without connecting them in a cogent way. To take an example from my past reviews, though the article has fallen a little substandard due to getting massively more edits and attention in the interim (though I'm trying to clean it up, though I think I'm the only current watcher): maia arson crimew looked like this at the time of nomination, and this shortly after becoming a GA.
 * Articles with these problems at nomination are fairly common, especially for newer nominators, but very experienced ones can and do write them (and they're more likely to pass without structural work in such cases). They overlap quite heavily with short articles, because there's just a ton that hasn't been mined from the sources yet. These shouldn't ever pass without structural work -- they categorically fail 'broad' -- but they do, because many GA reviews are overly prose-focused and don't necessarily notice these issues. A lot of the time reviewers are willing to assume absences reflect source limitations, or nominators try to petition for them to be ignored on that basis (when if the sourcing doesn't exist for broadness, the implications of that should go the other way). I pick up these when I look at them for long enough and get bogged down in "if anyone else reviews this they'll either pass it after fixing 3 typos or quickfail it, and both of those would be bad outcomes", but there's a lot of them and many I just ignore. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Another "type" I've sometimes unfortunately encountered is articles that superficially look like they should be of the type described in the second bullet point ("very little to say ... One knows ahead of time that the article is going to pass") but turn out to have major sourcing or text-copying problems leading to a fail. Those can be an unexpected time sink. But I think they are the ones that it's most important to spend that time on, because the alternative is a superficial review that allows them to pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a good summary of how GA reviews generally go for me. It can be very rewarding to push an article to GA by close collaboration with a new nominator who wasn't quite there, but it takes work. Sometimes it's easier to go review an article you're almost certain will pass by someone who already has 30 GAs to their name. The most intimidating, by far, are the last type, on high-level and broad topics; I don't think I've ever done one. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible small tweak to prioritization formula
The current system currently prioritizes (48 reviews, 438 GAs) above (2 reviews, 26 GAs) above (0 reviews, 3 GAs). I would prioritize those in the opposite order. One easy way of tweaking the system to do that would be to replace the current priority formula reviews/GAs by a slightly modified formula. Some experimentation suggests that (reviews+1)/GAs works pretty well. Intuitively, this is easy to explain: it means that we would be spotting each nominator a single free review. With that prioritization, the priorities for (0,3), (2,26), and (48,438) would be 0.333, 0.115, and 0.112, in the order I would prefer. There would not be much change in the relative priorities of reviewers who have both many reviews and many nominations. The effect of this change is mainly to the priorities of newcomers to the GA system. Is there any interest in trying this? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support free reviews in this manner (anywhere between say 1 and 5), and the proposal seems simple enough to implement. If I recall correctly the topic was discussed before, but we didn't move on it. I don't think the proposed tweak will matter too much at higher numbers, but it seems worth it to provide feedback to newer nominators sooner. CMD (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This would be fairly easy to implement. Because of the earlier discussions about this, the bot already has a similar option implemented.  There's a parameter called "Free GAs", which is currently set to zero.  If Free GAs is set to 1, then any nominator with that many GAs or less is sorted above every other nominator.  So (0,1) would be below (x,0) and above everything else.  (0,2) would be sorted as it is now.  I don't think this is as good as what David is suggesting, but I mention it in case anyone else likes that approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I like David's proposal - if it's as straightforward to implement as you say, I say we go for it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If we get three or four more people agreeing, and nobody objects, I'll make the change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I'm lucky that my first and currently only GA nomination was a high-priority article (Costa Concordia disaster), otherwise I could've expected to wait months. Cessaune   [ talk ]   21:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth a shot. The main effect should be that newcomers do not get pushed to the bottom of the list upon their first successful nomination. It doesn't keep them at the top of the list either, however, which I think is an important feature that distinguishes it from the "Free GAs" approach. This is all assuming that the order the nominations are listed in is an important factor, which I'll admit I'm not entirely convinced is true (or at least I'm not convinced of the extent to which the order matters). TompaDompa (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was that important either and was thus skeptical of the formula change. However, if the backlog rate is similar but the oldest unreviewed articles are getting older, that suggests it does have an impact. CMD (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We should do something to make nominators not fall down so much in the sort order after they have their first GA promoted. This is something in that direction. I don't know if it does enough, but I don't think it will do any harm. —Kusma (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that's enough agreement to try it. I should have time to look at this tomorrow; if it's easy I'll make the change tomorrow, otherwise it won't be before Thursday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And a P.S. to TompaDompa's comment: I only review intermittently, but when I do I now pick almost solely from the top of the list. I would not be surprised if there are others who do the same. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been done. Let me know if anyone sees any problems with the new sort order. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the change, Mike! —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Tasking Jonathan Blow/GA1 for WP:G6 deletion
Hello, more than a week ago, begun a GA review for the article Jonathan Blow. After more than five days without any comments, I asked Prinaki on their talk page if they intended to do the review at all. They said:


 * "i don't intend to complete it further. It was a mistake to create it."

and as such I'd like to task the review for deletion per the instructions at WP:GAN/I.

I've never requested a deletion of a page before, however, and I don't know how to do this in the context of GAN. Can someone please task and/or delete Talk:Jonathan Blow/GA1 for me? Thanks, Neuroxic (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * G7ed and rolled back the bot to set it up for a de novo review. Courcelles (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Neuroxic (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Need Some Eyes on Two Reviews
Very inadequate reviews, more eyes would be appreciated: « Gonzo fan2007 <small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)  @ 15:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk:Matthew Wright (basketball)/GA1
 * Talk:Nestory Irankunda/GA1


 * Why isn't this editor blocked yet? All they've done is submit drafts on non-notable, often previously deleted footballers again and again and again and again without addressing the issues from prior declines, and now they're literally socking to pass their articles through GA. JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are familiar, please file an SPI. For the moment, unless there are objections, I will roll back the two passes of JRevewier. I have never seen a GAN say "still missing a lead section" or "paraphrasing might have been used from articles seen" before. CMD (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/JC Kotisow  SN54129  13:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the unrestored GAN tag. Aside from some potential fiddling with the GA list which will be caught by the bots if it exists later, no more action needs to be taken here. CMD (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Willbb234
This user is repeatedly removing the GA symbol on passed articles and changing "listed" to "failed" on talkpage templates - without any other edits. Initially also without explanation, but is now claiming that he doesn't think it's GA and therefore fails. Warning to revert on sight. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's because I'm the reviewer and I failed the article. Willbb234 22:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You were the reviewer for the GAN of Venezuela at the 1956 Summer Olympics in April 2021, which closed as not listed. You however were not the reviewer for the subsequent GAN in July 2021 that resulted in the article being listed. There's been no other activity on the article's talk page since then, and you've not followed any of the steps for a GA reassessment.
 * As another reviewer listed the article as a GA two months after your review, if you believe that the article no longer meets the GA criteria then you need to follow the process laid out at WP:GAR for a reassessment. You cannot arbitrarily delist a GA without discussion or consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It was relisted without the issue being addressed and there was no attempt to reach out to me concerning the issue (whether they agreed or not with me). It's plain disrespectful to do this and undermines the whole point of the GA review process. Willbb234 23:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It was listed, not relisted, after passing a successful GAN, with the reviewer who passed it being one of the current GA coordinators. There's nothing in WP:GAN/I that states that a reviewer who failed the article must be consulted before another reviewer can pass it. However there is a FAQ entry that directly covers this circumstance, the second to last one on the page, which states that If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the GA criteria, you can initiate a reassessment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I must add that your belief that it is "undermining" and "disrespectful" to not ask you for permission before doing another GAN is, I mean, ridiculous. Or were you expecting to be not only consulted, but able to have the final say, on the status of this article in perpetuity? Because that's called WP:OWN - and seemingly attempting to use your misunderstanding of the GAN process as a way to stamp authority on your editing mindset, too. I explained all of what Sideswipe has above to you, and you said, what was it, I found a really long way to say nothing at all? I just hope you understand now. Kingsif (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * it's the wrong way to handle it though. In your review you said, "I'm concerned with the over-reliance on one source. Also, the excessive use of sports-reference isn't ideal as it really only lists results." and you cited this as a reason to not list the article, "I am particularly concerned about the over-reliance on a single, dated source which makes the verifiability of the article questionable, thus failing WP:GACR point 2." If you think the most recent review didn't adequately address that, you can start a reassessment as explained. There you can raise those concerns and let other editors weigh in.
 * Also, there's no obligation for to reach out for a future review. Imagine how unfeasible that would be for an editor with a few hundred reviews to be perpetually held accountable for all those articles. Take care, Rjjiii (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Besides the point - the editing behaviour years after it being passed is the concern - but since you've mentioned the user's one issue with it passing, we have to note that their misunderstanding is not just of the process but the criteria: the "single, dated source"? The official report on the event. Of course it's dated, it happened in 1956. It's also clearly the most reliable source. How an official source being contemporaneous with the event makes the verifiability of the article questionable would be the real questionable part. Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I made you feel on the spot. My point in quoting the review is not that anything is wrong with the article, but that the concern was initially made in good faith. The problem is not the content but the manual removal of the template, edit-warring to keep it off, and attempting to police future GA reviews. Even if an editor is mistaken, they are still free to open up the review; it just creates a discussion in the page's history for future editors. Rjjiii (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you didn't; I was being a bit sharp that it would be (was - I suppose I don't remember, which is also your point) a strange reason to fail a review (that's not what WP:V is about), and so something even stranger to create conflict over years later. Kingsif (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The way the GA review process works is a single editor nominates and a single editor reviews, with the reviewer being the ultimate decider on the outcome of the review. When I failed the article on 2 April 2021, a single day later, the article was renominated without any edits addressing the issue or any attempt to discuss the issue with me. This is not in the spirit of the GA review process as it ignores the assessment of the reviewer. The nominator is more than welcome to disagree with the assessment of the reviewer but at that point, the nom must be willing to open up a discussion with the reviewer and ignoring the issue and bypassing this decision is simply disrespestful towards the reviewer. Asking for a second opinion is a much more reasonable line of action. It also sets a bad precedent for future nominations - if noms are simply allowed to renominate without addressing any issues then this undermines the whole process (one nom and one reviewer) and is also a complete waste of reviewer time (two reviews have to take place instead of just one).

Now I'd like to turn to 's comments as of late. Following the initial edits, Kingsif went to my talkpage and asked "What the fuck is wrong with you". Following the reversion, Kingsif suggested I had "reading difficulties", was a vandal, or had a "massive arrogant ego" and told me to "stay away". They then said that my action was "malicious" or "dangerously incompetent" in an attempt to convince an admin to block me, and they also proceeded to remove their previous comments as the likely realised how others would perceive them. I have to ask why this editor is throwing a temper tantrum over a fucking green circle? I have been considering taking this to ANI over their behaviour as I believe the personal attacks are the only "malicious" thing going on here, to use your own language.

Several editors have suggested that an article reassessment is the best course of action. While I have considered this option, I don't believe it is a good use of editor resources, nor in the spirit of the review process to request a reassessment. This is because issues should be addressed at the initial review stage or the nom should attempt to challenge the comments at the failed review, neither of which were done. I believe the issue is legitimate. How am I to believe that a report written in 1956 is reliable? I don't know the author and I don't know in what context this was written. Just because it is 'official' it doesn't mean it's reliable to the extent that you can base nearly an entire article off of it. Also saying that "it's clearly the most reliable source" isn't a valid argument as we need reliable sources not the most reliable. I would also note that regurgitating results from sports-reference and the official report and then attempting to draw the results into long paragraphs isn't a good way to go and brings the 'well-written' criteria into question. I hope that other editors agree with what I have to say. Willbb234 20:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * When I failed the article on 2 April 2021, a single day later, the article was renominated without any edits addressing the issue or any attempt to discuss the issue with me. This is directly addressed in the GA FAQ that I linked in my last reply. The question I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified! is answered with That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your suggestions to improve the article while deciding on their review. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and fail the article again. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the GA criteria, you can initiate a reassessment.
 * It is entirely within the GA process to renominate an article at any point after the failure. That Kingsif did not make any edits doesn't really matter per the FAQ answer I just quoted. What matters is that two months later in July 2021, one of the current GA coordinators, reviewed the article, and through that review listed it as a GA. Because this article was listed within process, by another reviewer, your only choice of recourse is to start a GAR as I've said previously. You cannot unilaterally decide that the second review was invalid because you weren't notified or consulted, and remove the GA listing without going through the GAR process.
 * As for the diffs from Kingsif on your talk page, this is not the place to discuss those as this is not a behavioural noticeboard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Why do you think quoting an FAQ, the specific section of which your are referring to was written in 2012 is a valid argument to make? Also how does Lee Vilenski being a GA coordinator have any relevance? Are you suggesting that he is any more competent than I am? I am talking about the spirit of the GA review process and you are attempting to make weak arguments. Willbb234 21:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , everyone here has tried to explain to you that your understanding is incorrect and that you no longer have authority over a review once the review is over. No single person can claim authority or jurisdiction over any article. It would be a good idea to forget about this article and find something else to work on, because it's really inappropriate to try to take charge after the GA review is over. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. One is a reviewer for the duration of the review. Other processes such as GAR and GAN can run later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is what the good article criteria looked like in 2011. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am currently super short on time, so can't read into this at the detail I'd like to, but if you fail a GAN and then it is relisted, you do not get to choose the result in the process of the second GAN, unless you either pick up the review, or are asked for second opinion.
 * If you think that the review is substandard, you can post here (more suitable for newer reviewers), or open up a GAR. You can't just unlist something.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

quick pass
Seeing many fly by passes as of late like Talk:Sybil (cat)/GA1. Do we not review these at all? Moxy - 12:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think the review was inadequate in some way, ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. The unspoken standards expected of a GA have generally been increasing, but the will to apply them consistently has been decreasing. The main culprit appears to be the pre-load text that was implemented a few months ago, giving inexperienced reviewers a convenient checklist to go through so they can call it a day. Combine that with the vague/unhelpful good article instructions and the general disagreement over what the basic standards for a review even are, and voila. For a while I was tracking the frequency of checklist reviews on this talk page, but that made a few people more upset than the actual checklist reviews themselves. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 13:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That made a few people more upset than the actual checklist reviews themsleves is not what I got from that thread. Many very experienced editors, including some with several FACs under their belts, pointed out that the length of a GAC review (both in terms of time from opening to pass and pagesize of the review page) has nothing to do with the quality of the review. Moreover, if someone passes a particular criterion, we should AGF and take them for their word that they've actually reviewed the article for that criterion (e.g., if there's no OR, why should someone need to write out "I reviewed the article and didn't find any OR" when there's a handy checklist that indicates that that's the case?). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been watching a steady rotation of 400-word cat articles appear on GAN and disappear a week later. It's not how I interpret GACR, but I don't plan to start workshopping GACR clarifications until after the backlog drive (which I've already set up the scoring system for in a way that should avoid too many of the more controversial reviews). Regarding quickpasses in general: they've always been a thing, and they've always been "controversial but not outright banned". It's reasonable to hold the position that nitpicking just to nitpick when an article already clearly fits GACR is unnecessary; the issue tends to be interpreting what clearly fits GACR. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 17:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to how you can quick pass an article when you're expected to do a spot-check at minimum for source integrity/plagiarism at each review : 3 F4U (they/it) 20:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can about as well say "when you're expected to assess any of the other criteria" -- the conceit is that quickpassing is 'when someone has reviewed all the criteria and genuinely doesn't believe there are any issues holding up a promotion'. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 20:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * pinging as they should be notified of this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the issue with the cat articles. I try to make them the best that they can be with the extant information, and I am certain they pass every GA criterion. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that the main reviewer, voorts, does do legitimate reviews: on Peter III's article for instance, he pulled me up on when I misplaced a few refs, which I fixed; there would be no chance of that happening with a quickpass. I'd advise not to conflate a succinct review with a bad one. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's an unsettled existential dispute about how short is too short for GA, when lack of sourcing crosses into "there just isn't enough for broad coverage of this to be possible", and when WP:NOPAGE applies. A number of these also come up at FAC (see current debates around Pope Sisinnius, and in particular how the article has more than doubled in size since the beginning of the review). I agree with the second point; it's much harder to spot how a review actually went from its review page alone than a lot of people think. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've participated in the Pope Sisinnius FAC. It has my full support as an FA. I won't be nominating any more articles for at least three weeks, so you don't need to worry. When nominating Sybil, I sought Unlimiteadlead's advice on whether it could be a GA, and they responded positively. If you'd like to see any other, longer GAs I've worked on, I worked on Charles III in March through to May. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of your work and have substantial respect for it. It's an observable-fact that editors with a lot of quality-assessed articles tend to have both very long and very short (by 'what they're willing to nominate') articles with a larger raw number of the latter, and this is something I think about when trying to standardize "is there a point where breadth or comprehensiveness just isn't possible?"; there's a real degree to which people's 'stats' reflect different views on what fits GACR or FACR more than it does different writing habits, especially at the GA level due to reviewer variance. There are alternative ways of measuring article improvement impact (e.g. measuring by views), but these also have problems -- I'm fairly sympathetic to the argument where 'good articles on niches' is Wikipedia's strength. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you; your work is also noted. I make no bones about the fact I would like to get that particular series of articles to GT, although I won't sacrifice quality for speed. It isn't my main project either, which would be getting Henry VI of England to a readable state. I enjoy reading niche GAs, which is the main reason as to why I'm doing this, not because I like cats or whatever. I began work on the chief mouser articles nearly a month ago, and have gotten just six through as of now; hardly going for quantity over quality. I'd like you to know that I do take care when writing, and I'm not going to nominate any old rubbish for GA. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pinging me @Onegreatjoke. I did the review, and it was not a "fly-by". As you can see from my review (and the page history), I copy-edited the article before passing. Since the article is short, I also cite-checked every single source (@Freedom4U), both in that article and the other cat articles that Tim has nominated and I've reviewed. I've also searched through available newspaper archives (going beyond what GA reviews require), to ensure that the articles are as broad and in depth as possible; you can see this most clearly from my recent review of Nelson. During my reviews, I've found Tim to be a careful editor who pays attention to detail. The speed with which the reviews were conducted reflect (1) that the articles were short; (2) that Tim has been easy to work with; and (3) that I am a fast researcher and copy editor.
 * I agree with @Vaticidalprophet: It's reasonable to hold the position that nitpicking just to nitpick when an article already clearly fits GACR is unnecessary; the issue tends to be interpreting what clearly fits GACR. As to what fits GACR, I do not believe that notability guidelines such as NOPAGE should have any bearing on whether something meets GACR, and I don't think it's the responsibility of a GA reviewer to ignore GACR and sua sponte conduct a review for deletion. If everything has been written about a notable topic that can be written, and that results in a short article, I don't see why that shouldn't meet GACR #3 as currently written. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 backlog drive
Per above, I'm interested in orchestrating another backlog drive next month. I think the optimal drive strategy, especially under our current circumstances of severe backlog, builds off the July 2021 pattern of bonus points both for old nominations and long articles; our barnstar points setup was built assuming that many sources of points, and became a bit awkward after we abolished the latter. I looked back through the archives to find my statistical rundown of anticipated article lengths:

"I ran the numbers for twenty randomly selected articles in the March drive. (Selection method: I put them all in a list, had random.org randomise the list, and picked the twenty at the top.) I used Prosesize to calculate the current length of the articles -- some could have been expanded or contracted significantly in the intervening period, but I sanity-checked a couple for it and didn't find any reason to suspect my numbers would be systematically off. In this sample, I found a median length of 1805 words with an interquartile range of 1445 (25th percentile) to 4255 (75th percentile). The mean was quite a bit bigger than the median due to the effect of one particularly long article, at 2584 words. The total range was from 693 words (Charles A. Cheever) to 8094 words (2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)) -- the latter being over three thousand words longer than the next longest article, with no other articles in the sample being above 5000 words. From the totally unscientific method of 'looking at the full list', I think my sample may underrepresent articles that were failed during the drive -- not sure what effect that'd have, but worth noting the shortest article was a quickfail. The next decision from here is, I suppose, how often we want people to get bonus points; I'm no GOCE expert, but I do their drives when they run, and I have the impression very few participants get the 5k words bonuses."

I plan to do an analysis like this again, because I wonder if it's generalizable to today -- the shortest article was a Coldwell, which is no longer a factor, but I have the strong intuitive sense that there are way more very short (<800 words) articles in the backlog than I'm used to. Given there hasn't been a drive since the Jan reforms, it's tricky to figure out what from prior drive data is still applicable.

I also think there are some obstacles around the fact the GA criteria are currently even more in flux than usual, and disagreement over what counts under them is more prominent than it's been for a long time -- such disagreements were part of why the previous drive wasn't followed up for so long, and backlog drives (which see both way more quickfails and way more relatively surface-level passes than normal circumstances) are a pretty awkward time to try implement across-the-board reforms. I have the intuitive sense to include some kind of "passing articles below X length doesn't count for points" rule (because short articles have been a historically major source of surface-y drive passes), but I know I'm a hardliner on the GA length question and don't know if this reflects community consensus. I don't want to turn another backlog drive into another major dispute about GACR. Still, I would like us to not have a nine-month backlog at some point. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 13:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In previous backlog drives, we did three criteria for completeness:
 * Addresses all the criteria
 * Provides at least one suggestion for improvement
 * Includes spot checks
 * Then there was an issue with some coordinators feeling that they needed to personally check all of the reviews, although others felt that just doing a sampling was ok especially if there were no issues with that person's reviews. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've never participated in a GA review drive – if I've reviewed during one at all it was due to my usual reviewing practice of picking up whatever article seems interesting, so take my comments for as little as they're worth! – but I would consider coordinators checking every single review a complete waste of time; if a reviewer does 10 reviews there's no need to check every single one unless there's a reason to be concerned. People's time would be much better spent reviewing an article on their own than checking through ten reviews by the same reviewer. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That last sentence was the kicker, I believe. I really don't think it should be implemented again—it was just asking for coordinator burnout. An August drive is a good idea—I think we should probably try to make them twice-yearly. Half points for old articles, one point per 4000/4500 words reviewed sounds good enough to me, spotchecks of 5 or 10% of sources, and at least one improvement suggestion is a good, basic criteria set. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to redo the points from scratch and avoid half points. Random proposal: base of 5 for each review, 1-5 bonus points depending on age, 1-5 bonus points depending on length. —Kusma (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Can we maybe eliminate the automatically-added tickbox-template from Template:GAN/preload before starting a new review drive? I think it is a big part of the reason we have been getting so many more tickbox-only reviews, and a big part of the problematic aspects of the last review drive. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm of 1.5 minds to boldly remove the checklist. I outright had a tab open, having clicked 'restore this version' to the pre-checklist and typing in the edit summary, and closed it figuring I might as well ask first. I think we have something good enough for consensus to remove it and don't need to hold another RfC, but I'll at least give a heads-up first that I intend on removing it soon unless there's a sudden groudswell of opposition. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 11:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , the tickbox template wasn't present when the last drive took place. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with removing before we start a drive. The tickbox template was a valid experiment, but it does not seem to have been successful. —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to see that another drive is being planned. Looking forward to taking part for the first time! Grk1011 (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a new reviewer/editor and didn't know the tick box was only a recent change, but I'm glad it's going away. I definitely noticed pretty quickly that it's not very helpful at all and got in the habit of simply deleting it before starting a review. : 3 F4U (they/it) 20:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Backlog drive signup page up
I've created the signup page. This is still a little preliminary (note the existence of exactly one coord), but it's committing to it as at least a serious proposal now. I've used generally the July 2021 structure, with some tweaks. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the point system. Reaching the top three awards tiers should be a probability, not a near-impossibility as it was last time around. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm going to sign up, but I could produce lists of who's reviewed what during the drive very easily, if that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to add the tab for this to the top like was done in the past? I'm not sure how others are supposed to find out about this upcoming event. Grk1011 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Grk1011 I've just done it. Thanks for the suggestion : 3 F4U (they/it) 16:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

DeepStateMap.Live
Hello, the above article has been at GA nomination since 1 May 2023. I was intending to review it, but instead put the cleanup tag. After getting a reply from User:Johnson524, the nominator, I'm not sure if I am right about the tag (see User_talk:Amitchell125). Have I made an error somewhere? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just from a quick look, I too would be concerned about some of the social media sourcing. For instance, the first source I checked was for the claim "Deep State UA's work has also been cited by foreign organizations; including ... NBC News[23]"  The source given is this tweet, which is from an NBC foreign correspondent.  There's no evidence that this is official NBC footage, and I can't see that it verifies that NBC News have cited Deep State's work. Indeed, it's not clear to me that it even supports the weaker claim that that particular journalist has cited Deep State's work: they never specifically name Deep State as a source.
 * I would also be potentially concerned about WP:DUE. Looking at the "Media attention and use" section of the article, this mostly seems to be cited to primary sources.  If no secondary sources have commented on the fact that any random media outlet has used the map, should it be in the article? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (Similarly re. the Telegram post: maybe it's just because I don't use Telegram, but I don't see anything in this post which demonstrates their first Telegram post was on 1 March 2020, and even if it does, if no secondary sources report that then who cares?) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Caeciliusinhorto-public (and @Buidhe) for your feedback on this! I really do appreciate any comments and concerns about the article, as I would like to see the page eventually reach GA status, as mentioned above. There are a few things I would like to address: firstly, you make some strong points on the NBC News citation, and while it does look like they are using the map, the name is never explicitly said, and so that will be removed. Secondly, for your concern of WP:DUE, I might have went overboard on mentioning pretty much every new source that has used the map, and I see that, oops. I believe having the section though really helps establish the map's notability to the public (outside of interviews and reports) and should be kept at least in some capacity. Do you think that slimming down the section to just the media with an English Wikipedia article would work, or do you think even further to just the most important Ukrainian officials (the Center for Countering Disinformation, Oleksii Arestovych, Oleksii Reznikov, Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, and the Territorial Defense Forces (Ukraine))? Finally, for your concern about the 1 March 2020 Telegram post, it is the first viewable post you can see from Deep State UA on the messaging service, and with the organization first starting off there, I believe it is important to mention as it signifies the start of the company. I hope this was helpful, and sorry about the length of the reply. Cheers!  Johnson 524  (Talk!) 06:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's still original research to say it was the first post. For all we know there were earlier posts that were deleted. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If earlier posts were deleted, it likely would have been done on purpose, so wouldn't that still make this date notable for being the first purposeful post? (albeit, a change of wording in the article to match this may be an order).  Johnson 524  (Talk!) 06:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is speculation though (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean, the article will changed accordingly. While you're here, what do you think about my proposal to tackle the WP:DUE problem?  Johnson 524  (Talk!) 07:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe and @Caeciliusinhorto-public, I am against double pinging and I'm sorry about that, but I believe I have addressed all of your issues with the page discussed here (including the first Telegram post and the DUE problems, which I slimmed down to just organizations with an English Wikipedia article since there was no comments otherwise). @Amitchell125, do you think that the article is in a state where a GA nomination could begin, or am I still missing some things? Cheers!  Johnson 524  (Talk!) 03:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone to check my work
Hello all. I have been participating in NPP and DYK. I have also worked on several good articles. I would like to try reviewing an article and I am wondering if anyone would volunteer to check my work? Thank you all and have a great Sunday! Bruxton (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm happy to have a look, just ping me or drop me a line once you're ready. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I appreciate it. Bruxton (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Co-review a GAN
Hello! @DreamRimmer and I were thinking of co-reviewing an article for good article status. Are co-reviews allowed? I assume so, but thought I’d ask. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It has happened, but it's also emphatically something the process doesn't want to establish a habit/expectation about. What specific article are you looking at and what are you envisioning when you picture a co-review? <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Haven’t decided on an article yet. Probably just one that needs reviewed of a topic we’re interested in. I think we’re envisioning discussing each criteria together and sharing thoughts, improvements, knowledge, and ideas with each other as we’re both new to GAN. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If there were a rule preventing you from doing this, it would be best to ignore it. There may some bot-related weirdness to be aware of (like it listing only the creator of the review page at the top), but I doubt you'll run into any major issues. You could also both start your own separate reviews, help each other by double-checking each others' work, and potentially ask for a mentor here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally, the rare contexts people have co-reviewed articles relate to extremely big-topic articles that are difficult for one person to handle alone (e.g. Simón Bolívar), but even such articles are almost always reviewed by a single editor (e.g. Prehistoric religion) -- if usually with commentary from others. (Lot of people make comments when a big article is at GAN.) For new editors looking to get a sense of how GAN works who want explicit supervision, usually people ask somebody either here or directly on their talk to look over a review before they pass it. I'm very willing to do that and have done so in the past -- I can also answer any questions you might have about reviewing in general. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that the backlog drive (do reviews, receive barnstars) is coming up, and it would be fantastic to see more signups. I'm willing to provide any help necessary to newer reviewers to get a sense of how GANs work before the drive. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we’ll attempt to do a co-review, even if it isn’t common. I’ll definitely take you up on the offer for help! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just be aware the software will probably only pick up one of you as the reviewer (likely the one who creates the page). CMD (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what will happen. If there's a lot of support for recording co-reviewers (and co-nominators) let me know as there would probably need to be an RfC to make the necessary template changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to go too far down the co-reviewer slope -- it's a load-bearing GAN vs FAC distinction imo, much moreso than differences in criteria (and in the hypothetical choice between "explicitly set GACR at FACR, single reviewer" and "make GAN multi-party, with a low-threshold reading of GACR" I'd take #1 unhesitatingly). If GAN becomes "multi-party, just with even less agreement about what you're going for than FAC and an even longer backlog before liftoff", that bodes poorly for the process's health. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 02:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Experimental AI script to help verify sources
I wrote an experimental user script that aims to help reviewers verify whether a reliable source supports a claim. It is called "Source Verification AI Assistant". It attempts to find sentences in the source that support the claim and quotes them. A few examples can be found at User:Phlsph7/SourceVerificationAIAssistant.

The underlying AI technology is very new and often gives inaccurate responses. The script is still at an experimental stage and reviewers should not rely on it for their spotchecks. If the script does not encounter any sentence, it does not mean that the source is irrelevant. It only means that the reviewer has to read through the source themself. If it does quote sentences then the reviewer has to ensure that (1) the sentences are from the reliable source and (2) they support the claim. I included various warning messages in the script and its documentation. Please let me know if you have further ideas on how to discourage misuse or how to improve the script. For more details on how to use it, its functions, and its limitations, see User:Phlsph7/SourceVerificationAIAssistant. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I look forwards to trying out this new tool. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I've experimented with LLM-enhanced proofreading but not had anything so far that was usable in a review (or for my own articles) -- hallucination rate too high even with careful prompting, but this is probably a temperature problem in part (I habitually set temperatures very high because it's what I prefer for general LLM use, then don't always turn them down low enough when decreasing). I'll test this on known-supported sources first sometime. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 04:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Review by sockpuppet
Is there a policy on reviews by sockpuppets? Talk:Sanctioned Suicide/GA1 was reviewed by new user who turned out to be a confirmed sock. This doesn't give me a lot of confidence that the review was legitimate. RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think their review should be nullified per WP:BMB. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  16:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have anything specific (other than obviously you can't sock to review your own nomination), but nomination pages like other sock creations can be WP:G5ed by another editor if they feel it would be the best course of action. CMD (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see it has already been tagged for G5... RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends on the overall quality of the review. AFreshStart had 9 GAs to their name when it was discovered they were a sock account, and consensus at the time was to keep them listed. I've never had a good interaction with a sockpuppet review myself but there are a few that have stood up to scrutiny. I hate to admit it, but sometimes sockpuppets can legitimately contribute to the project.
 * Taking a look at the review as a whole, I am concerned about the rubber-stamped nature of it all, it raises red flags. There are some questionable sources as well, which shouldn't have been passed. I agree with the delisting for now.
 * @RoySmith, I can grab GA2. I'll get around to that later today. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 18:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI I'm contesting deletion because the page doesn't qualify under G5. Edge3 (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have deleted it and adjusted the numbering; banned users don't get to review things. The deletion discussion was not substantial editing that would need to be preserved. —Kusma (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was in the process of contesting the applicability of G5... so speedy deletion should have been avoided as a controversial measure. Would you mind reverting, or should I go ahead an open a request for undeletion? Edge3 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:STICK RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol. I do feel so strongly that the discussion was ended prematurely. Also, Kusma ended up deleting our policy discussion along with the review itself. Talk about throwing out the baby along with the bathwater... ^_^ Edge3 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, STICK applies when debate has "has come to a natural end". Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a "natural end" when it comes to CSD. Due to its very nature, speedy deletion allows admins to put debate to an abrupt end, without allowing the community to fully flesh out its ideas.
 * I'll see if I request undeletion later today. I'm on my phone so I can't fill out the form until I get back to my laptop. Edge3 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops! Forgot to ping you :-) Edge3 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles deleted under CSD G5 are not eligible for undeletion requests. You could take it to WP:DRV, but better yet would be dropping the stick. It was a clear cut case of G5. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  20:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Only cases that are clear candidates under G5 get to be speedily deleted. In any case, where does it say that undeletion requests are not allowed? I think DRV would be extreme.... Edge3 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:Requests for undeletion lays out the specific scenarios that qualify for undeletion requests and none of them are G5. It also says "If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you try to discuss but are still unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here." –– Formal Dude  (talk)  21:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That page also states, Please do not request that pages deleted under speedy deletion criteria F7, F9, F11, U5, A7, A9, A11, G3, G4, G10, G11 or G12 be undeleted here. Since G5 is not a listed exception, one can reasonably infer that an undeletion request may be filed in lieu of DRV.
 * Anyway, might be best to wait for to chime in on how they want to handle this. Edge3 (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , regardless of what the procedural issue is, I don't think there's going to be much will to undelete. It was created by a sock, which is the most common case for applying G5. If you think there are some extraordinary circumstances involved, it's going to be an uphill battle to convince anyone. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedurally, G5 can't be used when the page has been "substantially edited by others". At the very least, the deletion discussion -- which centers on our interpretation of policy -- should have been segregated and kept, while the rest of the page was deleted. Nobody has argued that the contested deletion discussion fell within the scope of G5.
 * Also, since the deletion discussion has been deleted, I can't take this to DRV or any other appeals process because the underlying discussion is not available for review. So again, procedurally we're in a difficult spot because a G5 was challenged, but the path forward is unclear. Edge3 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article nominator agreed with nullifying the GA review. Edits outside of the sock GA review were only concerned with whether the review should be deleted or not, and had no substantive content otherwise. That a user is banned means they are not allowed to edit, and to enforce that we do not keep edits by banned users around if we don't have to. A substandard GA review is not a reason to make an exception to this. It is standard practice to delete the "contesting" of a speedy deletion together with or soon after the page is deleted; that the discussion was on the same page instead of a separate page (in most cases the contesting happens on the relevant talk page) does not change this. As the review has been nullified, there is currently no way for the DYK nomination to proceed; that can only happen after the page has been through a proper GA review by a non-banned user. @Edge3, I still don't understand what you need the page for that would override showing a banned user the door. —Kusma (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The path forward, in fact, is very clear. A new GA1 has been started by a non-sock (hallelujah) and the sock's edits remain buried per WP:DENY. The only editor who is in a "difficult spot" seems to be you, because you have a bee in your bonnet over procedure. WP:NOTBURO applies in cases involving arseholery intended to disrupt the project. Cheers,  SN54129  22:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Serial Number 54129 Careful what you wish for there. Maybe I'm Kate in disguise, or a representative of the cabal. You can never know these days, most of the time I don't even know myself. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 23:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I was the reviewer for this article at DYK before I even knew that a sockpuppet was involved. See Template:Did you know nominations/Sanctioned Suicide. The reason I'm paying such close attention to this article is because of its controversial subject matter. There's even a separate thread at WT:DYK on whether this article should be withheld from the Main Page, for fear of promoting suicide. Accordingly, I am trying my best to conduct the most thorough DYK review possible, which is even more important now that the GA reviewer was a sock.

At Talk:Sanctioned Suicide, the nominator (Freedom4U) responded to the banned user's comments, but I don't even know what those comments were. Deleting the GA review page has removed important context into the article's history. Apparently, there was some discussion about:
 * "scare quotes" — Which phrase uses scare quotes?
 * a reference to "sodium nitrite" — What was the comment here? Did the reviewer express a sourcing concern?
 * "unnecessary detail" — What was the comment here? Did the reviewer express a concern that we're being too descriptive in a particular way? What was the motivation behind the concern?
 * Were there other concerns that were raised but not immediately apparent from reading Talk:Sanctioned Suicide?

Now that the GA review has been called into question, I would like to explore these specific concerns and see whether I agree with them. Admittedly, I should have asked these questions before approving the DYK nomination, but hindsight is 20/20 and I'd rather ask them now before the article ends up on the Main Page. Of course, I am quite grateful that Etriusus has picked up the review, and once the second review completes I will read those comments as well. But as a DYK reviewer, I maintain that it is important to be thorough in understanding every editorial concern that has been raised, especially for a controversial topic such as assisted suicide.

WP:BRV does not mandate deletion in every case, and it allows us to retain the edits when they are helpful. I probably could have expressed my concerns better earlier today, but I was out running errands, became very concerned once I checked my phone and saw what was happening, and could only write brief messages through the mobile editor. I strongly object to any insinuation of hyper-proceduralism and disruption. I do feel that this article is sensitive enough to require the most stringent review possible before showing up on the Main Page. Edge3 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Edge3, I have moved the sock review to your userspace for your perusal. See User:Edge3/Sanctioned Suicide/GA1. When you no longer need the page, tag it with db-user and we can delete it again. —Kusma (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI for everyone involved, I'm starting a new review page now. Because @Kusma deleted the original review by User:Kate the mochii, it'll default back to GA1 when I create it. Please don't delete the updated review. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 20:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I promise I will not delete it :) —Kusma (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One of those rare instances Wikipedia's gotten a IRL laugh outta me. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 20:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * AFreshStart had 9 GAs to their name when it was discovered they were a sock account, and consensus at the time was to keep them listed -- not to reawaken any sleeping dogs, but would this be the AFreshStart of Jack Renshaw (terrorist) and Alice Butler-Short? My concerns with that editor's articles were completely unrelated to their sockpuppetry... <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think for the most part we have to trust that the GA reviewers did their due diligence, but we might want to look at Talk:Coughs and sneezes spread diseases/GA1. It was both nominated and reviewed by socks. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The only AFS GA at a glance I'd personally pass is Jeremy Pemberton (priest), though I need to look a little closer at the other BLPs (Mike Gapes is probably fine, though if renominated would need a couple more citations). Most of the contentious ones are obviously questionable. No comment on the circumstances under which NGS was sockblocked. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate slightly more on the concerns you had, or link to a place they were discussed? It appears most of their GA work was on the topic of British politics, so if the issue relates to that it would affect all the articles. CMD (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The two I gave as examples (Jack Renshaw (terrorist) and Alice Butler-Short) were both quickfailed for serious BLP/NPOV/DUE issues -- see Talk:Jack Renshaw (terrorist)/GA1 and Talk:Alice Butler-Short/GA1. My comment in the former review about "It puts almost as many words to the subject's dog licking the penises of other dogs than it does to the subject's childhood" is...a fairly good summary of the issues. Looking at articles that passed, I have some real concerns about Michelle Mone, Baroness Mone on the same spectrum. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vaticidalprophet I was involved with Qanon's GA review, a very extensive review involving 4 editors. While I can't vouch for the current state of the article, in fact it appears to be too unstable just browsing the edit history, at the time it was generally agreed upon that due-diligence was performed. The archive discussion about AFS is here, nothing ever came of this but it was also because we were restructuring at alot of WP:GA at that time. User:AFreshStart got to 14,000 edits and 9 GAs before being discovered, which is either a testament to the fact they occasionally did good work, or that we've got a serious problem here at GA.
 * Seeing how prolific they are, there's a decent chance they're still hanging around somewhere. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 02:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Michelle Mone, Baroness Mone has been expanded by 50% since I passed it as a GA back in January 2022. She's a controversial figure in British politics and I agree the current version doesn't look particularly good. Mujinga (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing the default template
I've made a potential update to the default template that uses more conventional wiki text. The transcluded rules could be substituted (subst:) for the finished version and it could still be nested in the template that allows you to choose a preferred template or delete the default. This is similar in format to a version I originally drafted, but the language is almost the same as it is now.

Hopes:
 * Blank spaces instead of boxes to tick will encourage more engagement.
 * Formatting using more conventional wikitext will reduce trepidation about something breaking the template and lower the barrier to entry.
 * This can be easily copied into draft space and even filled out with the visual editor, which will further reduce the barrier to entry.

I believe most established reviewers just delete or replace the template, so this is largely targeted at new reviewers. Let me know what you think, Rjjiii (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging various editors:
 * and, you mentioned that it was helpful to have the template. Would the same be true of this version?
 * ,, and , you all mentioned that the previous version either encouraged box-ticking or didn't encourage verbose written notes. Might this be more clear for new editors?
 * ,, and , you all discussed removing the template prior to a backlog drive. Would you have any objections to letting this less-checkable template run at least until the drive starts to see what impact it has, if any? If you're fine with it, feel free to update the text.
 * And if I missed folks that commented in these pings, don't take it personally; it's the NyQuil, Rjjiii (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I did? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I seem to have mixed you up with another reviewer who did a source check without listing the sources in the review page. You can disregard my confusion, Rjjiii (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That said, it does seem like a significant improvement. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's better imo. Thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a significant improvement over the current preload template. I am unsure whether we should have a preload template at all, though. Happy to approve any experiments. —Kusma (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's my opinion also. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I've set this up right in the sandbox., (or someone else more experienced than me with bots and so on), could you check that it's fine to push the sandbox live? Rjjiii (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rjjiii: Sorry I was offline for a few days. The sandbox version isn’t set up correctly. To fix it, you could use either option 1 - which just copies your text into the preload - or option 2, which nests it and makes it easier to delete. Any preference? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's no problem, thanks for the reply! option 1 is my preference because it will look the most clear to a new editor. I have other thoughts, but don't want get too clever until we see if this addresses the recent issues with checklist reviews. Thanks again for working this out, Rjjiii (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's live now. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a fan of the preloaded template: since we (I?) often end up making observations for general improvement, which are sometimes not strictly required for GA, it's helpful to have the criteria in black and white when moving from that phase into deciding whether the article has done enough to pass. Perhaps a note at the top about expectations regarding checklisting would be helpful (something like "you should read the article carefully and make any suggestions for improvement before filling in this template"?) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't all of those points also apply to Rjjiii's version? —Kusma (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant that reply in specific response to I am unsure whether we should have a preload template at all: yes, they do. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I liked having the thing to check off, and having at least some of criteria right there, but the two times I've reviewed a GAN recently the current layout was wayyyy too confusing and made it hard for me to figure out what I'd already checked and, yes, I felt extremely awkward about putting random comments in the template itself. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * the drive is coming up fairly soon. Per your prior comments, would you object to removing the autofill for at least the period of the drive? We can reassess after if it seems to have been a negative. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 03:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First, if you want to remove it for the duration of the drive, I am fine with that. Also, the current pre-loaded template has been updated away from a potential checkbox format. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems the notices are going out this weekend. You mentioned removing the autofill for the backlog drive, so I thought I would remind you. Oh, and good luck coordinating the drive! Rjjiii (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Asking someone to start a review
I have nominated an article for the first time ever. I'm thinking of politely asking a specific editor to review it, because 1. They're very experienced, 2. They seem to be pleasant and patient, and this would come in handy for a newbie like myself, and 3. They're participating in the current WP:GAD. Is this allowed, or is it a breach of etiquette? 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  08:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as they're going to do a proper review, why not? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just trying to avoid a faux pas here. I haven't found anything in the guidelines, but for all I know, a direct request could be in bad taste. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  08:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have, on occasion, left a polite note on an editor's talk page, saying "I've nominated this article at GA, we've talked about it/I know you're interested in the topic, so I thought I'd let you know if you're interested in reviewing it." As long as the review is up to standard, I can't see anything wrong with it. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well, thank you. I'll go for it. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  09:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Summary
I've shaved 20 words off the procedural explanation at Good articles/Summary. I don't consider it controversial but I thought I'd mention here as it might go unnoticed under the daily bot edits. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for speedy reviews!
I recently submitted two articles and both were reviewed within a week or so. Wow, what a pleasant surprise! The last time I submitted something, it was more like 6 months before it got reviewed. Obviously a huge amount of effort has been put into digging out of the backlog by the reviewers, so thank you very much to all of you who have made this happen. RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome! I've been encouraged to see our progress. It's especially big for older noms -- on day 1 we had 14 nominations 270+ days old and 65 180+ days old, now down to 0 and 11 respectively -- but newer nominations are getting picked up too. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

998 potential candidates for Good article reassessment
Recently, there was a lengthy discussion on the GA verifiability criterion and it was modified to be more strict. In response to this, I compiled the following list of articles that are likely to have verifiability problems. The list was generated with this user script. The list shows all GA articles that, according to the script, have 6 or more unreferenced paragraphs. The script ignores some paragraphs that do not require references, such as lead paragraphs and paragraphs in sections called "Plot" (see MOS:CITELEAD and MOS:PLOTSOURCE). But it has various shortcomings. For example, it is not able to detect references in the deprecated parenthetical style and falsely counts paragraphs that only use this style as unreferenced.

It would be necessary to look at each article individually before starting a Good article reassessment to make certain that there actually is a reference problem. If someone wants to do this, the script User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages might come in handy.

The full list of all 37999 GA articles and their number of unreferenced paragraphs is found at User:Phlsph7/GA list of unreferenced paragraphs.

I'll ping some of the editors currently involved in GAR discussions since this may be relevant to them and their input on what to do with this list would be helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've collapsed the list so it doesn't take up half the page, and I'll ping too (sorry TAOT). I think this would be better taken to WT:GAR, as a first step.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29 Could we uncollapse it? I'm away from my computer right now, and will be for the next few weeks; the "show" button doesn't work on mobile. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You should be able to view it by clicking the desktop mode button at the bottom of your screen, Tim. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. The techy side of Wikipedia is beyond me. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this list, and thanks Airship for collapsing it. I spotchecked a little, and it seems the script doesn't exclude plot summaries/synopses properly -- likely because many of them are not titled "Plot". Flatly excluding things covered by WikiProject Books might be in order. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 15:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think that's necessary; some book articles might still need GARs. If the table was moved to a GAR page, and an extra column made to indicate whether a GAR needed to be undertaken, we could set about a sort of GA-level WP:URFA/2020. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly many media articles are at risk of GARs -- but there are other means to track at-risk articles (e.g. I've done petscans by length, and HF has done them for GAs with maintenance tags). For this specific measure, media and I think mathematics articles seem to be both overrepresented and have an extremely high risk of false positives, so it'd be useful to lump them out and get a better core of articles needing reviewing, while introducing such articles through other searches like those. Regarding GA Sweep 2, User:Vaticidalprophet/GA reform (two years ago) is pretty much still my opinion. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 15:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I made a short cross check with the category WikiProject Books articles. It would concern (at least) the following 14 items in case we want to remove them:
 * A History of British Birds
 * A History of British Birds (Yarrell book)
 * Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom
 * Dragonlance
 * Flora Antarctica
 * Histoire Naturelle
 * Historia Plantarum (Theophrastus book)
 * Master of Middle-Earth
 * My Opposition
 * Natural History (Pliny)
 * On Translating Beowulf
 * Philosophie zoologique
 * Power: A New Social Analysis
 * The Making of the English Landscape
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Double-checking, most of my spotchecks were actually in project Novels, not Books (I mostly write about nonfiction, so hadn't noticed the distinction). Am inclined to think media articles will probably mostly be false-positives. Mathematics you would want to talk to for certainty, but spotchecking those also don't appear to be undercited in any meaningful sense (the paragraphs with formulae should be read as single paragraphs for citation purposes). Accordingly, both categories wouldn't be super useful to SWEEPS2, but articles in those clusters that do need GARs can be found through other searches like maintenance tags or individual reports. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 15:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * From a short superficial crosscheck with the Category:WikiProject Novels articles, i get the following 33 articles:
 * A Canticle for Leibowitz
 * Becky Sharp
 * Chasing Vermeer
 * Childhood's End
 * Crime and Punishment
 * Daenerys Targaryen
 * Dragon's Egg
 * Dragons of Autumn Twilight
 * Eldest
 * Eragon
 * Finnegans Wake
 * Jaws (novel)
 * Jean de Florette
 * Jon Snow (character)
 * Octopussy and The Living Daylights
 * Septimus Heap
 * The French Lieutenant's Woman
 * The Hidden Oracle
 * The Kingdom of This World
 * The Kite Runner
 * The Last Theorem
 * The Last of the Masters
 * The Murders in the Rue Morgue
 * The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket
 * The Sword of Shannara
 * The Twilight Saga (film series)
 * The Vicar of Bullhampton
 * Through a Glass Darkly (Koen novel)
 * Twilight (novel series)
 * Tyrion Lannister
 * Uprooted (novel)
 * Watership Down
 * Winesburg, Ohio
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that tracks with my spotchecks, and is overwhelmingly from summaries/synopses such that a flat removal would be justified. Some of those articles have maintenance tags et al so would reasonably go to GAR anyway, but it's too small a fraction to be a useful total measure. Once we've got a more trimmed-down list without the too-high-a-false-positive subjects we can certainly start looking at the whole thing, though -- I'm certain there are many true-positives in the 998. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 15:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right: they included many false positives. The fewer false positives we have, the more useful the list becomes, as long as we don't throw out too many true positives in the process. I adjusted the list accordingly. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One reason why many mathematics articles are at the top is because they often have many short paragraphs. The text is frequently present as: "short paragraph - formula - short paragraph - formula - ...". The script ignores how long the paragraphs are, they just need to be more than 100 characters. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Mathematics (and similar sciences) is probably overrepresented because many of them, promoted a decade or more ago, rely near-entirely on general references. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I just checked the first few math articles on the list: Hilbert space, Dirac delta function, Derivative, Field (mathematics), and Pythagorean theorem. Each one seems to be in a terrible state as far as inline citations are concerned. But maybe the sourcing expectations for GAs in math are different. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Each of these definitely have unsourced paragraphs, but fewer of them than you probably think. Most of the displayed equations should be thought of as part of a paragraph that continues on both sides of the equations. The fact that they're counted by scripts as separate paragraphs is mostly coming from limitations of the html and wikimarkup formats. It is absolutely not a requirement, nor even a technical possibility, nor a good idea from the point of view of confusing numeric footnotes with part of the formula, to put footnotes on those formulas. When formulas have individual footnotes associated with them, you will usually find that footnote in the text just before or just after the formula; for example, the first displayed formula in derivative is part of a sentence that continues into the next block of text and is footnoted there.
 * I think the lack of paragraph-by-paragraph citations in some parts of these articles is more down to the fact that, long ago when these became GA, we followed Scientific citation guidelines, which recommends not providing inline citations for material that would be common knowledge in its field (such as basic definitions) and instead giving general references at the end of the article for this material. Our current standards do not recognize that format as adequate and if nominated today they would be a quick fail.
 * Bringing them up to current citation standards should be possible, without a lot of alteration of the actual text required, but would be a lot of work and would require access to those general references. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The formulas themselves are inside dl-elements in the html code. They are not counted by the script: it only counts html paragraphs, i.e. p-elements. It's probably not necessary to add extra references to the formulas if the references in the paragraph before or after cover them. It's often the case that a formula splits a coherent passage into two paragraphs even though the passage should be considered as one paragraph. However, this can be difficult to detect without looking at the meaning of the paragraphs. So if only the paragraph after the formula contains a reference that covers both paragraphs, the paragraph before it is falsely counted as unreferenced. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the formulas break up things that are (in terms of the meaning of the article) single paragraphs into things that are formatted in html as multiple paragraphs. If our minimum standard is one footnote per paragraph, that standard should apply to meaning-paragraphs, not to html-formatting-paragraphs. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this is a problem of the script in theory. I'm not sure about how severe the practical implications are. I checked several math articles on the list. All the ones I checked have sourcing problems.
 * One idea that might work is to modify the script in the following 2 ways:
 * if a paragraph ends with ":", ",", or a regular letter then the html element following it is considered part of that paragraph. This doesn't cover all the math cases. But it also includes cases outside math, for example, when a blockquote is used after the paragraph.
 * if a paragraph starts with a lowercase letter then it is considered part of the previous html element. This would produce bad results in some cases, like brand names starting with lowercase letters or spelling mistakes, but should overall improve results.
 * I already implemented various modifications in response to the WikiProject Novels articles, such as excluding sections titled "Plot summary", "Plots", and "Plot synopsis". We could look for more false positives, adjust the script accordingly, and rerun it on the current shortlist to further reduce it. However, one has to be careful with modifications to deal with special cases since they can have unexpected results for many other cases. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Re All the ones I checked have sourcing problems.: Curve-shortening flow is on your list and has no sourcing problems. It had a couple of paragraphs with only deprecated parenthetical references, to which I have just added footnotes, but that does not account for the bulk of your script's false positives. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I implemented the changes to the script discussed above and updated the list. We are now down to 848 candidates. Curve-shortening flow has been removed with that update. According to the current version, it has 4 unreferenced paragraphs (down from 10): "The total absolute curvature of...", "In order to compute the...", "Mokhtarian & Mackworth (1992) suggest a numerical...", and "Merriman, Bence & Osher (1992) describe a scheme...". The first one is a "meaning paragraph" that is not detectable by the recent changes. It is covered by the reference in the following paragraph. The other 3 might be supported by general references but lack inline references. I don't know of a good way to detect deprecated parenthetical references. There will still be various false positives with that problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "The total absolute curvature of..." is not an unreferenced paragraph. That paragraph ends "serving as a measure of non-convexity of a curve.[23]. If you think that the end is a different paragraph, you have not understood the above discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I was trying to express in my last comment. It seems I did not succeed, sorry for the confusion. The script doesn't detect that the passage ending with "serving as a measure of non-convexity of a curve.[23]" is part of the preceding paragraph because that passage doesn't start with a lowercase letter (see modification 2 in my comment above). Phlsph7 (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The Ernie O'Malley article promoted recently – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_O%27Malley – is there and contains several false positives. One is a list of his works, which are referenced fully in 'References', the others a paragraph that finishes with a block quote (on a new line and evidently treated as a new paragraph), where the in-line citation appears at the end Billsmith60 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for pointing this out. The article Ernie O'Malley is not on the shortlist above. According to the script, it only contains 3 unreferenced paragraphs: "The following excerpt from...", "In 1928, in a letter to fellow...", and "His official military and...". The first two  are false positives since they introduce a blockquote that contains a reference. This problem would be solved by the suggestion in my last edit about combining paragraphs. The third paragraph is covered by general references but lacks inline citations. I'm not sure that there is an easy way to detect something like this with a script. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now with the updated version of the script, it's only one unreferenced paragraph: "His official military and...". Phlsph7 (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a citation in further substantiation of the works referred to in the References section. This article should 'disappear' now. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, now the script shows 0 unreferenced paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I still think the only practical way to resolve this sort of thing is to pull a theoretically high-risk subset of GAs (age, paragraph sourcing, etc.) and then give it the URFA/2020 treatment. Just a haphazard skim through the list above brings up clear problem articles like Water supply and sanitation in Colombia, which has issues with uncited text and very outdated content. Hog Farm Talk 18:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. Something similar was suggested by earlier. If I understand it correctly, the WP:URFA/2020 lists featured articles with an additional column for notes where reviewers indicate whether the article needs a Featured article review. The articles that received a review and were kept or delisted are moved to another list. A similar format could also work here. The current list focuses exclusively on unreferenced paragraphs. But your idea of considering the age of the GA review could also be useful. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's no secret we have quite a few old GAs that no longer meet the criteria. But enough are maintained that we can't just delist everything without looking carefully at each one. I'd agree with doing something like URFA for all GAs older than say 5 years. Breaking it down by subject area would also help. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Phlsph7, do you have access to SDZeroBot's GA database? If I recall correctly it has the promotion date for all current GAs and is pretty accurate. (I can get you a copy of you want it and don't have access.)  I think it would be worth determining how many GAs would pop up in the query at each age range -- I think it might be better to pick an initial date that only finds a couple of hundred GAs, to make the task less daunting to begin with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to access SDZeroBot's GA database. I would appreciate your help with that. If the database does not have a promotion date, it should be relative easy to get the creation dates of the pages of the last GA review (i.e. when the GA review was started). For our purposes, the creation date should work as well.
 * Another way to reduce the list would be to increase the minimal number of unreferenced paragraphs for the list. It's currently at 6, which results in 848 articles. We could increase it to 7 (694 articles), 8 (572 articles), 9 (545 articles), 10 (373 articles), 11 (328 articles), 12 (281 articles), 13 (228 articles) or 14 (199 articles). Phlsph7 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally here I think the biggest issue that you're trying to work around with this parameter is that the new GA rules do not require references in paragraphs summarizing later sourced material. Often, these paragraphs are in the lead of an article, or at the start of a section that has subsections. You could try not counting those, instead of trying to fit a one-size-fits-all numerical threshold.
 * Another way to reduce your many false positives would be to look for and not count paragraphs containing templates like harv or harvtxt. If those templates are intended as references rather than as article text, they are in a deprecated format, but that's not relevant for determining whether they are referenced, which is what you're looking for here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The script does not count lead paragraphs (unless there is a mistake somewhere of which I am unaware). I'm not sure how common the problem is of having an unreferenced summarizing first paragraph in a sections that contain subsections. In principle, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to ignore the first paragraph of all sections that contain subsections. I would suggest that we only ignore paragraphs in the following cases:
 * == Heading ==
 * Paragraph
 * === Subheading ===
 * It's a good idea to exclude paragraphs with the templates "harv", "harvtxt" and the like. They are not as easy to detect as other references (they do not use the class "reference") but it could be possible. I'll look into that. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7, I've extracted the file from WBGAN; it has 37,000+ rows, which means it must be missing a handful compared to the count on WP:GA. Those probably predate the subpage method of doing GA reviews so may be very old indeed; if you have an easy way to find the ones not in this list that would be interesting. I have the data in text file format but I can convert it to Excel if you'd prefer that. Send me a wikipedia email and I'll attach the file to my reply.

I ran a quick query to see the ages and got this (the 1970 ones probably have invalid timestamps in their GA templates). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've sent you an email. I have the current list of 37999 GA articles (26.07.2023) by scraping the category Wikipedia_good_articles. I'll try to do a cross check to see which ones are missing from your list. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've updated the list with dates of the latest GA review from SDZeroBot's GA database. It still contains a few empty values (question marks) that would need to be inserted by hand since they were either not part of the database or my script couldn't find them in the database. The table below shows how many GA on that list belong to a specific year. Many of them are old and belong to the period 2007–2010. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * , I still think it's a much better idea to just pull a slab by date. There's going to be other issues in the oldest GAs like outdated content or unreliable sources, and frankly, the above discussion in this thread has led me to believe that there just isn't going to be a way to use a script to flag by unreferenced paragraphs without pulling too many false positives. Based on my experience with URFA/2020, we are far better off just going systematically by age rather than just playing whack-a-mole with scripts. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In practical terms, we're probably best served by having run a list of the 200-odd 2006s and then those two stray 1970s as well (since the 1970s apparently have a talk page template error anyways). Hog Farm Talk 19:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Phlsph7 may be able to do that without me, since they now have the date information for nearly all of the GAs, but I'll be glad to help in any way. It might be best to delay much more activity till after the backlog drive which starts in a couple of days, so we don't split resources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing to note that every 2006-2009 GA is already reviewed, albeit was reviewed quite some years ago itself now. Also worth noting is that doing this took three years, as a hyper-concentrated effort. I can do a GAN historiography if wanted -- I've been reading the older history of the project in substantial depth lately. I have a lot of thoughts on how to approach this and am happy to dredge the scratchpad back up.
 * Broadly: anything promoted 2006-2009 that is still a GA, i.e. wasn't delisted in 2007-2010, fits as of that time what we can expect to be very like current GA standards, but with the additional issue of "article half-lives" meaning some of them will have fallen substandard in the interim. It's not really possible to apply "GA has gotten stricter with time" the sense you can for FA (even for FA it's not especially true post-2010), because 1. GAN is Reviewer Roulette, as a feature rather than a bug, so individual variance swamps every other signal and 2. GA was a completely meaningless process for its first few years, and was consciously whipped into shape, including a flat delisting of everything that didn't meet the new standards. Redoing SWEEPS in SWEEPS2 probably isn't the best way to approach SWEEPS2 -- SWEEPS2 as a whole is going to be a crushingly massive amount of work, and the work our predecessors did for us can be a later priority to revisit. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 20:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have the list so whatever GAs we decide on, I can extract them.
 * The chance that a GAs on the unreferenced list is problematic is much higher than the chance that a GA from the full list is problematic. If you want 200 old GAs, I suggest we select the 200 oldest GAs from the unreferenced list. But if you want, I can go through the full GA list and just extract the 200 oldest GAs from it. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the 2006-2009 ones have had a pass already, I'd suggest starting with only the ones the script comes up with for those years. That would be about 400, which seems like plenty to start with, even though as discussed some are likely to be false positives. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. Systematically reviewing a significant portion of all old GAs is, I think, not realistic, given their sheer number. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

One way to go about the project would be to manually go through the GA shortlist and compile a list of unreferenced paragraphs that are not false positives. Maybe this paragraph-list is not necessary if the problems are obvious. If the reviewer spots other problems in the process, they can also note that. As a test, I manually went through the 5 oldest GAs on the unreferenced list: Birmingham, Mercury (element), Tinkoff (cycling team), Evanton, and Music of Italy. I indicated the paragraphs that need references but don't have them in the footnotes. Each of these articles has sourcing problems. Maybe a more experienced GAR reviewer could assess whether these problems are sufficient to merit a GAR.

Based on the initial notes, it is then decided whether the article should be sent to GAR. The GAR could be relatively straightforward: first, other reviewers assess whether the listed paragraphs really need references and whether the problems are serious enough to merit delisting. Next, one waits a little (one week?) to give editors time to address the problems. If the problems are not addressed then the article is delisted afterward. This process is probably too oversimplified but I hope the basic idea is clear. Of course, the process could get more complicated if there are other problems and references are not the main problem or if it is controversial whether the paragraphs need references. What are your thoughts? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to remember that all this will take time—if the main priority is keeping GA's, not delisting them—as the GAR process is necessarily slow. I think more than 12 per week, at an absolute maximum, would be too much and just lead to a cycle of delisting; getting through even Mike's lower bound of 400 would take more than half a year at that rate. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. Editors can go through the list at their own pace and add notes. But we limit the number of GARs per week to ensure that each one gets enough attention.
 * By the way, I implemented David Eppstein's suggestion, the script now also considers reference that use the harv-template and similar ones. In total 9 articles were removed from the list and the paragraph numbers of the others were adjusted. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If it is possible to easily cross-reference with Wikiprojects, it might be worth creating a small list of articles that appear at 'risk' of GAR that could be posted to Wikiproject talkpages. CMD (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's possible in principle. It's not too much work to get the list of articles belonging to one wikiproject and crosscheck it with our shortlist. However, it seems there are currently a total of 1011 active Wikiprojects. I would need to write a new script to go through all of their articles. I'm not sure that the time needed to write and debug this script is worth the trouble. But if we could identify the 10 (or so) most important Wikiprojects, then I could probably do it semi-automatically just for them, which should be much faster. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My thought was more a script identifying Wikiproject templates on the shortlist talk pages, rather than going through the list of all Wikiprojects! The latter is certainly probably not worth the trouble... CMD (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked into it and compiled a preliminary list at User:Phlsph7/Unreferenced GAs with Wikiprojects. To create it, I wrote a script that goes through the article talk pages and extracts the Wikiproject categories, like Category:WikiProject Engineering articles. Unfortunately, not all wikiprojects have categories associated with them. It concerns, for example, the Wikiproject Mathematics. This means that the list is incomplete. An alternative approach would be to try to get the wikiprojects from the talkpage wikitext. However, this poses a similar problem since not all wikiprojects use the same naming style for their wikiproject template. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've flipped that table around at User:Chipmunkdavis/Unreferenced GAs with Wikiprojects by Wikiproject/ to see where notifications might go. Offhand I'd say that if notifications were to go out selectively, they could go to say Wikiprojects with 10+ articles. That would limit it to <40, and hopefully capture the most active Wikiprojects. CMD (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Notifying only WikiProjects with a minimal number of articles sounds like a good idea. Two important WikiProjects not on the list are WikiProject Mathematics and WikiProject Physics. Others left out are Military History, Computing, and Philosophy, but I'm not sure how strongly they are affected.
 * Please be aware that User:Phlsph7/Unreferenced_GAs_with_Wikiprojects includes all articles irrespective of date. It currently sounds like we are initially only going for older articles from 2006–2009. I complied a 2006-2009 WikiProject list at User:Phlsph7/Unreferenced GAs with WikiProjects (2006–2009). Phlsph7 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Small bit of python, it can be run on any table of that format. Happy to run it myself, although let me know if you want it. For notifications I did a couple of manual ones for URFA which listed the articles on the Wikiproject talkpage and invited them to check the articles and make a note at URFA, something similar should work here. CMD (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to reinvent the wheel re. WP:SWEEPS and WP:URFA/2020. Lessons to take away from those:
 * Sweeps was completely unilateral. One editor keeps or delists the article. This exact presentation may or may not be desired at present, but I'm inclined to say we should have an affirmative reason not to if we choose not to do that, as it's markedly closer to how GAN works.
 * I don't see any particular reason why we shouldn't for keeps. There's an argument we shouldn't for delists, but "GAR exists" isn't that argument imo -- if anything now it's a formal coord process with regulars that takes time even for trivial cases it's a mark against, compared to the SWEEPS expectation that "whoever comes from a wikiproject notice" could claim the article in a week, and also basically no one did anyway. I do think there's a strong argument that we should be prejudiced to keeps and thus delists should take more work/be signed off by someone else. GAR should still be used for articles that aren't clear keeps or clear(-to-two-people?) delists.
 * Instituting the unilateral structure of SWEEPS is also good because it solves the false positive issue -- anyone can just run down the list and tick everything that's clearly a false positive.
 * Again, we want the absolute lowest-bureaucracy process possible, and the thing that most clearly resembles the very lightweight process that still took three years for a tenth the number of GAs in a much more active project.
 * <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 09:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you want to bypass GAR for some of these? I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that—it's not a copyvio case like WP:DCGAR, just a load of old articles that may or may not need to be reassessed. And as we're not looking at anywhere near the number of articles even SWEEPS1 reviewed, "GAR exists" is a very strong argument for not doing one/two people delistings—the existence of a community-recognised process is something that you'd need a lot of consensus to bypass. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Even the most obviously clear-cut, no-chance-in-hell delistings take unneeded time going through GAR. NOTBURO implies we shouldn't be taking the obvious cases out of several hundred articles through a process with limited resources that should be focused on non-obvious cases. Something like "delists should be signed off by a SWEEPS2 coord and if they aren't they go to GAR" can save substantial editor burden while maintaining standards. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 11:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The time was not unneeded—it gives the chance for people to step up and take responsibility for article long abandoned by the people who took them to GA in the first place. Under that system, Albert Einstein, Battle of Gettysburg, Electricity and many others would all have been signed off by coords and delisted without fuss—sure, that would have saved "substantial editor burden", but personally I would take those three articles being improved than the circle being removed and "standards maintained". AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would emphatically not sign off any article of those statures as a hypothetical SWEEPS2 coord and would query any coord doing so. Those are exactly the complex cases that shouldn't be bogged down by "obvious no-hopers on abandoned subjects" at GAR. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 12:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the GARs themselves, Electricity probably shouldn't even have been GARed. I'd expect the equivalent article to be "satisfactory with note" at URFA, which is another thing I'm gesturing at -- we should really not reinvent-from-first-principles "articles that aren't perfect but are good enough can pass", because frankly I think we'd probably reinvent it the other way, and end up yet again at "GAR machinery grinds down from overuse" or "it takes eternity to get things done because of nomination caps". <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 12:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if Einstein should've been GARed either, but it's not as obviously so as Electricity. There should obviously have been some pre-existing discussion, though, so probably should've also been a "notes" case. Gettysburg is the only one of the three where there's any clear indication even GAR was obviously needed. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 12:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Then which articles from the above list would you sign off unequivocally? Just to make sure we're not talking at cross purposes. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Off the 998 list -- zero of the ones I just spotchecked, actually, and more I'd keep than anything else, which implies the false positive rate is even higher than thought. Off GAs I've seen both from lists like this one and in general, a few possibles are Battle of Britain (1985 video game) (see talk for additional things to look at -- the specific pattern here is what stands out to me), Technoblade (popular enough to be borderline on that alone, but it'd be a very clear case if not on a high-profile individual, and I don't think this is the kind of high-profile that obviously is too big), and Icelandic Naming Committee. Of articles I've watched the GARs of or nominated, the aforementioned Xiaxue is an example, as are Slackers CDs and Games and possibly Potential superpower (again, right about maybe-too-big-for-it). <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 14:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So considering that very few articles in this list are in need of any sort of GA reassessment at all, you still feel there are enough speedy delists that GAR might be overloaded and we need a new "speedy delist" process to handle that? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there are extremely many substandard GAs, and that the way we're measuring them at the moment isn't getting at how many there are. I found a lot in the 2021 length-based query, which is no longer accessible due to Petscan linkrot. The tagged-GA list also gets plenty that are at least potential cases (much of GAR at any given time is one editor nominating based off it, afaict). <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What I take form the discussion so far is that there seems to be no strong case for skipping the GAR discussion and directly delisting GAs. Maybe it's best to start the regular way. If along the way we find out that many articles are obviously "beyond repair" and that very few articles are improved in the process then we could reconsider a direct delist option for severe cases to speed up the process. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Phlsph7, thanks for posting the list. I did notice that your list includes articles with bulleted lists, tables, or quote boxes, where the citation is located somewhere else in the article (just not at the end of the paragraph in question). For example, 2022 North Ayrshire Council election (a relatively recent GA) has several instances of these, where the sources are actually located at the end of the section, not just at the end of the paragraph. Lexa (The 100), another relatively recent GA, has an "Appearances" section which is a plot summary, but your script also highlights text before a quotebox, and even a see-also section, as unreferenced.I do think this table is a good starting point for identifying potentially unsourced GAs, though I would be wary of nominating an article for GAR just because the sources are after a table/quote/bullet list, rather than before. (And I'd probably also exclude "see also" sections from these analyses of unsourced text.) Epicgenius (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the examples of false positives. In relation to Lexa (The 100): I modified the script to exclude sections called "Appearances". The full list of sections currently excluded is: 'Lead', 'Plot', 'Plots', 'Plot summary', 'Plot synopsis', 'Synopsis', 'Storylines', 'Appearances', 'Further reading', 'See also', 'External links', 'References', 'Bibliography', 'Notes', 'Selected publications', 'Selected works', 'Cited sources', 'Sources', 'Footnotes'. If a paragraph ends with a semicolon or a comma then the references from the next element are considered as well. It did not work for the paragraph starting with "After the series' conclusion, Kevin Pantoja" due to a bug. I fixed it. Now, the script shows 0 unreferenced paragraphs for the article Lexa (The 100).
 * Regarding 2022 North Ayrshire Council election: It's very difficult to detect with a script that the references in a paragraph after a table are meant to support the paragraph before the table. Because of this and other shortcomings of the script, reviewers always have to manually check the article to exclude false positives and to identify the problems of the article before starting a GAR. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Re a comment far above about "12 per week": the limits need to be thought out much more carefully than that. Eight of the first twelve articles are mathematics articles, long ones that I have not worked much on and am not familiar with the sourcing of. Most of the recent work on bringing mathematics articles up to GA standards has been by me; there appears not to be much interest in such efforts in the rest of WT:WPM and there are two FARs that anyone there who might be interested in this sort of effort might already be preoccupied by. And really, why should they be interested when it's just a matter of tracking[1] down[2] the little [3] footnote markers[4] that make GA reviewers more comfortable and everyone else skips over? It's not like there's a problem with the actual content of those articles. I estimate that bringing any single one of these up to GA standard would dominate a week of my Wikipedia editing time, if I let it block me from editing anything else on Wikipedia, in a week when I have lots of time to work on Wikipedia (which is not this week). A more realistic schedule might be that I could slot fixing up one of them in, among the other edits I'm more interested in doing, over the course of maybe a month. Putting them all up for GAR in one week, as the first 12 articles on the list, would be putting such an overwhelming workload that it's pretty certain nothing would happen and the result would be failure. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * FAR tries to limit the number of nominations from a particular topic, I'm sure there'd be no issues ensuring any GAR sweep worked similarly. CMD (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The ideal outcome for any problematic article is not delisting but saving it. If there are editors ready to work on that in a particular field then it's definitely a good idea to adjust the GAR nomination schedule to their working schedule. For example, we could limit how many math GARs are open at the same time and how long we wait before they are delisted if no one responds. If we organize the list by date and not by number of unreferenced paragraphs then there are fewer math articles lumped together. The first 12 articles by date don't contain any math articles: Birmingham, Mercury (element), Tinkoff (cycling team), Evanton, Music of Italy, John W. Campbell, Forth (programming language), Fujiwara no Teika, Great Salt Lake, Póvoa de Varzim, Directive Principles, and Swissair Flight 111. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If too many articles on the same topic arrive at GAR, I either ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination or simply hat it and put it on hold, . See this discussion for the institution of this process. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Short update on the script to detect unreferenced paragraphs: I added a second function to highlight unreferenced paragraphs in a single article. This could be helpful for reviewers going through the list to decide whether to start a GAR for an article. It can be accessed by clicking on the link "Highlight Unreferenced Paragraphs" in the toolbox. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have composed a table of the 2006–2009 articles (380 entries in total), see below. We could use such a table to track progress. My rough idea is the following: we start a new page to explain what is happening, why it is happening, and how to participate. We could name it "GAR Sweep 2023" or something similar. We have one section for the table below. Reviewers can have a look at an article and write comments on its flaws and virtues. If they are confident whether it needs a GAR, they can indicate this in the corresponding column with yes or no. If they are not, they can leave it empty or add a question mark. I'm not sure that we need this column. We could also remove it and let reviewers directly start a GAR.

Articles are removed from this table when their GAR is complete or when it is decided that they do not need a GAR. The article is then moved to a section called "Delisted" or a section called "Kept or no GAR needed". A similar structure is found at Unreviewed_featured_articles/2020/2010–2015.

Phlsph7 (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. The "GAR needed" column could just serve as a !voting system—if two/three experienced editors say no, strike through the line, if they say yes, mark to be taken to GAR, etc. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thought put into making this re-review process targeted and limited in scope, particularly by . However, I would oppose a GA sweep at the current time. URFA/2020 is such an overwhelmingly large project with so far to go. I understand there are editors involved in GA but not FA, but I would still encourage those editors to work on URFA: even getting many of these old FA-listed articles to current GA quality would be a huge step forwards. Given the re-reviewing backlog at URFA and the reviewing backlog at GAN, I think this is the wrong time to launch another massive project.Ultimately, does it matter if there are consistent standards applied across all GAs? Only indirectly. The primary aim is to improve the content of Wikipedia articles. Standards and meaningful incentives help us do this, but think about where your limited editing time is most effectively spent. You might conclude that it's in a new GA sweep, but my conclusion is currently the opposite. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for your input. Do you have a concrete suggestion on when would be a good time for a GA sweep? From your last comment, one may get the impression that it's not about the timing but that you are opposed to GA sweeps in general. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I made a short draft on what the sweep page could look like: User:Phlsph7/GAR_Sweep_Draft. However, my experience with sweeps and GAR is rather limited so it would be a good idea if someone else could take the lead on this. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll make a start. See my request on the talk page. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. One more point that might be good to clarify in the description: should the reviewers start GARs themselves? Or should they just give their comments and suggestions and let a coordinator take care of it? Having coordinators do it would mean extra work for them but it would make it easier to ensure that we don't have more than 12 GARs at once. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Close parphrasing?
Could somebody please look at Talk:George Taylor (photographer)/GA1. I've found a number of instances of almost word-for-word copying from a source. Is this severe enough to be a quick fail for WP:COPYVIO? RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say yes. I would note that the nominator got a message from in May on the issue of copying from sources, see User talk:B3251. TompaDompa (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to note the amount of confusion surrounding that incident in May, due to the source linked at that time having its text taken word-for-word from the plaque located in the park. That incident was an awkward moment for me and I didn't really know what to do at the time especially due to being new to creating articles.
 * For the text on George Taylor (photographer), I, as much as I attempted to, could not find a way to heavily rewrite the information given that continues to provide all the information in a chronological order that makes sense to the reader, so any suggestions/help on how to do so would be appreciated. B3251 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't think of it as "rewriting". The idea is to read the source, understand what it's saying, and then formulate your own text which expresses those facts.  If you try to "rewrite" the source, you end up with what the problem you have now. RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023
Make Canada Highlighted and make it go to the Canadian wiki Andy toronto512 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ It is not clear what you are requesting. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Up to date info in good articles
Is there anything in the good article criteria that actually requires facts in an article to be up to date? I guess criterion three would apply if there were significant events that need to be added, and the quickfail criteria could apply if an out of date maintenance template is included. But as an example, if there's a GA that uses extensive data from 2014 that no longer reflects reality, is there grounds to bring it to GAR? I haven't encountered this exact scenario, but I'm wondering what the feel is for how strictly to evaluate up-to-dateness. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 13:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, yeah, it is a slight blind spot in the GA criteria—one that went unnoticed for obvious reasons at first, but which is slowly becoming more prominent. I suppose criterion 4, which requires fairly represented viewpoints without editorial bias, is the part that most applies, but it's up to interpretation whether outdatedness violates it. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles are required to cover the main aspects of the topic (WP:GACR 3a) and to be neutral (4). Being out of date can mean failing either or both of those criteria. I would WP:QUICKFAIL a WP:BLP article that hasn't been updated since 2014 without hesitation, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are cases where there is almost nothing to be said about what happened since 2014, for example at Michael Schumacher. —Kusma (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The last two paragraphs of "2013 skiing accident" cover 2013 to 2023. If I were reviewing that article, I would expect at least some of that info to be there before I passed it on criterion 3. Essentially, even if someone has done nothing of note for a number of years, the article should acknowledge that in some way. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sort order
About a month ago, it was decided to tweak the prioritization formula from a pure reviews-to-GAs ratio to an formula that increments the number of reviews by 1 before calculating the adjusted ratio (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 29 for details). However, it does not seem to be working properly—or at least not consistently. Currently, 3 reviews, 4 GAs (naive ratio: 0.75, adjusted ratio: 1.00) is prioritized above 9 reviews, 11 GAs (naive ratio: 0.82, adjusted ratio: 0.91), indicating that the adjusted ratio is in use. On the other hand, 0 reviews, 2 GAs (naive ratio: 0.00, adjusted ratio: 0.50) is prioritized below 1 review, 12 GAs (naive ratio: 0.08, adjusted ratio: 0.17), indicating that it is not. I'm not sure, but I think this only affects nominators with 0 reviews—which is a terrible shame, because they are the adjusted formula was intended to boost (in particular those with 0 reviews and 1 GA) in the first place. Ping. TompaDompa (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * At work, so I can’t check the code right now, but one possible explanation occurs to me. Does this involve nominators who have had a GA promoted today? The GA counts are only updated once per day. Could that explain it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the issue. It looks to me like nominations from editors with 0 reviews aren't sorted according to the adjusted ratio but rather simply by number of GAs. This would make sense when using the naive ratio since it would be 0.00 regardless of the number of GAs which means that they wouldn't be properly sorted, so my guess is that they used to be sorted separately from the other nominations without calculating a ratio and then added to the bottom of the list and that this mechanism unintentionally remains in place after the switch to the adjusted ratio. TompaDompa (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Working on it now. If you see the sort order flailing about a bit please ignore it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's correct now; please let me know if you see more problems. Turned out to be several cooperating bugs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While we're on the topic of the code,, there appears to be an issue with the short description occasionally duplicating (see the WP:GAN entries for Janko Drašković, Smbataberd, Airbus Beluga, or a few others). AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See here; it's actually nothing to do with the bot. It's fixed, but any nominations made before the fix still have the duplicated descriptions in the nominee template on their talk page. Those can be manually fixed if anyone wants to do so; they'll gradually disappear from the list as they're passed or failed if not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 08:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the GAR template will need the fix then, because the same issue is occurring with GARs nominated two days ago. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed that 0-2 and 2-9 are above me (13-46) despite me now having a better review ratio than them. Is that because it hasn't updated yet or am I not understanding the sorting? Grk1011 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The naive ratios are 0.00, 0.22, and 0.28, respectively, but the adjusted ratios (which are calculated by adding 1 to the number of reviews before taking the ratio) are 0.50, 0.33, and 0.30, respectively. I hope that makes it clearer. TompaDompa (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Assessment Notice
I'm wondering if, as soon as an article is taken from the queue for GA assessment, a script mightn't add a brief notice to the top of the article itself linking to that on the Talk page? Do people really consult a Talk page that much? Others will know better than me whether an article under review is often edited, thereby complicating the review. Perhaps I'm seeing a problem where none exists, but if such a link is desirable (like the 'merge' notices one sometimes sees), the one in Talk might also say that no major edits should be carried out to the article without first consulting the nominator or assessor. Further, this putative notice on the article page should stay only till the process reaches 'On Hold' or is complete via pass or fail. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have never seen a case, either with articles I nominated or articles I reviewed, of an uninvolved editor coming to an article under GA review and making significant changes. I don't know that "someone blundering into an article undergoing review and making major changes" is a thing that happens at all, let alone enough to worry about doing something to prevent it.
 * My concern with this proposal would be that it might encourage WP:OWN behaviour. Giving the GA nominator some special power over editing of an article (or suggesting that they have such power) by requiring editors to consult with them before making changes does not strike me as being within the spirit of Wikipedia. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had that happen once. I reverted the uninvolved editor and alerted them to the ongoing WP:GAN review. That did the trick. TompaDompa (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is primarily about making people aware that the article is undergoing review and (which I should have mentioned) to check the Talk page before making any significant edits, even if the likelihood of that happening is small. I agree that the nominator should be accorded no special privileges, but they should be consulted about anything significant proposed for the article *before it might happen. Increasingly, I feel a short notice at the top of the article is desirable while the GA process is underway. Billsmith60 (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should mention GANs/FACs on articles, because 1. we already do for processes like AfD, merge discussions, etc and 2. the two are (going by existing outreach evidence) little-known by readers even given that icons for articles that have already passed such process exist. Having said that, the specific case being proposed here seems to be motivated differently to my thought, which is 1. encouraging knowledge of the processes and 2. alerting editors to articles they may wish to review. I can't really think of any time I've seen the problem suggested here. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as a note as it hasn't been mentioned here, but editors with accounts can easily see if an article is under review by going to Special:Preferences and activating "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header". CMD (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you know enough about Wikipedia to know what a GAN is, you'd be aware to stop editing if it was causing an edit conflict. As CMD says, you can get a script that tells you if an article is at GAN (or FAC, or currently undergoing a review, or previously failed one). If you are worried, just use the in use tag.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Quickfail?
Could someone please take a look at Talk:Dennis O'Neil/GA1 and let me know if there are grounds for a quick fail? Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Without rechecking Earwig's results I can say that when I find that many copyvios I fail the nomination immediately. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked in detail, but it seems there might be more copyright violations in similar nominations: Steve Ditko, John Romita Sr., Barry Windsor-Smith, and John Byrne (comics). I'm not really interested in quickfailing them and then waiting for the coin flip of whether it ends in a heated response, and I don't know if there's a standard efficient solution for possible copyvio across multiple articles like this. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Quick Fail
I just saw an article failed under "Quick Fail", which is a new thing for me. When I looked at the QF criteria, the only one that would be usable for that article would be the first item--"It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria." How is "a long way" actually determined in this case? The entire point of a GA review is to allow for adjustment. The rationale given to Leatherface was essentially that they didn't like the section headers and the article was "too long", which cause "readability issues". It currently is about 1000 words longer than Raiders of the Lost Ark...a featured article. I'm not here to say Leatherface is or is not GA material, but the "quick fail" seems rather subjective by default and this one in particular strikes me as off. I cannot imagine that the length of the article and those other items could not be addressed (i.e., they are a long way from meeting criteria) in a reasonable time for a GAR. I   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think a quick fail is necessary; it is quite long though WP:SIZE has this down at almost 80kb in size, which is close to being a dead cert for splitting. I only gave it a skim, but it probably goes slightly too in-depth, but I don't think it's that far from the criteria  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you giving that a quick look, and at least making me not feel like I was losing my mind with it all. It just threw me off because I hadn't seen an article have a QF before (and I've been here for almost 20 years), and then it says basically not to renominate it until it's no longer meeting QF criteria. Is there a process by which one can challenge these situations? The editor who has been working on this article has been doing so diligently for quite some time and I would love to at least given them that chance to address the real concerns.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly you can post here and if the consensus is that the review was faulty, we usually just reinsert the nom back in the queue. Or, you can always just renominate for any reason, as long as you think you have met all the points brought up in the review.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see the reviewer's logic—there are clearly issues with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I have found that generally an article over 10,000 words can only be considered good or featured if it has met with immense commentary in reliable sources (whether that's Raiders of the Lost Ark, Taylor Swift, or Ulysses S. Grant). This article has a massive WP:POPCULTURE section which appears to be defined more or less arbitrarily—the same could be said for the various lengthy digressions into the designing and wearing of the masks. Overall, I can see how the reviewer came to the conclusion that a quickfail is warranted—the article's focus needs a substantial re-evaluation to meet GA criterion 3b). AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess my issue is that if the problem with the article is that it doesn't stay focused enough (i.e., it's bloated), that doesn't seem like "it's a long way" from meeting the criteria. That seems like a simple fix, because the isn't that there is not broad coverage. The issue is that there's too much coverage and needs to be condensed. Thus, I didn't quite understand how this was such an easy QF for the reviewer, when the problems actually identified seem like the normal things you would work on during a typical GAR.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, GAN reviewing is subjective. There is a grey area where one reviewer might put an article on hold and give extensive time for alterations, and another reviewer might quickfail and say to come back when it's fixed. Both are valid conclusions to come to. Please keep in mind that quickfailing does not require the article to fail all the criteria at once, but only that it is a long way from "any one of the six good article criteria". In this case, the reviewer determined that the article was a long way from meeting 3B and opted to quickfail. It may not have been the same review that someone else might have given, but it's not an invalid review or an invalid quickfail. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is currently ~12,500 words. Taking into account the character's longevity and cultural influence, I would estimate that to be "focused" it should be no more than 8,000 words-a cut of a third of the prose. I don't know what things you expect a reviewer to do during a typical GAN, but in my opinion it should center around reviewing, not rewriting the entire article on behalf of the nominator. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I didn't imply the reviewer should do any work on the article. I've worked on countless GA and FA articles, and I never expected the reviewer to do any work. What I said was that I would have expected those concerns to be brought up in a normal GAN process and the nominator (and any other editors) have reasonable time to fix those concerns. Not sure why you're being defensive about this. I didn't demand anyone take action on the article. I literally came here for clarification on the QF, because I had never seen that happen (outside of articles that had barely any information and couldn't possibly be considered broad in coverage).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, that article. I was really hoping it would not get QFed in the drive, but unsurprised that someone did. It does need copyediting, and the upside is it can get a GOCE copyedit now without time pressures. I wavered on picking it up like 20 times in the past couple months between "this is going to be a really big review, that I may really regret a month in" and "what else is going to happen to it?". I really should've picked it up, but...well, at least it has an excuse to go to GOCE now. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Just suffered my first quick-fail in a long time at Talk:Supreme Court of Mississippi/GA1 from a user who has been here for only a few months. The review itself was good but I wasn't expected to be given no time to turn it around. Not to pull a Doug Coldwell, but with several dozen successful GAs under my belt of varying length, I normally expect to be given at least a chance to respond, even when the comments/critiques are extensive or even when the ultimate result is not successful. The only quick-fail I issued in recent memory was at Talk:Zebulon Vance/GA1, where I had come to the conclusion that a great portion of the article had been written with an outdated, possibly unreliable source and there were some other instances of referencing and OR issues that needed to be addressed which would necessitate a significant rewrite of the article. I reached out to the reviewer who failed my nom to suggest that next time they can can simply ask me/the nominator if they think they can address the issues put forth in a timely manner deciding to fail, which seemed fair. After all, in my view, some their comments, even the ones with bigger implications, could've been addressed with a "Well yes, but the reliable source material to discuss this aspect of the topic does not exist", and getting that point across can't happen outside of a review itself, unlike adding material where it can be added in the aftermath of an unsuccessful review.

Perhaps the timing is coincidental, but I hope this wasn't in part due to a game feel brought on by the backlog drive. My selfish gut reaction after seeing the quickfail was, "Well, I guess I can quickly fix some the issues pointed out and nominate it so it can sit in the damn queue for another five months", which doesn't really help anyone. Perhaps in the GA instructions we incorporate a mild suggestion that if you as a reviewer think there are substantial issues but are unsure if you should quickfail, you could ask the nominator if they are confident they can address the issues in a timely manner (onhold exists for a reason). -Indy beetle (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've set up the scoring system to intentionally try discourage these kinds of driveby quickfails (that article is another I had on my radar and I'm even more blindsided to hear it quickfailed than the article this subsection is about) -- QFs don't get full points, full reviews do even if they close as failed. I've seen more-than-zero "fails during a full review", which basically-never-happens under normal circumstances, which is an encouraging sign of a thumb on the scales...but QF rates do tick up during drives, which has been an open secret basically as long as I've seen drives around. I've marked QFs as invalid before and will probably do so for this one; I can reset the timing on thr nomination so it doesn't sit in backlog again and will be reset to age-points-status. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * One reason qfs might be higher during drives is that some editors don't want to review articles that are in bad shape and will need lots of revisions. These articles might linger in the queue longer than usual and get more attention for drives. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think there are multiple factors going on. It's hard to compare across drives because they tend to use very different standards (e.g. some drives don't credit QFs at all, so obviously have fewer) and are infrequent enough that they stretch across a large chunk of the project's history, but you see trends. I do see fewer of the "substandard article gets passed with minor prose commentary" reviews during drives compared to those articles being failed...which reflects more on the prevalence of that under normal circumstances. I've been fairly careful with the system in this drive to encourage more in-depth commentary and fewer quickpasses or quickfails than usual, but it does happen, and it's tricky to track what drives alone do because we don't collect data for non-drive circumstances well. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 02:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My QF for this article certainly wasn't an attempt to game points. Perhaps I wasn't generous enough in my judgement that it was a long way from being Good, and it might not have helped that I'd just finished trawling through a separate dense and also failed article, but I think it's very clear that the article needs substantial thorough work. What is there is fine, but there is so much not there that I thought a detailed list and time to address it properly was best. But I've already said I'm happy to review it if it gets resubmitted. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I am not suggesting your review was not done in good faith (or that it wasn't good—quite the opposite). What I am suggesting, though, is that the advantage of an open review is that a nominator can address certain critiques which can inform the final decision being made. Your questions about what was "not there" were quite reasonable, but due to the nature of Wikipedia, what is often not there is a result of limited sourcing or other considerations (like whether certain material might violate BLP or whether it belongs on a different article). That may indeed lead to an ultimate fail (as it has for me, not every article/subject necessarily can become a GA in my view), but without being able to discuss sourcing limitations in a full review, a nominator is essentially left zero opportunity to explain the content they have written. Theoretically, this could create an endless loop of failed reviews where a nominator has not addressed an issue/ommission through direct article edits because they don't think they can address it within Wikipedia policy and then reviewers, without being supplied this explanation, continue to fail on the basis of issues being raised in previous reviews not being addressed. It is within the reviewer's judgement to decide whether an article is broad enough, but I've found that sometimes reviewers are willing to accept that sourcing limitations mean that what information they might expect an article to cover might not be there because it cannot be there (due to lack of sourcing, etc.). My nom at Joseph Kasongo was ultimately failed on the lack of broadness, but I was at least able to explain that I had tried but failed to uncover information about the subject which the reviewer had requested before they made their decision. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Alamein line
I recently reviewed the Good Article Nomination for the Alamein line, and I finished it. Yet, I messed up, so the nomination was reset.

I'm not able to review the article again since I am busy with some other things.

I'm looking for someone to review the page on my behalf, as requested by the nominator, @HoHo3143.

Thanks, <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this @Jalapeño. As the nominator, I am ready to take on feedback- even if it is very extensive. I am passionate about getting the nomination promoted and want to make sure that it succeeds. Thank you to whoever wants to assist. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

GAN and articles with few sources
Is it correct that so long as an article satisfies WP:GNG that the GAN criteria does not need a page to be well-sourced, so long as the information within is supported by reliable sources? I have come across a lot of GA articles under WP:VG that strike me as not even meeting a B class in the WP:VG/AI because they are short (noting this is not in itself a barrier to GAN) and poorly sourced, some with four citations overall (i.e. Pegasus Bridge). What is the appropriate direction to approach articles that seem to be recognized as high quality but have major limitations in the sourcing to support its information? Let me know if this isn't quite the best forum to raise questions like this - thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful if you clarify what you mean by "well-sourced" and "poorly sourced", respectively. Are we talking about low-quality sources, a low number of sources overall, portions of the article being unsourced, or what? TompaDompa (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. A low number of sources, generally. I guess I am just a little confused on whether there's a need to discern between articles whose information is supported by dozens of varied sources and articles that have very few when doing GAN/GAR. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically it doesn't even need to satisfy GNG (though you should nominate an article for deletion if it doesn't). Assuming the sources are reliable, there are two issues. Criterion 3 requires that the article covers all of the major aspects. So for a video game, that would be the basics of its development, release, reception, gameplay, plot/setting, etc. Criterion 4 requires that the article complies with WP:NPOV. The risk here is that by using only a few sources, you might end up with specific opinions being given undue weight. For the example you gave, Pegasus Bridge, I'd say it fails criterion 3. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I started typing up a reply above, but this basically covers it. I would additionally note that it is somewhat controversial to fail articles for lacking information that the sources should provide, but don't. WP:GACRNOT lists Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources as a mistake to avoid when reviewing nominations, but that is not universally accepted. TompaDompa (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * GACRNOT is written from what I might call "low-reading GACR". I agree with the higher-reading position presented in WP:RGA (Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria). There is unresolved tension around the breadth criterion. I don't think that article passes it, but there's loose agreement that "the sources don't exist" is neither an omnipowerful argument nor a completely powerless one (because on the one hand no one passes bacteria stubs, and on the other hand no one fails an article because it doesn't mention in what hospital the subject was born), and a whole lot of quibbling on the grounds between. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 02:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is a good summary of what I'm thinking about. There is a tension with with articles on older video games in WP:VG where the level of content and sourcing of what is considered a GA can vary enormously based on what sources can be found to support information on the work. It seems there is a wide approach taken to what constitutes sufficient breadth in an article, which can make it a little difficult attempting to gauge where the standard lies. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The current wording of 3a (I think this wording could use some tweaking, but I'm tabling that until post-drive) explicitly calls out that both articles shorter than they'd be at FAC and broad-concept articles for which comprehensiveness is essentially impossible are the kind of thing the criterion accepts. Much of the disagreement seems rooted in 1. which of these is more important and 2. whether "shorter" should be interpreted as "shorter than its hypothetical FA version" or "short, full stop". I think breadth is much more here to permit broad-concepts than it is to permit very short articles (to give one current candidate and two GAs: Islam, Prehistoric religion, and Simón Bolívar are all topics for which "a comprehensive literature survey" would be about ten or fifteen times longer than anyone lets a Wikipedia article be, minimum, such that GA is a far more realistic goal than FA), and that length in GACR 3a has much more to do with "an article that would be longer were it an FA" than "an article that is very short". I don't think low-reading GACR on this criterion in particular is very useful; of the many things GA is, one is FAC prep, and having a massive gap between GACR and FACR makes this useless and makes first-FACs even more stressful than they should be. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 03:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants a current ongoing example of this dispute, please feel free to contribute to this reassessment. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Crediting reviewers and nominators
As it stands ChristieBot records the nominator of a GAN as whoever is in the GAN template, and the reviewer as whoever creates the review page. Once the review is over the nominator can't be changed; once the review page is created the reviewer can't be changed. I've been asked three or four times, perhaps more, if there's a way to correctly credit reviewers and nominators when they change; see here and here for a couple of instances, one from today. A while ago I proposed adding relevant fields to the GA and Article history templates, which is what would be needed; at Talk:Article history I got no response, and at the idea lab there was some mild opposition. I don't want to raise the idea again unless there's enough support to make it worthwhile. Some negatives, in addition to the opposition I linked to: changing article history could affect a *lot* of bots and create a lot of work, and the same is true for the GA template. Any change made would require a lot of testing and cause a lot of work. Still, the GAN page sort order means that getting this wrong impacts a nominator's chance of a quick review, so I can see why it keeps coming up. Also note this is a separate issue from crediting conominators and coreviewers, which I am not proposing. Do enough people here think it's worth it to try an RfC to make the change? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of this on the general principles that (1) I think it would have been better to set it up like that from the get-go, and (2) I would certainly oppose changing to the current system if the situation were reversed and the proposed system were already in place. That being said, I have no idea if the benefits would outweigh the hassle of making the change. TompaDompa (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 what TompaDompa said. — Golden  talk 23:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * An easier way to accomplish the same thing with less hassle (at least going forward) is to close the GAN or at least create a pro forma new one when the reviewer changes. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's no technical burden, I have no opposition to it.
 * A potential plus is that it seems like some of the unfinished reviews drift into purgatory for quite a while waiting for a second reviewer, and this may add a small incentive for someone to step in and wrap it up.
 * A question: this would be going forward and not retroactive right? I think trying to do this to existing reviews would be a mess. For example, I have one review not credited to me (Talk:Mac_(computer)/GA2), but much of the work was done by a previous reviewer so I have no issue with them being credited. Rjjiii (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In theory it could be retroactive, at least for reviews -- that database belongs to ChristieBot and if I make it aware of changes to reviewer credit it would update the database. Making it retroactive for GAs could also be done, with more work.  But yes, the idea would be that from now on these changes could be made, after whatever we decide is the appropriate discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:GANI simply suggests closing the review, incrementing the GA count, and placing the review back at its original position. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Text-source integrity
WP:Text-source integrity goes into some length about how the citations should match up specifically with the claims being made. How strict should we be on this when determining if an article is properly referenced? I often find passages that make several claims, and then there are several citations at the end that support some or most of the claims but none of them support the entire passage. I've found that this makes verification much more difficult, but I haven't seen much discussion about best practices here. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * When you say "none of them support the entire passage", do you mean that there are some parts of the passage that aren't verifiable by any of the citations, or that all of the passage is verifiable to citations but its not immediately clear which parts are sourced to which references? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The latter. And there's often overlap, where for example some of the claims are supported by only one of the citations, some of them are supported by two of them, etc. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's a problem all of my FA's should be delisted immediately. Take the first body sentences of Baljuna Covenant, promoted a couple of weeks ago: Temüjin was born between 1155 and 1167 AD to Yesugei, a Mongol chieftain, and his Olkhonud wife Hoelun. Yesugei died when Temüjin was nine and he, his mother, and six other siblings were all abandoned by their tribe. The family however survived and Temüjin began to collect a small group of companions, especially after he swore loyalty to his father's anda (lit. "blood brother"), the chieftain Toghrul of the central Kereit tribe.


 * AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, that may not be the best example, as that's a fairly generalist few sentences where all the information may be covered by all the sources. A better example would be the paragraph starting "This retelling likely masks ..." below, which is probably precisely what describes above.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume he means that from the entirety of the sources cited, at least one section of text in that paragraph cannot be verified Billsmith60 (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see my reading is incorrect. However, I'd say that along as claims made are verifiable somewhere in the one or more citations used, that would be fine. Otherwise the prose would be impossible to read Billsmith60 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Essentially, you can do it as has been done at Simón Bolívar, where there's a bundled citation every few words, sometimes as much as three times a sentence, or like I'm doing at Genghis Khan, where there's a bundled citation every sentence or two. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find the Bolívar article almost unreadable due to the positioning of those citations – complete overkill, with no offence meant to anyone. The way you're doing it at Genghis Khan is what I use Billsmith60 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to lean in favor of WP:Contort the citations, including either bundling or mid-sentence citations when necessary. But I know this isn't a universally accepted practice. And I realize that I probably didn't explain the issue very well in my post above. What I'm not sure how to address is when there's one or more long sentences and then all of the relevant citations are just clumped at the end without any indication of what supports what. When I try to do spot checks, I end up only verifying half of the claims, even if it's fully cited. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If a single or bundled citations do not verify one or more claims, then I would point out the errant text to the nominator as needing fixing and not be satisfied until it has been done. Also, if we think back to the above discussion about the script that identifies uncited paragraphs, the agreement was that there would be a minimum of one citation per paragraph otherwise a "hit" would register. The assumption must surely be that everything needing verification must be covered by the work cited. Nut that a single work could do so might be a stretch to be honest. Billsmith60 (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The simplest answer is that compliance with that guideline is not part of the GA criteria. I think a scrupulous reviewer could say something like "In accordance with GA criterion 2b, I'm going to ask you which sources specifically support each bit of content that could reasonably be challenged. Instead of waiting for me to ask, it would save time and help readers if you could cite such content inline instead of holding it to the end of the paragraph." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * +1, and if you're trying to verify you can copy paste in the GA review and ask the nominator to identify which content is supported by which source and provide quotations to verify. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is essentially what I've been doing when it comes up. If there are no other ideas, I suppose it's what I'll keep doing. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several reasons it might be preferable to write passages where different parts come from different sources. One is brevity—if one source says that kangaroos are native to Australia, another source says that they are marsupials, and a third source says that they are bipedal, it's reasonable to summarize it as "kangaroos are bipedal marsupials native to Australia". Another is avoiding WP:Close paraphrasing. Where to place the references is a matter of preference. I tend to put them at the end of each sentence, which sometimes results in a single sentence having four or five references at the end. Occasionally I'll put references after internal punctuation (such as semicolons or commas) or after a few sentences that collectively form a cohesive "unit". I basically never put them after a word in the middle of the sentence as I find that it impedes readability too much (an alternative that I sometimes use is adding an WP:Invisible comment instead to help reviewers find the specific source or page for verification). TompaDompa (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Walter Tull/GA1
Anyone want to take over running the GA for Walter Tull? Regards. Govvy (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , I've incremented the review forward while maintaining its place in the queue per WP:GAN/I. Hopefully a new reviewer should come along soon. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * k, thank you. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Criterion 3 in articles about recent events
I wrote a review at Talk:2023 Djerba shooting/GA1, for an article about an event that took place three months ago in May. Right now every source in the article is also from May. The article currently lacks any information about aftermath more than a few days out or consequences/ramifications that lasted longer than a few days, and sources about it are proving difficult to find. We need some additional feedback about what "broad coverage" looks like in this case. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 02:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't personally believe recent-events articles can pass quality assessment (that is a prescriptive 'can', not a descriptive). You can see the comments at Talk:2022 United States infant formula shortage/GA1 for an example of the problem with recent-events sourcing -- the article was written from primary-news in real time, and now that the event is some way in the rear view mirror it lacks the significant academic secondary sourcing that's been written on the subject. Flatly, I don't agree "articles written in real time" stand as examples of Wikipedia's best work, which GA still is even though it's less so than FA (GAs are, statistically, 99.3rd percentile articles) -- the dust needs to settle around events before we have a clear encyclopedic idea of what happened, and real-time articles tend to be very staticky and disjointed. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 05:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can hardly say I'm unsympathetic to this view (as my comments at AfD can attest, my biggest Wikipedia pet peeve is that regulars there say news reporting is always secondary coverage). But that still leaves the issue of what should be done with nominations like this. Should they just be quickfailed? Is it a notability issue? Is it a "delay" thing like future events articles? Current events articles are created every day, and it seems like Wikipedia in general doesn't know what to do with them. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 05:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's a 3a problem (and sometimes a stability problem), though at least for stuff that isn't wildly premature it's not imo an obvious quickfail until you've looked into whether the rear-view-mirror sources exist yet and the article can be restructed around them. For May to August, probably not, but the formula shortage article is going through that re-sourcing now. It is a "fail at some point" if you clearly can't resolve 3a, though. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 06:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the stability point is interesting. I generally overlook whether sources are primary or secondary in GA, since all that's required is reliability. Most current events articles (often going back a few years) are based almost exclusively on primary sources. Is this something that should be taken into consideration? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I interpret "stability" pretty conservatively (I am very suspicious about GANs on active controversial political figures/situations, as an example). I didn't think in June 2021 that COVID was GANable, but there was disagreement on this point. I'm not sold that it's GANable right now -- if Wikipedia existed at the time, we'd think it absurd now if we passed WW2 in 1946 -- but hey, it's got the stamp. If it can be reasonably predicted that an article would need massive revisions in the not-that-distant future, I think that's a problem for stability. This is inherently a problem for active events, and frequently a problem for recent ones. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 15:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize for shifting the focus of our discussion from events to film articles. Similarly, numerous recent films (2021-2023) may also be covered by articles and reviews published mostly around the time of their release. Without substantial academic secondary sources and reviews/analyses published years (or months?) after the initial release, could there also be a potential "broad coverage" concern in this regard? Mooonswimmer 15:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Media I think is a different case most of the time. Very popular or very controversial/political/etc works can fall under that issue. If a once-in-a-century-bestseller book came out six months ago and people are still fighting over the film rights, quality assessment might be premature. If "uber-notorious culture war guy" publishes a bunch of fnords in the shape of a book and the article is written hot off the presses, quality assessment is fairly likely to be premature. Most works aren't really 'active events' outside of this, though. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the above that just because something is new (or recently happened) it can't be a GA. We have to look a bit objectively and think is there going to be a big change on the article very soon. It's more about completeness than stability. Something that happens and then ends can be GANed that day provided that anything additional that may come up is likely to be minimal. Sports events are the best example - as much as what happens after the event might change pieces of it (maybe someone talks about that match years from now, or someone gets a retroactive suspension), this info is minimal to the event. GAs aren't supposed to be "done", rather that they cover the subject broadly. On the other hand, an article on something where there might be significant changes (say, a court case without a verdict, or a natural disaster with an outstanding review on it) might be more suitable to wait (although, we do have to be careful on timescales. Do we not nominate an article for two years waiting for a result? I think that would be ridiculous).
 * I think why people get so hung up on this is because it can be sometimes difficult to get an article through the GAR process in a timely manner if the updates don't happen. In my eyes, if something happened three months ago, we should certainly see if there is additional citations surrounding the aftermath (and always update the article with them even after a review), but we shouldn't put the article on ice awaiting references that might not come for some time. Remember that the GA criteria looks for broadness of the topic. FA looks for comprehensive information, which is more likely what we are talking about here.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there are special considerations depending on the subject. It's the same reason we have different WP:SNGs for different topics. Things like sports games or films are self-contained. The subject is the performance itself, and then secondary sources can be created immediately in the form of critical analysis (sometimes before the public even sees it, if it's a work where critics are given early access). Historical events are different. Their relevance comes from how they affect the region/population/world, but these effects often can't be seen and commented on until months or years after, and secondary sources often don't exist during that time. That's why we have things like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS. As far as the GA criteria are concerned, I would argue that these secondary sources are essential before the coverage requirement can be met. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * or whoever else can provide input: similar question about Talk:2022 California Proposition 1/GA1 based on what I've written there so far. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

"Highest priority"
How are the decided on? I just noticed that banded palm civet, which I just nominated today, is listed there. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 22:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It's there to make sure that editors who are new to GA get their article reviewed quickly. The wait time can be arduous, and the idea is that first-time nominators shouldn't be subjected to that. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your review ratio is infinity, because you have one review and zero approved nominations. That's why you jumped into the priority list. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 23:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Kota Formation: too much tabular material?
I'm thinking about starting a review for Kota Formation. Before I dive into that, I'd like some guidance on the large tables which make up the majority of the article. MOS:LIST says Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose. I don't see how presenting this information in prose format would be feasible, yet I'm left with the nagging feeling this might fail WP:CRIT 1(b) for list incorporation and this would better be treated as a WP:SAL. RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. I understand that the amount of content in Tables can be overwhelming. My working method is reduced to compiling all notable taxa in them. If we choose "minor" groups, like Phyllopoda for example, they are important because they mark biozones, and therefore I consider that they should be as tables. Biota with genus and species, unless it is something like "indeterminate fossil roots" or something of that level, I think it deserves to be in a table.
 * I also consider that the table of contents should be sufficient so that the reader can go directly to the section of interest Yewtharaptor (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is unclear to me why 90% of an article on a geological formation is dedicated to a list of the specimens found in it, and only 10% to the geographical formation itself—it seems like this fails WP:UNDUE. I would recommend that the list be split out into its own standalone list ("Fossil content of the Kota Formation") and that it be summarised at Kota Formation per WP:SS. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The color key stands out as a MOS:ACCESS issue, but that's not a GACR issue. On the question of the large tables, I do not believe detailed fossil information as prose makes sense. The large tables are sequestered towards the end of the article (sort of like an Annex), which seems appropriate for such heavily detailed information that may be of interest to the dedicated reader but is not needed for the overall summary. However, there is no reason to only present such information in a table; the inclusion of a table should not preclude a prose summary or overview of the fossil content of the formation, the implications of any more significant finds, etc. This seems to be lacking in the current article, which gives me a similar feeling to yours that the article structure more closely resembles a SAL. CMD (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Requirement for Minimum Sources
So, I was browsing the The backlog drive when I noticed Machines (Nier: Automata). Upon giving it a cursory look, there are only 5 sources for the article. Barring the obvious 3a criteria issue that this may entail (I haven't actually looked this deep yet), is there any policy or MOS that forbids a GA from having so few sources? I've seen GAs pass with 8-9 sources, but 5 seems like too few. Not looking for any change to the criteria, just wondering if there's anything more concrete. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 01:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no policy that dictates the number of sources a GA (or any other article) must use. If five in-depth reliable sources are all that exist, and that is enough to provide broad coverage of the topic, then that is sufficient for GA (it may even be sufficient for FA, if the article is written comprehensively). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Premeditated Chaos Thanks. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 02:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In principle an article cited to one source would be acceptable -- one source isn't usually going to be enough to establish GNG, but the existence of other sources doesn't require that they be used. I don't think I've ever seen a case like that but I don't think it would be a valid fail if one showed up.  Of course it's quite likely that some other criterion -- probably broad coverage -- would then be an issue, in practice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As stated previously, the minimum source is one source. Multiple sources are preferred for SIGCOV but not required if a source is in-depth enough to fully detail its subject matter with sufficiently broad coverage (i.e. a book solely about the subject by a third party). A high amount of sources often doesn't imply depth of coverage so much as giving the surface-level appearance of deep coverage, so quality is valued over quantity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , see the above section and this ongoing reassessment.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk)

RfC: Change wording of last Immediate failure in the GA Criteria
I propose the Immediate failure reason #5 have its wording changed from


 * A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered

to


 * it has issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed, as determined by a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article

because it is poor grammar the way it stands. The other bullet points correctly continue the sentence from the opening, with phrases beginning with the word "it" (meaning the article): "if, prior to the review, it is a long way from meeting criteria" or "if, prior to the review, it contains copyright violations". But #5 stands apart from the others, not continuing the sentence from the opening. This simple wording change will fix it. 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) Prhartcom (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Although I think the proposed wording is clearer, I don't think we need a RfC for this. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Buidhe, I agree; this good-faith wording change would normally just be a quick c/e. Then may I ask, is the community in agreement to ask a template editor to make this change immediately? Prhartcom (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? The proposed wording is clearly an improvement over the current one. — Golden  talk 22:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with either wording, so consider this a "sure, why not" from me. If we're editing the QF criteria, I'd say that there are a few which could use more attention than this one. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the procedure is to add a change request to Requested templates. I'll go ahead and take care of that and refer here. Thanks all. Prhartcom (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Implemented, with "It has" rather than "it has", to conform to the case used in the other bullets in that list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

ChristieBot on WP:GAN
Just noticed ChristieBot stopped updating WP:GAN. Any reason why? Pinging. « Gonzo fan2007 <small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)  @ 21:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's upset about the GA nomination for coronary artery bypass surgery. I see from the talk page history that the nomination template had to be repaired; I'll have a look and see if that's causing it to crash. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tried to reset the nom and remove the error from WP:GAN. No luck yet. « Gonzo fan2007  <small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)  @ 21:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think removing the nom would probably fix it, and I suspect the signature is causing the problem, but let's leave it for a few minutes so I can debug it. I'd rather find out what it is in the signature that is causing the problem so I can avoid future crashes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. There was a bug that would only show up if the page parameter in the nomination template was before the nominator parameter, which only happens if the template is manually constructed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

GAN appeal
nominated the article Midnights for GAN, and it passed with a cursory review from, who simply added the template and checked all the boxes with no comments. Whether this article satisfies GA criteria needs a closer examination and I want to appeal this GAN, but I'm unsure of the procedure. Could anyone help? Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you tried speaking to Tantomile about your concerns? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * AT a very minimum there are ref errors that should be fixed... (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ippantekina, while quick passes aren't really a thing anymore, I guess there technically isn't anything with GA rules stopping someone as long as they're claiming they gave the review a thorough look-through. Do you see an issue with the page? Giving it a quick glance myself I'm not particularly thrilled about the use of Twitter to cite Note 7. The See Also section is very clogged as well. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 05:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically we do want evidence of spotchecking, which helps prevent broad claims like "all information backed up by sources". However, this review does pass our don't-just-checklist bar. It is worth considering if the issues here merit a full GAR/rereview, or if they can be noted on the talkpage as items to improve. CMD (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear from regarding their process with this GAN, to see if it was a deliberate process and not a just-checklist one. From there we might open a GAR or a Peer review if needed. Ippantekina (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You've now pinged them here twice within the span of about 3 hours. I'm sure they'll respond when they get a chance, but please, if you find yourself in this situation again, try discussing it with the user first before bringing it to a very public noticeboard.
 * PR would not be an appropriate place to determine if an article meets GACR; it is simply a place to seek feedback and has nothing to do with the GA process. GAR is only necessary if you believe the article does not actually meet the GACR. Is that the case here? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi All, sorry about this. I'm reasonably new to GAN, but have been trying to participate here lately. I'm sorry if the process seems like i grabbed the template and said "pass" on everything, but i do want to assure you that there was a deliberate process. I read through that article and did not notice any issues with it. It appeared that most areas were cited, and i used Checklinks to verify that all the links were working, and manually verified ones that the appeared to have a connection issue to ensure they were functional. I reviewed the media used to ensure that it was tagged with appropriate licensing, and if it was non-free that it's use was justifiable. It had sufficient background/other relevant information, appeared to not be biased, and all in all appeared to be a good, readable article. Reading over my own review now, i do see that I probably should've added stronger notes, but I'd still stand by my assessment. I now notice some small ref issues (namely 112, 324, & 350) that escaped me the other day, and I'll try to fix those in a few minutes. I'll definitely work to improve my process for reviewing GA nominations in the future, and you are more then welcome to head over to Good article reassessment and request a re-review of that article if you so please. Sorry this happened, and I hope we can clear this up. Tantomile (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Tantomile, thanks for this further information, and of course for the review. I did find your note on the media licensing to be insightful evidence of investigation (albeit a quite succinct one), and likely an indicator of the overall process. When you manually verify some sources, please give those a brief direct mention in your next review; it really helps others to understand the review process. Best, CMD (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tantomile, I hope you keep these things in mind for future GANs. The article appears fine for GA criteria though, so I don't see a GAR necessary. Ippantekina (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will add that the first time I reviewed an article, I deliberately chose one that already looked perfect, nominated by an editor who knew the requirements extremely well. It was a good way to get started. I probably would not have continued if someone had complained about it being just a "cursory review" with no evidence that the outcome was even possibly wrong.  At the time, I suspect that everyone who saw it was familiar with the nom's standard of work and therefore had no doubts that the article exceeded the Good article criteria, but we also had more of a Product, process, policy idea back in the day.  The goal isn't a bunch of bureaucratic make-work to prove that you did the work.  The goal is to get the correct end result.  "Show every step in your work, kids" is for math teachers, not for adults on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well said, WAID. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you WhatamIdoing, and i can totally relate to what you're saying. Most of my edits here are done on random articles that i have some loose level of knowledge about, and with Midnights, i felt that i knew enough about the topic that i could assess it. I went through the GA criteria, and when i felt that the article was in compliance with something, i just said it passed that requirement, rather then give a whole write-up on why. As to judging an editor by their reputation, when i started the review, i glanced over Ronherry's profile (nominator & author of ~35% of content in the article), and felt that they were someone who could definitely write a article in this area (nearly 30,000 edits over 8 years, many to pages related to Swift, with over 1,100 edits to the article in question), so i felt like they knew what they were doing.
 * To everyone else, Maybe i did jump to conclusions faster then i should have here, and i definitely should've taken more notes, but all in all, i still stand by my result. I've only ever reviewed a few (maybe like 3?) articles for GA status, and i'm still trying to figure out the best way to do it. I'm definitely going to have to make changes to my process if i continue to help out here at GAN. I hate that this review had to end like this, but i'm glad we were able to have this conversation. Ippantekina, thanks for bringing this to my attention so i can fix it in the future. PMC and CMD, thank you so much for your levelheaded approaches to resolving this, rather then completely scrapping the review and starting from scratch. WhatamIdoing, thank you for popping in, sharing your point of view, and reminding people not to bite.
 * Thank you all so much, and i'm sorry this had to happen. if anyone has anything else, please feel free to tag me, leave a message on my talk page, or send me an email.
 * wishing you all the best, tantomile Tantomile (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the patience and the explanations!
 * I've seen similar discussions happen a few times on this page. I wonder if this kind of concern could be better handled using the "GA mentor" list. Like instead of commenting here regarding a review, we could reach out to a mentor on the list to see if they would discuss the review with the reviewer 1-on-1. And maybe even close this discussion here with Archive top? Rjjiii (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Running the drive, I've generally politely queried new reviewers if their review looks very sparse on their talk pages to double-check that they spotchecked et al. These reviewers generally come back to review more. There may be a lesson here. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 15:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds like a better method for handling this. i did not know that a GA mentor list even fexexisted until now, and i think this process could be made more visible (I see a suggestion over on the proposal drive, Good_Article_proposal_drive_2023, so i do hope that is implemented at some point in the near future.) As to closing this discussion, i'm 100% ok with that, although i'm hesitant to do it myself, since i was kind of called here to explain myself, and don't want to give the impression that i'm shutting down the complaint against me. Tantomile (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Input on Islam
I've recently (almost) completed a review of Islam, and I'm leaning towards promoting, but I'd like another set of eyes on it from an experienced reviewer before making a decision either way, given the size/importance of the article and my relative inexperience with the process. This second opinion won't need to be anything very in-depth, just a look at the assessments of the sources and a comment on whether the article's sourcing is GA-quality. Thanks in advance! AviationFreak💬 19:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Happy to do this, will make a comment on the review page. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)